I "hate" the ones who blindly support Apple when they produce overpriced products like this. That and the supporters who can't shut up about how wonderful Apple is and toss politics into it.
Most Razer users don't get political about their friggin choice of mouse.
Types this on a custom built PC but I own Dell, Lenovo laptops, a Mac mini and an ipod touch too. Whoopee. Oh, I forgot, toss some hate my way because I actually like my Blackberry Z10.
Wow, some people must have a lot of extra energy to waste so much of it hating on mac users. Yes, Macs are overpriced but so are a lot of other things. And a lot of other people that can afford nice houses, cars, Rolexes, whatever, are just as superior about it as some mac users. Anyone that doesn't like apple products is certainly free not to buy them. By the same token, I don't see how it really harms anyone else if someone uses a Mac or iPhone.
Wow, some people must have a lot of extra energy to waste so much of it hating on mac users. Yes, Macs are overpriced but so are a lot of other things. And a lot of other people that can afford nice houses, cars, Rolexes, whatever, are just as superior about it as some mac users. Anyone that doesn't like apple products is certainly free not to buy them. By the same token, I don't see how it really harms anyone else if someone uses a Mac or iPhone.
Wow, some people must have a lot of extra energy to waste so much of it hating on mac users. Yes, Macs are overpriced but so are a lot of other things. And a lot of other people that can afford nice houses, cars, Rolexes, whatever, are just as superior about it as some mac users. Anyone that doesn't like apple products is certainly free not to buy them. By the same token, I don't see how it really harms anyone else if someone uses a Mac or iPhone.
There's always the 27" model, or the Trash Can if you think it's inadequate.
It's a form factor issue. The iMacs generally use mobile parts considering its design requirements. If you want to build a generic box, you have cheaper components available to you. But, if you consider the industrial design, the iMac is very rightly priced.
Oh good grief, industrial design. No kidding you have issues with small form factors, AIO etc and you pay more. Zotac has a nice new mini pc with a gtx960 in it with an i5 for $800. That gives you $700 for ram, m.2 ssd, 2 2.5'' drives, OS and a monitor of your choice.
The imac here is a joke because it makes no sense to upgrade it for the prices they are offering without just going to the next model up. On top of that they're doing the typical huge markup on those upgrades. Long term it makes no sense unless you're some corporation or school who gets discounted pricing.
Macs are superior computers, but Apple has never been one to offer their best stuff in the base configuration. All the pining for a base SSD (and the associated increase in price) is disingenuous because everyone here knows Apple offers a base configuration at a very low price, then usually a much better model for a small increase in price. This upsets many apple haters here because... I guess they can't afford the $100-300 upgrade that anybody who buys an apple product and who is concerned with specs will usually pay.
This iMac is a worlds better deal than that surface book piece that MS is pitching for $3199.
That's right people, Microsoft is selling a dual core laptop for $3199 and nobody here is going to say squat about it because it's much more politically correct to go after apple for charging $1499 or whatever for their base configuration 4k imac. Why actually address price gouging when you can jump on the e-hipster bandwagon and talk about how much smarter you are for buying a full tower?
In the mobile world, 4 physical cores are becoming a thing of the past, every device with Intel is jumping on the dual core for i3, i5 and i7's with hyper-threading, less power but performance is questionable- those older Core M such as an i5 4200M (4C/4T) still somewhat outperforms an i5 4250U and i5 5250U (2C/4T).Macs are superior computers, but Apple has never been one to offer their best stuff in the base configuration. All the pining for a base SSD (and the associated increase in price) is disingenuous because everyone here knows Apple offers a base configuration at a very low price, then usually a much better model for a small increase in price. This upsets many apple haters here because... I guess they can't afford the $100-300 upgrade that anybody who buys an apple product and who is concerned with specs will usually pay.
This iMac is a worlds better deal than that surface book piece that MS is pitching for $3199.
That's right people, Microsoft is selling a dual core laptop for $3199 and nobody here is going to say squat about it because it's much more politically correct to go after apple for charging $1499 or whatever for their base configuration 4k imac. Why actually address price gouging when you can jump on the e-hipster bandwagon and talk about how much smarter you are for buying a full tower?
