Apple throwing the higher end processors at laptops and only the M3 at
the iMac is a bit off putting.
My theory is that Apple not only make more margin on laptops, esp.
higher spec., but that iMac users tend to keep their Macs for a longer
period so Apple don't get that sweet, sweet turnover margin from iMac-ers.
This was nudged at in the iMac portion of the presentation where John
Ternus states to the effect: "Those of you with intel based iMacs will
see a [insert reality distortion field terms here] improvement..."
IOW, you iMac users are just not keeping up! Get a move on!
So we're presented with the base chip and a contained memory range.
Written on an 11 year old iMac ...
Am 31.10.23 um 15:06 schrieb Alan Browne:
Apple throwing the higher end processors at laptops and only the M3 at
the iMac is a bit off putting.
My theory is that Apple not only make more margin on laptops, esp.
higher spec., but that iMac users tend to keep their Macs for a longer
period so Apple don't get that sweet, sweet turnover margin from
iMac-ers.
This was nudged at in the iMac portion of the presentation where John
Ternus states to the effect: "Those of you with intel based iMacs will
see a [insert reality distortion field terms here] improvement..."
IOW, you iMac users are just not keeping up! Get a move on!
So we're presented with the base chip and a contained memory range.
Written on an 11 year old iMac ...
If you can handle your daily work with such an old machine why do you
care at all?
On 2023-10-31 11:38, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 31.10.23 um 15:06 schrieb Alan Browne:
Apple throwing the higher end processors at laptops and only the M3 at
the iMac is a bit off putting.
My theory is that Apple not only make more margin on laptops, esp.
higher spec., but that iMac users tend to keep their Macs for a longer
period so Apple don't get that sweet, sweet turnover margin from
iMac-ers.
This was nudged at in the iMac portion of the presentation where John
Ternus states to the effect: "Those of you with intel based iMacs will
see a [insert reality distortion field terms here] improvement..."
IOW, you iMac users are just not keeping up! Get a move on!
So we're presented with the base chip and a contained memory range.
Written on an 11 year old iMac ...
If you can handle your daily work with such an old machine why do you
care at all?
I also edit and render video - which at 720 is passably fast, 1080 is a
slog, and anything higher is terribly slow or not even feasible.
I've wanted to update since the M1 came out, but also would never buy a
first flight processor. (My SO has it on her Macbook Air and it is fine
for her use which at most goes to photo edits and doc edits).
Apple throwing the higher end processors at laptops and only the M3 at
the iMac is a bit off putting.
My theory is that Apple not only make more margin on laptops,
esp. higher spec., but that iMac users tend to keep their Macs for a
longer period so Apple don't get that sweet, sweet turnover margin
from iMac-ers.
This was nudged at in the iMac portion of the presentation where John
Ternus states to the effect: "Those of you with intel based iMacs will
see a [insert reality distortion field terms here] improvement..."
IOW, you iMac users are just not keeping up! Get a move on!
So we're presented with the base chip and a contained memory range.
Written on an 11 year old iMac ...
On Oct 31, 2023 at 10:05:42 AM PDT, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2023-10-31 11:38, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 31.10.23 um 15:06 schrieb Alan Browne:
Apple throwing the higher end processors at laptops and only the M3 at >>>> the iMac is a bit off putting.
My theory is that Apple not only make more margin on laptops, esp.
higher spec., but that iMac users tend to keep their Macs for a longer >>>> period so Apple don't get that sweet, sweet turnover margin from
iMac-ers.
This was nudged at in the iMac portion of the presentation where John
Ternus states to the effect: "Those of you with intel based iMacs will >>>> see a [insert reality distortion field terms here] improvement..."
IOW, you iMac users are just not keeping up! Get a move on!
So we're presented with the base chip and a contained memory range.
Written on an 11 year old iMac ...
If you can handle your daily work with such an old machine why do you
care at all?
I also edit and render video - which at 720 is passably fast, 1080 is a
slog, and anything higher is terribly slow or not even feasible.
I've wanted to update since the M1 came out, but also would never buy a
first flight processor. (My SO has it on her Macbook Air and it is fine
for her use which at most goes to photo edits and doc edits).
