The curious pricing of the 27" iMac
marco.org
marco.org
Actually, there's an entire discount-parts ($150 cpu, $70 video card) computer stuck to the back of it. If you configure it with high-end parts the price goes up to $2200 and even then you're getting a previous-generation video card (radeon 4850 rather than the new 5850).
It's not really so curious. Apple does the "make exclusive deal with a supplier and beat the rest of the market by 6 months in order to look cool" trick all the time. They did it with Intel for the Macbook Air CPU for example.
What it must mean is that e-IPS panels cost much less to manufacture than s-IPS panels. And that a new generation of higher-res e-IPS displays will be arriving in 6 months.
EDIT: I googled "e-ips" and found this at http://www.displayblog.com/2009/02/13/lg-display-e-ips-lcd-p...
LG Display has developed what it calls e-IPS. e-IPS is a version of the company’s trademark IPS technology that brings the cost down. Way down. LG Display target market is toward the larger LCD monitor market that is currently dominated by TN (Twisted Nematic) technology. LG Display has stated that its e-IPS LCD panels will be price competitive with TN LCD panels.
I love my Apple products, but Apple fanboys..come on. It took me less than 5 minutes to find out why the panel is so cheap. Seriously, why must you always be so...gushing?
P.S. Instapaper is brilliant!
I think another part of it, though, is that the panel manufacturer must be drooling over the fact that this is really the only way to move a lot of high-end panels, and therefore gain access to serious economies of scale, driving the prices down and bringing IPS panels to a more mainstream market. ...This is what I love about Apple. Nothing is driving innovation anymore in the PC market - the average computer today has little more capability than a computer from five years ago. Apple, however, is using the brute force of its market share to drive technology forward...Then, the rest of the industry follows suit in a vain attempt to catch them...
What compels people to turn their total ignorance of the hardware industry into love letters for Apple? Not only do Apple's economies of scale have nothing to do with the cost of e-IPS, Dell was the first out of the gate with an e-IPS display ( http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/15/dells-2209wa-lcd-monitor-... ) but of course these fanboys didn't notice.
So now, because they don't know there's a difference between s-IPS and e-IPS, it's Apple's business strategy that is changing the world, rather than the scientists and engineers at LG. The ones who actually invented this new low-cost technology.
Doesn't the article mention Dell's monitor?
Scientists cannot make low-cost hardware if there is no market, LG probably welcome apple's move as it allows them to ramp production up sooner.
Actually I do have to buy one. I use Apple computers exclusively. Except for my home server running Ubuntu which I built myself.
I don't just have to buy one, I'm eager to buy one. The 27-inch iMac is exactly what I've been waiting for. Unfortunately I have to wait for the second revision because the current CPU/graphics hardware is weak. It will be a hard wait.
I also like the author's math, a 25% price difference isn't much?
sigh
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19990907/ai_...
edit: By "it" I meant exclusivity deals.
The only thing in an iMac that is desktop-sized is I believe the HDD (and maybe the RAM? I'm not sure).
http://www.displayblog.com/2009/01/28/lg-display-lpl-23-e-ip...
As usual with any Apple release, I started some friendly banter with my Apple-loving friends about how poor the value is compared to a regular PC, until I got to the 27" Imac and realised you couldn't buy a screen that good, elsewhere - at any price.
But to that end the iMac isn't a LED display either, it's LED backlit.
If I could find a $1000 27" 2560x1440 LED or O-LED display I'd be in line in front of you.
$800 for the display
$500 for the computer components
$100 for the aluminum case
$100 for the wireless keyboard and hi-tech mouse
$100 for OS X and iLife
$100 for beautiful industrial design
I'm tempted to buy one right now, but I'm forcing myself to wait for the first component refresh that will come in 6 or 8 months. Core 2 Duo is about to go obsolete.
$20 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16823164...
you are at least $280 off on price.
The number of people who spend $300 on just a case + power supply from newegg when doing a custom pc build is not small.
But even when I threw together my last monster home machine from newegg I don't think I spent more than $150 on case and power, and I even went hog wild with lights and all kinds of fans and other sexy things.
