Why are people so mad about the new iMac?

[hans1972]

I am frustrated by the new iMac. Not that it is a bad product, but Apple should have delivered more. And this is because:

1. Apple only released a replacement for the 21.5-inch version. The 24-inch iMac seems like a downgrade, at least in size, compared to the 27-inch model.
2. The iMac has been constantly more powerful than the MacBook Air and the Mac mini. The new iMac does not deliver any additional power, making it look like a Mac mini with an embedded monitor.
3. The 13-inch MacBooks and the Mac mini released last year represented a huge leap in power compared to their predecessors. The M1 made the 13-inch MacBooks some of the most powerful laptops in any category (and perhaps the most powerful one). People would expect a similar improvement now with the iMac, and Apple failed to deliver it.
4. The fact that even the 11-inch iPad uses the same processor as the iMac contributes to the impression that Apple left too much power on the table, and that the iMac could have been so much more.
5. The colors are a nice touch, but the choice is kind of childish. Silver is fine. The blue one looks beautiful, at least to me, and perhaps the green one as well. But yellow, orange, pink, purple... these are not colors expected in a seriously powerful computer. At the same time, there is no choice of black or grey. This makes the iMac, as powerful as it may be, resemble a toy, a product not to be taken too seriously.
6. The iMac comes with 8 GB RAM and 256/512 GB storage. Apple has been offering 8 GB as standard in iMacs since 2013. Plus, 256 GB storage on the base model seems too little and no improvement over previous versions.
7. People may buy additional RAM or storage, but they will have to disburse additional money on top of the standard product, which is not an optimal solution for customers, especially if they feel that the customize upgrade should have come as standard. Plus, the 24-inch iMac is expected to top at 16 GB RAM, which may not be ideal for some.

So, basically, there may be the impression that Apple offered too little this time, especially compared to expectations after last year's event. Many were expecting the iMac to be a world-beater, and it is not.

1. It's not a downgrade since it isn't ment to replace the 27-inch modell.

2. I'm not sure that the previous 21.5" iMac was faster than the Mac mini with its 8th generation i3.

3. The new M1 iMac mini is quite faster than the 8th generation i3 it replaced.

4. Why do you care what other machines uses?

5. You can choose silver. The previous iMac didn't have black or space gray either.

6. The previous iMac came standard with 8Gb of RAM and a spinning disk!

7. The end user could not install RAM on the previous iMac either.

What I don't understand is why you are comparing it to other machines when it comes to performance. Shouldn't you be concerned with if it has good enough performance for your usage instead?

 

[za9ra22]

I'm mad about the new iMac because I want it yesterday, in black so I can complain it's too-high contrast with my white screen, about a third the price, though a bit cheaper would be even better, and come with two power bricks because then I could stop both legs on the left-side of the desk from wobbling.

It would also be a lot better if it was made of plastic and had 'Dell' written on it so that nobody would want to use it when I do. And a double-chin would be nice, because then it would be easy to tweak the angle of the screen, possibly with one finger like I can with my G4 iMac.

I think Apple should also include a free set of Bose BT speakers if they are not going to give me a 3.5-inch stereo jack plug in a location I can use without having to look at wires, and two ethernet ports, just in case the first one doesn't work.

And, if Apple don't give me all these things, and throw in a can of paint so I can change the colour of the thing whenever I want, I will never buy another Apple product again. Ever. Or possibly not, I'm not sure.

 

[hans1972]

It’s nuts that a desktop starts at that RAM and storage in 2021. It’s nuts that you have to pay $200 to get USB3 ports on a desktop. It’s nuts that a desktop shares a CPU/GPU with a tablet and ultralight laptops. They’ve basically stripped out all the advantages of buying a desktop in the first place. I really struggle to see how this imac is a meaningful improvement over a MacBook Air or pro hooked up to a monitor (and don’t you dare talk to me about a microphone array or whatever).

Why do you think people buy low-end AiOs?

They look nice, everything the user need is included and there is less clutter around it.

You seem to have this conception that desktop computers must be more powerful and cheaper than notebooks. If a MacBook Air with an external screen provides better value than this iMac for you, why should that leave you to be disappointed in this iMac?

 

[Ledgem]

Shouldn't you compare it to what it replaces?

3.0 GHZ Core i3 (8th generation), 1Tb 5400 ROM HDD with AMD Radeon Pro 555X.

Except for the number of ports and max RAM everything seems better with the new one.

It really depends on what you're looking to compare. If you're going by raw power, then you're right. But as I had mentioned, the iMac has traditionally represented Apple's enthusiast line of computers, the most power you could get before going for the professional-grade Mac Pro. With this current iMac, alongside the laptops and Mac mini, Apple is essentially offering you one computer in three different form factors. (I have not seen benchmarks for the iMac, but in the comparisons I've seen looking at performance between the M1 Mac mini and M1 MacBook Pro the two are considered identical. People discuss cooling in the iMac as being a reason why it would perform better, but these systems run cool regardless; I don't anticipate seeing a significant performance boost for this iMac over the other existing M1 systems.)

While there's a certain beauty in not worrying about the specifications and just getting the computer in a form that fits your needs, the point is that people want to see just how restrictive Apple will or will not be with their own, fully Apple-designed systems. They also want to see how far Apple can and will push their systems. Having an iMac, even if it is entry-level, that is literally the same as the Mac mini (processor, RAM options, and number of ports) doesn't necessarily signal anything, but it also doesn't give anyone a reason to expect big things.

 

[iDave]

While there's a certain beauty in not worrying about the specifications and just getting the computer in a form that fits your needs...

I think there's a lot of beauty in that. It's a new paradigm in the computing world. We've got four Macs in various forms that have essentially the same guts. And they'll all outperform for ~97% of us. So we're left with a pretty simple choice; how and where do we want to use them?

As for the haters, I think they're too picky or they're in the ~3% for which these Macs are not designed.

 

[JouniS]

And they'll all outperform for ~97% of us. So we're left with a pretty simple choice; how and where do we want to use them?

As for the haters, I think they're too picky or they're in the ~3% for which these Macs are not designed.

I've never understood the belief that almost everyone is ordinary.

In many developed countries, that ~3% is roughly the fraction of people that will eventually get a PhD (or an equivalent degree). Because Apple is not interested in the bottom 2/3 of the computer market, the fraction should be higher among Mac users.

Information technology is typically 5-10% of total employment in developed countries. Again, the fraction should be higher among Mac users.

Nvidia revenue from the gaming segment was $7.76 billion last year. That suggests that maybe 5% of all new PCs have an Nvidia gaming GPU. Because such GPUs are expensive, the fraction should be much higher in the top 1/3 of the market.

I could believe that the M1 Macs are sufficient for 70% or maybe even 80% of the potential target audience for Macs, but that ~97% is definitely way too high.

 

[iDave]

I could believe that the M1 Macs are sufficient for 70% or maybe even 80% of the potential target audience for Macs, but that ~97% is definitely way too high.

Okay, I'll give you that. My exaggeration was to point out that M1 Macs are wicked fast. They're probably way faster than the majority need. And it's my opinion that a lot of people buy more computer than they need (sometimes for future-proofing). I'm one of those having spent way too much on my iMac seven years ago. It's still more than plenty for my needs if it wasn't for software issues and soon-to-be obsolescence.

Half the people who complain and hate the new iMacs are habitual complainers and don't need anything better. The new iMac is like a humongous iPad on a stick, with included keyboard and mouse. What's not to like?

 

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

each to their own, im not mad but cant wait to get mine