Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

27-inch iMac gets a major update

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 611 posts

Re: 27-inch iMac gets a major update

#401

Post by varjag »

read_if_gay_ wrote: post #390
varjag wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I very much need Emacs and Unix-like environment for work, so iPad doesn't quite cut it. That said I've got a 11" Pro: mostly as a portable second display via Sidecar for MB12 but also some pen-based apps like Sketchr3d. It's nice and if you have a workflow that suits it, no doubt it's usable.

Get a cloud VM and Blink.sh, an SSH/mosh client. You can totally have a Unix environment on the iPad. It's limited, but still pretty powerful.

I'm sure it's possible, but just as you say - limited, so I see little point.

Re: 27-inch iMac gets a major update

#402

Post by supernova87a »

jandrese wrote: post #230
thomasedwards wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don’t fully understand this world, I ‘downgraded’ from an i7 to a slower i5, and my computer got faster. I wish they’d use sensible clear names for the generations so you can clearly understand what’s better.

The first number after the i# is the generation. i5-5350 is fifth generation, i3-9350k is ninth generation. That said, the difference between generations is pretty minimal thanks to Intel's huge process blunder last decade. If you want to know which chip is actually faster for your workload that turns out to be a fairly difficult question to answer. A lot depends on what you're trying to accomplish and how your code…

And I would point out, the level of chip model detail you gave above isn't even provided in the buying screens! For some users this is ok -- does the fact of not providing it give some hint about what level of user is being aimed at?

I think even for the Mac Pro, they don't go into this detail.

Re: 27-inch iMac gets a major update

#403

Post by Krasnol »

reaperducer wrote: post #396
damnyou wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm imagining this being said to the principal of a local rural school in, like, Ghana.

Spend $x now on Macs, or spend more later? I should hope that the principal of any school would understand basic math.

Spend later like looking for the one guy who has a Mac in the region and knows how to fix problem x? Or spending later like sending kids to extra courses because they have no idea how to operate the most common office suite on this planet? Spend later like taking that one broken device for a xxx km tour to the next Apple store? And so on...

I wonder how people here are unable to understand basic reality. Especially in third world countries.

Re: 27-inch iMac gets a major update

#404

Post by maz1b »

As expected. They're not going to do a radical form factor redesign and update for Intel based chips, they're saving the all new iMac design for the ARM transition for the extra wow factor.

Not sure if the value proposition is there though for a specced out iMac.

Re: 27-inch iMac gets a major update

#405

Post by russh »

snapetom wrote: post #260
smnrchrds wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They learned their lesson and made storage, RAM, etc. non-user replaceable in newer versions. You used to be able to buy a Mac from Apple and upgrade its RAM at a reasonable price on your own. Not anymore.

The iMac and Mac Pro has user upgradeable RAM. https://www.apple.com/imac/specs/

New MacMini is upgradable as well. I just put 32GB in mine.

Re: 27-inch iMac gets a major update

#407

Post by cactus2093 »

burlesona wrote: post #3

Solid spec bump. Interesting how much emphasis they put on the camera, speakers, and mic; makes total sense in the age of Zoom. I’d also speculate this means iMac won’t be the first computer getting Apple Silicon. I wonder if it will be the last? What’s the consensus guess now? Perhaps a new MacBook Air with good performance but the real “breakthrough” is > 12 hours battery life?

I think this means iMac will be one of the first computers getting Apple Silicon, otherwise it's weird that they're updating the 27" without updating the smaller iMac.

There have been rumors about an updated smaller iMac which will shrink the bezels and basically look like an ipad pro on a stand, with a screen size increase to 24" and Apple Silicon, coming either later this year or early 2021.

I do wonder why separate the smaller and larger iMacs lifecycles, maybe because the desktop-level Apple Silicon chips aren't ready yet? That would make sense especially if they're aiming to replace the AMD GPUs even on the top of the line larger iMac and use integrated graphics there too.

Re: 27-inch iMac gets a major update

#408

Post by ogre_codes »

asveikau wrote: post #366
enterprise1 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because not everyone can be a computer nerd. Apple has put a huge amount of real effort into direct outreach and support of their customers, really. Microsoft chased business. Apple chased people. Google is chasing its own tail. For the markup over the retail price of the SSD, someone else does the installation, validation, built dumb stupid restore and backup services to boot. Dell? Lenovo? Microsoft? Still ramming…

You seem to be really angry at people who make choices different from yours. So much sarcasm and contempt for others here. Anyway, if you want to get into it... Microsoft dominated the consumer market in the 1990s. The same people you say who were not nerds and didn't care ... Didn't care to get an Apple machine either, they got whatever everybody else got, which were Wintel PCs. Most didn't care if something else ha…

> Microsoft dominated the consumer market in the 1990s.

Microsoft dominated everything in the 1990s. Apple more or less lost it all.

> Most didn't care if something else had a nicer design or UI or was friendlier or more efficient.

Macs weren't very good in the 90s. They weren't fast, they weren't pretty, and they were quite expensive. The original iMac changed that in a fairly big way. It was more affordable and a lot more approachable than pretty much any other PC on the market and non-business consumers loved it.

Every successive generation of the Mac has shaved of just a little bit more of the consumer end of the PC market. Then the iPad came along and completely crushed the low end Netbooks. So now Apple has much of the mid-low end consumer space with the iPad and the upper end of consumer space (and a big chunk of professionals who have the choice) with the Mac.

Microsoft still truly owns corporate PCs and gamer space though.

Re: 27-inch iMac gets a major update

#409

Post by kccqzy »

byset wrote: post #314
avianlyric wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What kind of magic fairy dust SSDs are they using that you can't have a sensible amount of storage space at those prices? The kind where Apple can make a 300% or more margin, knowing that people will still pay. Don't think Apple have ever sold SSD upgrades at anything remotely resembling competitive $/TB prices. Clearly they don't need too because people still buy their machines.

As I see it it's basically price discrimination. Apple wants a certain profit margin for the model as a whole. Yet for customers who will never pay prices that will give Apple that full margin, they offer a model at a low price point with a compressed margin, but with a painful aspect that will encourage customers who can pay to go with a higher priced unit — here, the painful thing is the small SSD size. So the idea…

Perhaps that's true for people who buy personal Macs, but in several companies I've worked for, the companies that buy Macs for work almost always use the smallest SSD option: you don't need a lot of local storage, since most files will be in company-managed storage systems.

Re: 27-inch iMac gets a major update

#410

Post by FireBeyond »

tjoff wrote: post #329
hellofunk wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect the vast majority of people who pay for the upgrades are businesses or consultants where the Apple upgrade price is fairly negligible compared to cost of their professional time. Yes exactly. The premium on my time has been gradually edging out in my priorities. I'd rather pay a little extra to have something already there than spend the same amount in my own time instead. It's a fair tradeoff. "But there…

One example, just so you know how much you are being ripped off... Yes, this is actually a trivial amount of time even if you do it once a decade. Last time I checked buying 32 GB of ram for the imac was about $175, apple took $850 to upgrade from the base 8 GB to 32 GB... Replacing them wouldn't take many minutes. (Or - you could buy 64 GB for $350 (something apple didn't even offer, I guess the uint32 would overflo…

And realizing that $850 is effectively for 24GB, because Apple was already compensated for the 8GB in the base price.
Post reply on HN