Just because Apple felt that they needed to spent who knows how much R&D on a new plastic unibody mold that nobody is impressed with much, in order to house perfectly stock budget hardware doesn't mean that I think I should pay for that.
Have you been following the news at all? I know many non-technical people (and technical people also) who are absolutely ecstatic about getting a MacBook with the new body. People care about this shit - in fact I'd say it's the minority that does not.
By the way, don't knock the unibody till you use one. My unibody MacBook Pro has got to be the most solid machine I've ever used - handily beats any other laptop on the market, including the venerable classic ThinkPads.
You figure design into the cost equation all the time in your life - why would one wear anything except Wal-Mart t-shirts otherwise? Ease of use, quality of construction, and yes, even styling, is incredibly important in all aspects of life.
Here's one for just a hair more with solid reviews. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16823126...
It's not hard to find reasonable quality at a good price point.
Not to mention the whole thing reeked of plasticy cheapness.
Let me put it this way. If I drive once a week, I'd save money and get a little econobox Toyota. If, however, I spent 8 hours a day behind the wheel, I'd invest in a BMW or something else nice.
In the same way, I spend at least 8 hours in front of a computer every single day - why in the world wouldn't I spend $100 on a keyboard/mouse combo? That's dirt cheap considering the mileage I get out of them. It just doesn't make sense to skimp on hardware when you spend so much time with it (and also, if it's your primary moneymaking machine).
Well, it is a cheap combo. ;)
Well put. I actually think that this logic justifies spending much more -- or at least buying products further along the price/feature curve -- on interface devices that have a comparatively long lifespan, than on devices that get upgraded frequently.
To each their own, of course, but I've never regretted spending money on a good keyboard, good mouse, good monitor, or good chair. You can expect 5+ years out of a mouse (sometimes more), probably 5-10 on a monitor unless your needs change significantly, 10+ on a keyboard unless you have a tendency to spill into it (and even then, if it's a buckling spring you can basically hose it out), and who knows on a good chair -- I'm still on my first "good" one.
I've found that it's the things that some folks cut corners on, things that on the surface can look like extravagances, that easily pay for themselves in terms of productivity and comfort. (Especially the chairs. Seriously, if you make your living sitting down, you deserve a good chair.) They don't have the same e-penis factor as a hotrod CPU, but it's a better use of funds in my book.
(Although with all this said, I'm not a huge fan of the latest Apple keyboards; I think they peaked back with the AEKII. But that's a matter of preference; I like one with long key travel.)
Aren't Apple keyboards plastic too?
If I spend $30 on a keyboard mouse/combo. And it breaks in 6 months, I can just throw it away and get a replacement and still have coffee money. And in 6 months, the keyboard/mouse combo I buy for $30 will be better than the one that I could have bought 6 months prior for $70. No matter what I bought, I'd likely be in the market for a replacement (or would just end up with one anyways) a year later.
You've used the word "investing" in a way that makes no sense. A BMW is not an investment anymore than is a computer. Unless they are really something special (like a Veyron), both cars and computers loose value over time.
The comparison to cars is apropos, similar to the subject at hand, I could buy two or three Toyota Corollas for one BMW 3xx, get to where I want on time, more reliably, with better gas mileage (read: lower TCO), and the only thing I'll suffer for it is not looking like a pretentious prick will doing it. And I'd still have one or two backup cars for demolition derby or loaning out to friends.
The real difference is that computing technology looses value so fast (even faster than cars) that to think of them as anything other than nearly disposable is a fallacy. AND at any rate, an Apple is not a BMW as a PC is to a Corolla. They are both Corollas, just one has a bit more chrome on it, for which you'll happily pay a 40% markup for.
Apple wants you to think that what they are making is so fantastically special that you'll buy their overpriced commodity hardware thinking you will keep it forever. Only until next year when they come out with the same thing but case colors and an extra USB port.
And through all of this you're still using a cheap $30 keyboard. Why buy something cheap and disposable just to replace it 6 months later? Sure, your TCO is still lower than the nicer keyboard - but the ease of use and satisfaction is easily worth the difference, not to mention a hell of a lot less wasteful. Why I would skimp on my primary interface to the computer (your hands are on that damn thing all day, after all), is a mystery to me.