Are the programs you use for this kind of processing silicon ready. If so, I
would think that reduced even with reduced RAM you'll have significantly more efficient processing.
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> writes:
Apple throwing the higher end processors at laptops and only the M3 at
the iMac is a bit off putting.
My theory is that Apple not only make more margin on laptops,
esp. higher spec., but that iMac users tend to keep their Macs for a
longer period so Apple don't get that sweet, sweet turnover margin
from iMac-ers.
This was nudged at in the iMac portion of the presentation where John
Ternus states to the effect: "Those of you with intel based iMacs will
see a [insert reality distortion field terms here] improvement..."
IOW, you iMac users are just not keeping up! Get a move on!
So we're presented with the base chip and a contained memory range.
Written on an 11 year old iMac ...
I don't have any info on the relative profit margins for Apple's various products, so I can't speculate in that regard.
I do think it's possible that some of Apple's products are kept longer
by its customers. I'd think that those with batteries tend to get
replaced more frequently since battery replacements can be expensive and involve some amount of hassle and perhaps even risk. It can seem like it might just be better to get a new Mac with all the latest goodness.
I'd say that it's also possible that the typical iMac user is different
than the typical user of things like the Macbook Pro. Perhaps the users
of higher-end Macs tend to buy an MBP or maybe a Studio?
I don't remember how well the iMac Pro sold. However, I also don't
really remember hearing a lot about it - I heard more about the MBP for professional use, and then a lot of argument about the Mac Pro and
whether it was worth the price or not. :-)
I would tend to think that, if a reasonable market existed for an iMac
with one of the upper-end CPUs, 48GB RAM, etc. that Apple would sell
them. I suppose they could just be nudging people towards a MBP or
Studio instead...
Part of the problem is that laptops have become the "must have" fashion
fad item over about the last 10 years, even when many people don't ever
move them from the one desk permanently plugged into the wall socket,
and often also plugged into a bigger display! That fad means laptops
are currently selling better than desktops to the more money than sense brigade who insist on being "on trend" (they would be much better off
buying a cheaper or more powerful desktop computer instead).
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> writes:
Apple throwing the higher end processors at laptops and only the M3 at
the iMac is a bit off putting.
My theory is that Apple not only make more margin on laptops,
esp. higher spec., but that iMac users tend to keep their Macs for a
longer period so Apple don't get that sweet, sweet turnover margin
from iMac-ers.
This was nudged at in the iMac portion of the presentation where John
Ternus states to the effect: "Those of you with intel based iMacs will
see a [insert reality distortion field terms here] improvement..."
IOW, you iMac users are just not keeping up! Get a move on!
So we're presented with the base chip and a contained memory range.
Written on an 11 year old iMac ...
I don't have any info on the relative profit margins for Apple's various products, so I can't speculate in that regard.
I do think it's possible that some of Apple's products are kept longer
by its customers. I'd think that those with batteries tend to get
replaced more frequently since battery replacements can be expensive and involve some amount of hassle and perhaps even risk. It can seem like it might just be better to get a new Mac with all the latest goodness.
I'd say that it's also possible that the typical iMac user is different
than the typical user of things like the Macbook Pro. Perhaps the users
of higher-end Macs tend to buy an MBP or maybe a Studio?
I don't remember how well the iMac Pro sold. However, I also don't
really remember hearing a lot about it - I heard more about the MBP for professional use, and then a lot of argument about the Mac Pro and
whether it was worth the price or not. :-)
I would tend to think that, if a reasonable market existed for an iMac
with one of the upper-end CPUs, 48GB RAM, etc. that Apple would sell
them. I suppose they could just be nudging people towards a MBP or
Studio instead...
Part of the problem is that laptops have become the "must have" fashion
fad item over about the last 10 years, even when many people don't ever
move them from the one desk permanently plugged into the wall socket,
and often also plugged into a bigger display! That fad means laptops are currently selling better than desktops to the more money than sense
brigade who insist on being "on trend" (they would be much better off
buying a cheaper or more powerful desktop computer instead).
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 481 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 07:14:39 |
Calls: | 9,538 |
Calls today: | 6 |
Files: | 13,653 |
Messages: | 6,138,946 |
Posted today: | 1 |