In the mobile world, 4 physical cores are becoming a thing of the past, every device with Intel is jumping on the dual core for i3, i5 and i7's with hyper-threading, less power but performance is questionable- those older Core M such as an i5 4200M (4C/4T) still somewhat outperforms an i5 4250U and i5 5250U (2C/4T).
Macs are superior computers, but Apple has never been one to offer their best stuff in the base configuration. All the pining for a base SSD (and the associated increase in price) is disingenuous because everyone here knows Apple offers a base configuration at a very low price, then usually a much better model for a small increase in price. This upsets many apple haters here because... I guess they can't afford the $100-300 upgrade that anybody who buys an apple product and who is concerned with specs will usually pay.
This iMac is a worlds better deal than that surface book piece that MS is pitching for $3199.
That's right people, Microsoft is selling a dual core laptop for $3199 and nobody here is going to say squat about it because it's much more politically correct to go after apple for charging $1499 or whatever for their base configuration 4k imac. Why actually address price gouging when you can jump on the e-hipster bandwagon and talk about how much smarter you are for buying a full tower?
You are being disingenuous. The laptop you are referring to contains a skylake i7 CPU (quad core, not dual), 1TB SSD, 16GB ram, a dedicated GPU, and a 3000X2000 13.5-inch screen. Cutting edge tech always comes with a premium. There is nothing cutting edge about the Apple machines being discussed. Additionally, the MS machine it is being marketed to development professionals, much like the Mac Pro. Surface Books can be had for less than $1000. If anything, this only proves that Microsoft is more willing to provide options, which is ultimately what we are talking about here. In this specific case, Apple has taken options off the table while still charging the premium difference. It doesn't mean they make a bad product...only that the price point is bad.
Apple sells computers like the movie theaters sell popcorn, which charge you $8 for a small popcorn and then offer you to upgrade to the large for 75 cents more.
Actually even the top of the line config is a dual core i7 - 6600U. It has four threads, not four cores. That is a big issue because there are huge performance losses when you start doing intensive video editing or multiple monitors. Check it out:You are being disingenuous. The laptop you are referring to contains a skylake i7 CPU (quad core, not dual), 1TB SSD, 16GB ram, a dedicated GPU, and a 3000X2000 13.5-inch screen. Cutting edge tech always comes with a premium. There is nothing cutting edge about the Apple machines being discussed. Additionally, the MS machine it is being marketed to development professionals, much like the Mac Pro. Surface Books can be had for less than $1000. If anything, this only proves that Microsoft is more willing to provide options, which is ultimately what we are talking about here. In this specific case, Apple has taken options off the table while still charging the premium difference. It doesn't mean they make a bad product...only that the price point is bad.
Apple sells computers like the movie theaters sell popcorn, which charge you $8 for a small popcorn and then offer you to upgrade to the large for 75 cents more.
Actually even the top of the line config is a dual core i7 - 6600U. It has four threads, not four cores. That is a big issue because there are huge performance losses when you start doing intensive video editing or multiple monitors. Check it out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Book
3199 is an absurd price for a dual core anything, period. That laptop should max out at ~2600 if it wants to actually present any kind of real value to the consumer. For 3200 you could get a Mac Pro or a top of the line quad core 15" macbook pro and both of those are already decried as overpriced. Why does MS get a pass on this? I don't get it...
You do have a point about microsoft offering more options. Sometimes that is good. TBH I would prefer if Apple and other vendors just put 2 models, a base with adequate performance for 90% of users (Core i5 256GB SSD 8GB ram) and then another top of the line model with everything possible on it. Apple actually gives 3-5 configs depending on the model. I take issue with MS selling 128GB surface book when any 2015 laptop should have at least 256GB storage. Apple did cheap out on the SSD in the iMac and they should've just offered the base with 256 @ 1699. But that is actually removing choices, although it removes a bad choice. Its hard to say what is better: Tons of options, some terrible and some awesome... Or only a couple of options, but they are all pretty good quality.