"You've used the word "investing" in a way that makes no sense."
Of course it doesn't make sense to you - you appear to think that "investment" can only occur in a monetary sense. This explains your focus on TCO without regard for the quality of the product. When I "invest" in a nice suit, I'm not expecting my garments to appreciate in monetary value - I'm expecting to receive some tangible non-monetary benefit (landing that job, for example, or better networking) for it. In the same way, "investing" in tech gear is about greater satisfaction, reduced frustration, etc etc. It is not about my computer somehow appreciating in value.
"I could buy two or three Toyota Corollas for one BMW 3xx, get to where I want on time, more reliably, with better gas mileage (read: lower TCO), and the only thing I'll suffer for it is not looking like a pretentious prick will doing it."
Your objection against Apple is apparently more about its image than any tangible complaint. This is fine - and is in fact the most common argument against Apple products ("but you look like a hipster douche!").
Question: have you driven a BMW? Or are you presuming that there's no tangible difference except the image component? I've worked in the auto industry - and have done work for both cheapo Pontiacs as well as $100K+ Mercedes Benzes. The quality difference is extreme, but of course invisible on any consumer spec sheet. This is why spec sheet tunnel vision is generally a bad idea when it comes to purchases - there's more to a car (and computer) than its engine size, mileage, CPU speed, L2 cache size, etc etc.
If you've ever been behind the wheel of a BMW you'd know the difference between it and a Corolla. It's a far more satisfying machine to drive than a Corolla, by a really, really wide margin.
But by all means, cling to your unfounded prejudices about BMW drivers and Mac users. We'll be out there enjoying our products (in a non-douchey way, I promise). It seems you're willing to deny yourself better quality products simply because you don't want to be associated with the few people who act like dicks about having them.
There are some products that, because of attention to detail or other design features, are a pleasure to use, even if their performance on paper is worse.
But I agree, there is sometimes a visceral, non-quantifiable "feel" to a product that makes it worth using. My favorite car was my late 70's Mercury. Stupid big, ate gas like there was a hole in the tank, small tasks like getting out of the driveway had lots of engine drama. But man it drove like a dream.
Thanks for answering your own question.
> you appear to think that "investment" can only occur in a monetary sense Well, we're obviously not talking about "the act of putting on vestments". So yes, "investment" only is defined in this sense as an outlay of resources or capital with an expectation of a greater return.
Buying something because it's pretty is not an investment.
You really really want to try and stretch the definition so that "can bring about higher productivity/efficiencies on a current process" which I think is reasonable since those higher efficiencies can directly lead to a greater return. But you provide no examples that an Apple branded keyboard can allow me to type at, for example 130wpm vs. 90wpm. I would be willing to put dollars down that said Apple branded keyboard would not demonstrate any increase in productivity or efficiencies over a $5 Taiwan built no-name bargain-bin keyboard. And since we both agree that the TCO is lower on the latter device, it's the better investment.
>Your objection against Apple is apparently more about its image than any tangible complaint.
To be clear, my objection against the entire Apple ecosystem is twofold: 1) Apple charges too much money for their kit. There is no sense in paying Two Thousand Dollars for a system I can find for less than half that. Unless said Apple system does bring about a massive productivity increase, it is not a rational purchase. Experience has shown me that Apple systems do not bring about any productivity increases.
2) Apple fanboys offer irrational, circular reasoning to justify their computing purchases. They offer up "design" as the deciding factor, and when I say "design makes no difference" they offer up "productivity", and when I say "show me the statistics" they say "it's an investment", and when I say "investment doesn't mean that" they say "it's about the design".
The users of Apple products are far more the problem with the entire ecosystem than Apple ever will be -- actually to Apple they are the life's blood.
I can understand Apple's business model. They know they will never have more than low double digit market share. And they also know that that market share represents people who would purchase a pile of smoldering rubbish for a 200% markup if it had an Apple logo on it and a Jonny Ive's video spot proclaiming how this "was the best designed pile of smoldering rubbish...in the world". That's called "being smart". They can make loads of profit selling commodity hardware that the Dell's of the world make only 5-10% margins on simply by fanning the flames of rabid fanboyism.
