Hacker News Reader

Comment by philk | Hacker News Reader

I'm not really sure the direction they're taking the iMacs is optimal. Yes, they look lovely but ultimately they're a desktop and not portable in the first place. With a notebook I'll sacrifice upgrades for portability, with a desktop portability is irrelevant.

I suppose they're doing it largely for the style but surely Jonathan Ive and co can make a beautiful iMac that's a couple of centimetres thicker.

View on HN

The VAST majority of people look at their computers the same way they do their DVD players, microwaves, and vacuums: they are a "unit" that they buy, plug in, and use until it's time to buy a new one. I've built more computers than I can count, but, due to the flattening out of the "end-user performance experience" (eg: there are very few upgrades I could do to a PC to make it faster without needing to replace everything), I'm becoming one of them.

Apple has recognized this and is using that knowledge to throw away old assumptions and put the resultant "compromise space" into beautiful products that people are proud to display in their home.

Sounds like a smart plan to me, but I can understand why there is a small percentage of the market who still sees their PC as a conglomerate of components. I'm pretty convinced Apple is not the company for people like that.

Totally agree with this, it isn't a computer to most people, its a TV. When is the last time you "upgraded" your TV without buying a completely new one?

Well... to most people it's still a computer and not a TV. That's why they buy both :). But they purchase computers like TVs (a single product with practically no user serviceable parts).

True people buy both, although most people who buy a device that you and I are calling a 'computer' those people are buying it strictly as information consumers, and to a lesser extent codified information producers (like instagram or uploading a youtube video). They will never change its configuration, or attempt to program it in any way. It is an information appliance, like a TV, except with a keyboard and a web cam.

Let's not forget there's still a model that allows storage/RAM upgrades easily, the Mac Pro. I've always seen the iMac as one of these TV-like devices, just due to the form factor alone.

The display is one of the primary elements I like to have an upgrade path for, something the iMac has never offered. The new model's sealed form factor is the logical conclusion for the product line.

I'm interested to see what they do with the Mac Pro.

On the other hand, Time Machine is a core feature of Macs and requires a separate hard drive, so Apple clearly doesn't believe that expansion in general is a concept only suitable for geeks. And when they charge such ridiculous markups on RAM and storage, I can't help but think that non-upgradability isn't a decision made in the interests of their customers.

> I can't help but think that non-upgradability isn't a decision made in the interests of their customers.

(triple negative yay!)

When is a decision of a for-profit corporation in a cut-throat market ever made in the interest of their customers? Sometimes, the corporate and customer interests align, but it is never made "in the interest of their customers" per se.

> surely Jonathan Ive and co can make a beautiful iMac that's a couple of centimetres thicker.

All previous models.

I don't get the point of upgrading a Mac. They retain value so well it's just easier to sell them on eBay and buy a new one, and the cost difference is usually minimal versus upgrading piecemeal.

Until recently, Apple RAM was so overpriced that I'd place simultaneous orders for a minimum-RAM machine and Crucial RAM at the same time. I wouldn't really upgrade an old mac.

It still is. $300 from Apple to go to 16GB in a Mac mini, versus $80 from Crucial.

I blow $220 a lot more often than once every three years (the frequency with which I buy a computer), and on things a lot less important and time-consuming than swapping RAM.

    I blow $220 a lot more often than once every three years

Why are you stating publicly that you waste money? Conspicuous consumption, Apple apologetics, or both?

You realize that charities exist, right?

I'm willing to pay some premium for Apple RAM, particularly if I'm not the end user of the machine. I also buy AppleCare for laptops, and AppleCare+ for iPad/iPhone devices, and increasingly, just get AppleCare for desktops, Mac Mini, etc. too. (I used to just rely on Amex Platinum 2x warranty extension, but that's a more annoying process than being able to just take it to the nearest Apple Store for OS or hardware diagnosis and repair.)

The purpose is to have a single point of contact for repair. Not having to personally figure out if the RAM is defective on someone else's machine is a big plus for me. Being able to have the entire thing drop-shipped directly from Apple to the user, also. It depends on the premium -- for a personal Mac Mini, I'd probably do the RAM through Crucial for $50-100 savings or more. If Crucial didn't exist, and I had to go hunting for "good" RAM every time, I'd probably go Apple for $200+. (it is so fun getting a $200k box of RAM for servers, especially left on a porch with no signature required, though. The actual RAM/chip distributor in Fremont that had an 18 person triad armed robbery a few years ago was amusing.)

The annoying part of all of this is that there are some machines where you must pull the drives before any warranty service. The correct thing to do is to have an Apple service rating internal to your company (it costs $200-300 I think, and not much training), but I've never gotten around to it. Lack of swappable externally accessible drives is one of my only complaints about Apple hardware now.

(OTOH, my personal 2010 MBP 17 actually has Crucial RAM, a Crucial SSD 512 in an optical bay adapter, and a 750GB drive in the main bay, all aftermarket. The Crucial drive failed and required repeated disassembly and RMA and firmware loading on another machine, which consumed about 4h of my time, which kind of sucked, and makes me a lot more likely to stay 100% Apple in the future.)

> which consumed about 4h of my time

bingo

I did this only because Apple didn't sell the 4-slot 27" iMac populaed with 4x8GB (32GB) - max BTO was 4x4GB so I got 2x2GB and threw them away and put in 32GB.

Other than that, the Apple ram is not so expensive that it's worth dicking around with making sure you have compatible speeds/pins/size imho (unless you are going Mac Pro in which case the difference on, say, 64GB or more would really add up).

Basically I just don't worry about stuff that amortizes out to under $500-1000/year. (e.g. an iMac for me has about a 36-month useful lifespan)

They're just not targeting savvy people, which of course drives all us savvy mac fans up the wall. But then what's the alternative, run Windows? I'd run linux but unfortunately I need Adobe CS and MS Office.

I guess we wont really know until we see the new Power Macs.

The line up is shifting downwards towards the Air.

iMac = desktop Air :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com