Oh good grief, industrial design. No kidding you have issues with small form factors, AIO etc and you pay more. Zotac has a nice new mini pc with a gtx960 in it with an i5 for $800. That gives you $700 for ram, m.2 ssd, 2 2.5'' drives, OS and a monitor of your choice.
The imac here is a joke because it makes no sense to upgrade it for the prices they are offering without just going to the next model up. On top of that they're doing the typical huge markup on those upgrades. Long term it makes no sense unless you're some corporation or school who gets discounted pricing.
Actually even the top of the line config is a dual core i7 - 6600U. It has four threads, not four cores. That is a big issue because there are huge performance losses when you start doing intensive video editing or multiple monitors. Check it out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Book
3199 is an absurd price for a dual core anything, period. That laptop should max out at ~2600 if it wants to actually present any kind of real value to the consumer. For 3200 you could get a Mac Pro or a top of the line quad core 15" macbook pro and both of those are already decried as overpriced. Why does MS get a pass on this? I don't get it...
You do have a point about microsoft offering more options. Sometimes that is good. TBH I would prefer if Apple and other vendors just put 2 models, a base with adequate performance for 90% of users (Core i5 256GB SSD 8GB ram) and then another top of the line model with everything possible on it. Apple actually gives 3-5 configs depending on the model. I take issue with MS selling 128GB surface book when any 2015 laptop should have at least 256GB storage. Apple did cheap out on the SSD in the iMac and they should've just offered the base with 256 @ 1699. But that is actually removing choices, although it removes a bad choice. Its hard to say what is better: Tons of options, some terrible and some awesome... Or only a couple of options, but they are all pretty good quality.
You are being disingenuous. The laptop you are referring to contains a skylake i7 CPU (quad core, not dual), 1TB SSD, 16GB ram, a dedicated GPU, and a 3000X2000 13.5-inch screen. Cutting edge tech always comes with a premium. There is nothing cutting edge about the Apple machines being discussed. Additionally, the MS machine it is being marketed to development professionals, much like the Mac Pro. Surface Books can be had for less than $1000. If anything, this only proves that Microsoft is more willing to provide options, which is ultimately what we are talking about here. In this specific case, Apple has taken options off the table while still charging the premium difference. It doesn't mean they make a bad product...only that the price point is bad.
Apple sells computers like the movie theaters sell popcorn, which charge you $8 for a small popcorn and then offer you to upgrade to the large for 75 cents more.
That's not true, your trying to price a computer based on processor specs only, not the entire design. SO you get a cheap plastic box and throw in a mediocre motherboard with an i5 on it and sell it for cheaper. That's not how people with the money to afford it buy their products.
If you read the whole post, I said that the $3000 price was justified only in the sense that it included a Skylake CPU, a 1TB SSD, 16GB ram, dedicated GPU, and a high end LCD....all as part of a very small form factor machine. I was not using CPU only as a way to compare pricing. The 1TB upgrade alone would account for almost 1/3 of the price. Only the Mac Pro in Apples lineup offers that option and they charge $800 for that upgrade. Besides, the $3000 Surface was not my contribution to this conversation....I was responding to the accusation that we are pushing a double standard. MS doesn't get a pass because I wouldn't buy that machine either.
Regardless, when things get smaller the price goes up. We aren't even really talking apples to apples though because the Surface is more comparable to the Macbook. My comments only started under the premise that the iMac should come standard with a 180-250GB 2.5" SSD installed instead of a 5400 RPM HDD.
The problem is that we can't have objective conversations without someone pushing fan agenda. Apple has over 200 Billion cash on hand. A little consumer driven criticism isn't going to hurt them. People should stop treating them as an underdog. They should be judged as harshly as we would any hardware maker, including Microsoft.
No surprise. Specially after all the overheating trouble.
Welcome to the future, a world without dGPUs. Death of the dinosaur.
Because some company with sub 20% market share changed 1 model?
Get a clue
Maybe you should take a big look at discrete GPU volume YoY and then consider what the trend is.