> Question: have you driven a BMW? Yes, several, if I was in the market for a performance auto (if that was what I considered "value") at those prices, I can think of several better alternatives at comparable prices. e.g. http://www.arielatom.com/ http://www.lotuscars.com/ http://automobiles.honda.com/s2000/ http://www.nissanusa.com/gt-r/
>I've worked in the auto industry - and have done work for both cheapo Pontiacs as well as $100K+ Mercedes Benzes. The quality difference is extreme, but of course invisible on any consumer spec sheet. This is why spec sheet tunnel vision is generally a bad idea when it comes to purchases - there's more to a car (and computer) than its engine size, mileage, CPU speed, L2 cache size, etc etc.
That's correct. There is TCO. A Pontiac and a Benz (and a BMW) share one thing in common, poor TCO. Between poor build quality, reliability, trade-in value, gas mileage etc. those vehicles all demonstrate poor thinking on the part of the purchasers. The Pontiac is probably purchased for the initially low sticker price. But it will suffer from poor reliability, bad gas mileage and when the owner goes to trade it in after 5 years, a shockingly bad trade-in price. The Benz, while being built of the finest materials (leading to a high sticker price), suffers from some of the worst statistical reliability in the business across the lineup, and generally very poor trade-in value (a 2005 S500 4d in excellent condition goes for the same price as a stripped low end Accord, that's an $70,000 loss in value in 4 years).
It's no mystery why Toyota is now the #1 car maker. They don't offer anything particularly attractive, they don't use the best materials, they don't make the fastest cars or have the best handling. They don't even have a performance offering in their lineup!
The equation is simple, they make decent vehicles, that get you from A to B in the same amount of time it takes somebody in a Merc S500 or a BMW 540 or a Ferrari Enzo, it lasts longer between services than the more expensive cars and the cheaper-to-purchase cars, it offers reasonable comfort for the price, and when it comes time to trade in, you might loose only 40% of the price not 70-80%. The most important factor for the vast majority of people is TCO.
Rewrite that previous statement in computing terms and you have the reason why Apple is not a good investment. They do not offer a competitive TCO to the competing Wintel type systems.
But the comparison isn't between a Corolla and a 540. It's between a Corolla and a Civic -- only I'm going to charge you a 120% markup on the civic because I stuck a "type R" badge on the back. Applers want to compare their computing choices to higher end autos with higher end specs. But that simply doesn't jive with reality. Their systems have identical specs to any other consumer Intel style system out there.
> If you've ever been behind the wheel of a BMW you'd know the difference between it and a Corolla. It's a far more satisfying machine to drive than a Corolla, by a really, really wide margin.
Yes, it is :) I've always been happy to drive my rental BMWs and Audis whenever I'm in Germany. I've been loathe to drive the Opels I sometimes get. That being said, I would never say that I received a tangible benefit from those cars and could never justify buying one for myself along any rational lines.
>But by all means, cling to your unfounded prejudices about BMW drivers and Mac users. We'll be out there enjoying our products (in a non-douchey way, I promise).
Apple users are certainly ways less douchy than BMWers.
I think the answer to "why should I buy an Apple" should be "because I like it better". And the answer to "why?" should be "dunno, just do". All the superfluous justifications don't hold up to rational examination. But they don't really have to. I like Bach better than Beethoven, but I can't give a rational reason why.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16823126...
There is no other mouse like the new Apple mouse, so there's nothing to compare it to. High quality wireless mice from Logitech or Microsoft are usually around $50 though.
not a knock, just an observation, I'm thinking these look pretty sexy as well
All I do is speak the truth.
I think you should let them come to an agreement first before they can jointly accuse you.
Currently, I'm using a 2006 Mac Pro. It's still freaking powerful but I really can use with more pixels on my screen.
5yrs ago I bought a 15" LCD. got home, 5 dead pixels. back to the store, asked to open the box there, had to attach to their POS to do testing. 3 dead pixel... after opening the 3rd box i was satisfied.
now, last year, got a samsung 22" wide screen LCD. Got home, the border gloss finish (talking about 7in of black shiny plastic) was hideously scratched. back to the store. opened 1, 2, 3 box. no more in stock. took only the receipt to a store in another part of town, opened 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. ok, got one with no scratch. probably some thing scratching them on the assembly line. because the protective foil plastic was OK above the scratches.
