This is all to common a trap that the self proclaimed “experts” fall in to and an easy one that we here (including me) can fall in to which is that if we can’t see the purpose of why we would buy it, then it "doesn’t make sense.
In this case the iMac has with the exception of the foray in to “pro” category a few years ago with a couple of models, always been the one of the clearest articulations of the “computer as appliance” model.
In other words, something that some people (a significant chunk IMHO) buy not because they want a computer per se, but that performs tasks that they need a computer for and perhaps that is less of an eyesore than most desktop PCs while doing so.
And yes, “how it looks” while doing so is a consideration for a significant number of users.
And I’d argue that the iMac an exceptionally good example of such a device, albeit a premium priced one.
PS: He’s also (like many so called analysts) missing the primary point of Jobs 4 quadrant approach which was that Apple simply didn’t have the resources then to support such a large and varied lineup.
But the Apple of today is very different, and Apple can and should go after more specific niches like iMac or Mac mini (also a product that get’s similar dismissal IMHO).
Spot on. However, Apple should be proactive as well, saying if you want more “choice” in desktop solutions we have the exceptional Mac Mini and you can get a 55" 4k UHD to go with it if you want. They shouldn’t just take the goldilocks approach of “iMac is the perfect solution for those wanting a 21” or 27" as well."
It’s the Diet Coke problem. To what extent does sub-branding create new sales vs cannibalize existing channels? If I were on the Apple board, I’d push management HARD on the rationale for spending the capital to spin up niche hardware lines. iPhone = 50% of Apple revenue, Mac only about 10% (ironically similar to the Surface % for MS).
Show me an Apple CEO willing to bet their pay on a new product that will finally displace a big % of PCs in the corporate channel and then we’ll see.
My concern about that is the slowly declining iPhone sales - we have passed peak smartphone sales (at least for the time being) and Wall Street DEMANDS more, so where do you get that except for more incremental revenues from any source.
Yes and I’ve seen chatter on some of the investment forums I go to occasionally that Apple should drop or spin off the Mac division using a rationale similar to that used by IBM to sell off the desktops.
What they don’t seem to get is the reason I continue to buy both Mac and IOS devices is the totality of options and the interoperability of same.
That’s what keeps drawing me back like a moth to a flame. BUT I think Apple may have painted themselves into a corner because the M1 series is TOO GOOD. The benchmarks for M2 and M3 show good performance progress (to the point that a M3 Max almost equals an M2 Ultra), but NO ONE (other than the rocket science creatives out there) would say even an M1 is “slow” even today. I have passed on an M3 Pro MBP14 because the delta between it and an M1 Pro is marginal for my needs.
Right, I am debating getting an M1 MBA again, but why bother with the M2 or an M3 in the MBP? The M1 is SO GOOD. I think if they could do it all over again they would nerf the M1.
They wanted the touchdown AND the two point conversion, and got them. I’m not saying M3 is not a good choice, especially moving up from an Intel Mac, but that M1 series is nuts as far as performance and longevity.
One was that the M1 was such a remarkable accomplishment that seemingly came out of nowhere, though in actuality it was a decade in the making, if you believe the rumors/speculation (and I do) that work on it began after the release of the iPhone 6. And thus expecting a similar leap in successive generations actually has no precedent.
Arguably the closest anyone has come to that was Intel with Core I and that likely only came to be because AMD’s Athalon’s forced them to.
Second what is not getting as much attention as it should IMHO is that the buildout/up of capabilities in the M2, M3… has been more about AI capabilities. And same with the Tensor chip in Googles phones and soon Intel with the next gen of their chips, which rumor has it will be announced at CES this January.
Yes, on device AI will be the next holy grail, but for productivity drones like me, there is almost no visible performance delta between M1 and M3 - I know I don’t have a creative bone in my body, but even if I did there are lots of Youtubers and bloggers out there running pretty sophisticated operations from an M1 Pro-M1 Max system.
WHO AM I KIDDING - I don’t even stress this gray-bearded SP8 i5…as he dumps an M1 MBP16 Apple Cert Refurb out of his eBay cart…
That’s my issue with performance hardware. I’ve already outpaced my power needs with the SQ2 in the Pro X. When I upgrade, it’ll be for battery life and modem speed. Anything by way of a power boost is gravy (which is that we in Jersey call spaghetti sauce).
Me either. Yet we continue to pay extra for performance upgrades (e.g. i7 vs i5, and 32GB RAM) because those help us create the appearance of speed and avoid memory constraint problems the coders didn’t bother to optimize out.
Here’s hoping that M$ surprises us next summer with an 11" Surface Pro 10, 23W Oryon, 16gb ram, 1tb ssd, 5g, onboard AI (NPU), and signature keyboard with pen slot.
I think those of us who are honest with ourselves (I’m talking to me here) are at that point as well - our computers have long ago surpassed our performance needs…
BUT I still WANT a Surface Pro device that is the size of an iPad Pro 11 (Surface Go) but gives me at least the performance of my SP8 WITH 5g connectivity (instead of the 4g I have now).