But i will buy samsung again :) at least, when i opened the LG and then the samsung, the samsung one had little round QA stickers on the LCD panel :)
now, i've also have plenty of anecdotes about LG cdrom and cdram and recently a dvdram driver, if you care. they are all about the laser life being like 40h of work instead of the some-thousand they claim.
A few folks, including this article, make it sound like you're buying a monitor and getting a computer for "free". But if it's like previous iMacs then you're buying a monitor that can only be used with the "free" computer.
If that is the case then that's a good reason for Apple getting a good deal. There's no way for this to cannibalize sales of actual monitors, unless the buyer was planning to weld it irreversibly and permanently to a Mac mini.
Which also renders any price comparison moot. It's a thing unto itself, only really directly comparable with other iMacs.
edit okay, go ahead and downvote, apparently bidirectional connection ports in lieu of mono-directional ones are not a cool feature to somebody.
I still miss 4:3. Much better for programming.
I could never go back to 4:3 layout for programming, as I discovered last year when one of my 16:10s died and I had to use an old 4:3 I had laying around.
Look at, say, Visual Studio - the thing is practically unusable without being fullscreened (unless you enjoy 200 pixels actual code editor). I've always felt widescreens to be a bit useless on Windows in that regard - the overfocus on fullscreen apps robs widescreen of its primary strenght: multitasking.
What puts me off is the reflective finish. I can live with it on a 13" MacBook, but I'd find it impossible on that sort of size, where you're practically guaranteed to get a light source into view. Oh, and the fact that the HDD isn't user serviceable. Two hard drive bays would be nice, too, considering there's no eSATA or ExpressCard.
Apple sells stick-on "de-glossing" film. The one I bought works fairly well.
if it's standard vesa, 4 screws.
Also prices for flatscreens are dropping all the time. If the Dell 30'' also has the special panel, and only is lacking in some other specs, maybe enhancing those other specs is not as expensive as adding the better panel type (whether they are important or not is another matter - if you WANT to spend a lot of money, you can always find a reason, like "this audio system does not have gold coated cables" or whatever).
In any case this makes me hope for a price drop of the 30'' Dell displays...
I also have an iPhone for internet access on the go. So I don't see the need to buy another portable computer.
Because if I felt like mongering a crazy Apple-related rumor on a subject which I know nothing about [1], I'd guess that one good way to get a manufacturer to grant you a crazy price break is to tell them that, as soon as they can ramp up production to the necessary levels, Apple will release an Ive-designed Apple-branded TV with their parts inside it and have Steve Jobs stand on stage to promote that TV.
---
[1] Which, according to the empirical evidence of this post, I apparently do. I need to get some more sleep.
One year later - and there are still no other company that can offer a similar high quality laptop. Thinkpad has pretty much crashed and burned after china got their hands the product management.
I guarantee you that this 27" will provide a first time apple owner with a unboxing experience you will never forget. It will simply raise the bar for how you perceive quality.
Unless you have to return it three times before you receive one that has no extreme production flaws (happened to a friend with his iMac - mind you, he is still an Apple fan boy despite of that experience...).
For notebooks I tend to like Samsung, but at the moment unfortunately they use that awful shiny Klavierlack coating (as do many other hardware manufacturers). Hope that goes away soon, then they might be recommendable again.
Maybe if you need a monitor right now, it is a problem. But I had another one, and when I heard about the good price, I just upgraded at that moment. Could have been any other moment, too.
While the deals are great for endusers, they are cutting their own throats to move product. One thing you can't ignore about Apple, they make profit on everything they sell (no loss leaders there). To an investor, that is a good buy.
Apple is most likely still making a nice ~20% margin on the 27" iMacs.
For development, I could never use OS X. I rarely use the mouse, and I need a package manager for installing random libraries. I tried this on OS X and it just doesn't work as well as Debian. Emacs also doesn't work right.
A unique monitor with generic Intel hardware running Linux is a great computer. That with OS X and it's just a paperweight. Your mileage may vary, but I have to say that my eyebrow raises itself a bit when I hear a developer say they use OS X.
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=emacs.git;a=history;f=...
No thanks. I will stick to Linux.
About the only positive thing I found about it was the ability to run in full-screen mode (something that ntemacs is still unable to do).
(Edit: I do miss spotlight. But not as much as I missed apt+dpkg.)
Nothing wrong with moving with the times. A graphical emacs session does offer plenty of benefits, not least having less hassle with keybindings, and much greater flexibility with fonts and colours.
(set-foreground-color "rgb:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa")(I spent a lot of time reading the font/face handling code to make eslide auto-resize text. I couldn't figure out how to do it cleanly, as the API did not work as documented or coded (!). Eventually I hacked around it, and my hack works fine. Welcome to Emacs Lisp programming...)
I would never deploy anything on any platform besides good-old Linux, but for a personal computer, I'm sold on OSX.
I don't like it; I don't think it works well. It doesn't do what I want and it's not particularly stable. Problems I have with OS X are nonexistent with Linux, so that's what I use.
I don't like it; I don't think it works well. It doesn't do what I want -- the desktop software options are incredibly lacking, getting anything working is like pulling teeth, and relying on a distributor like Debian or Ubuntu for all my software means that I get stuck either using outdated software or running against an unstable release of the OS -- either way, I spend way more time thinking about the OS than doing my job.
In terms of stability, the lack of stable releases, poor code quality of the kernel, and reliance on distributors to patch and maintain their own kernels really shows through in the number of kernel panics and other issues I see. I can't recall the last time one of my FreeBSD servers or Mac OS X desktops crashed.
Problems I have with Linux are nonexistent with OS X, so that's what I use.
As for the distribution issue, it's true that you are either out of date or slightly unstable. But on OS X, you can't get any packages at all. So you manage everything yourself, or rely on a third party to package everything for you. Then you are out of date or unstable, and the various package managers conflict with each other and with Apple's stuff. There is no magic fix there, it's the same set of problems.
So anyway, I don't care what OS you use... but OS X is not objectively better. (I have noticed that OS X users prefer no way to do something over a flaky way to do something. Linux has a lot of flaky ways to do a lot of things; OS X just doesn't do much. Tradeoffs.)
What do you gain by having such rigors? Why do you assume your opinion is absolute? (Which is must be for you to cock an eyebrow in what I'm assuming is disgust or mistrust).
What do you do when someone tells you they develop on Windows? I'm imagining a groin pull, or something of that magnitude.
I met someone who said he works as admin and complained he can't find a job in the town he lives (he commutes more than 4 hours a day). I couldn't understand that, but later in conversation I learned that he's a windows admin. Then I had the eyebrow rising involuntary reflex and everything became clear to me. Windows admin skills are kinda useless in town where most companies can't afford to use MS solutions where good open source alternatives exists, let alone employ many windows admins.
So it's not disgust at all, it's just shock. I keep hearing how nice of a development platform it is, but I couldn't get even the simplest things to work. (I used OS X for 2 or 3 years about 4 years ago. I still use it for my under-TV computer, as I am too lazy to configure Ubuntu there. But I am close to not being too lazy...)
Anyway, Linux is broken for many users, but not those that use conkeror, emacs, urxvt, xmonad and has Intel wireless and video. I am the user that Linux is best for.
http://gizmodo.com/5389166/how-to-hackintosh-a-dell-mini-10v...
The iMac 27" is really a unique resolution, largely due to I believe, the change in aspect ratio.
So, no, the computer at the back is not exactly free.
"Panel Type: VA - Vertical alignment"
The Apple screen, on top of being higher resolution, is also a IPS panel, which gives much better viewing angles as well as color reproduction. It is the only type of LCD suitable for photo/video work.
For a bunch of people who complain a lot about getting good value for your dollar (and how Apple doesn't do that), you sure are misinformed about the gear you're buying. I suppose as long as it throws some kind of image up on screen it's good right?
The only kind of displays suitable for professional work are the expensive kind that comes with an external calibrator. Neither Dell nor Apple sells these.
Next time, please don't assume people are ignorant.