Will refreshed iMacs be enough to spur Apple’s desktop sales?
The long-awaited refresh of Apple’s desktop Macs arrived Tuesday with a thud.
Given how long it’s been – April 2008 for the iMac, January 2008 for the Mac Pro and August 2007 for the Mac Mini – one might have expected more dramatic improvements than what we got Tuesday.
Only the Mac Pro got a new processor chip, the Intel Xeon “Nehalem.” The other Macs just got speed-bumped versions of the currently used Intel Core 2 Duo.
Nor did Apple significantly change any of the Mac case designs.
And Apple didn’t budge on pricing, either – which will no doubt disappoint Wall Street analysts.
One could argue that today’s computers are already so powerful, big leaps in capabilities are no longer required. But if Apple can’t wow us with snazzy new hardware and droolworthy specs, it should sweeten the deal by nudging down prices -- particularly in these dark economic times.
While Apple seriously needed to refresh its Mac line, I’m not sure the new models will do much to revive its slumping desktop sales. The affordability factor will likely continue to trump other considerations (e.g, the Mac’s superior overall value), at least for the near term.
The unequivocal good news is that Apple boosted hard drive capacity and base memory in every model but the $599 Mac Mini.
Apple also has upgraded the graphics capabilities in its desktops, although I find the trend toward integrated graphics in the low-end iMacs disturbing.
Integrated graphics chipsets don’t have their own memory, but share the memory used by the rest of the system. Such chipsets became common in laptops because they’re cheaper and consume less power than dedicated graphics cards.
However, you trade off price for performance. Although charts on Apple’s Web site indicate the new NVIDIA GeForce 9400M integrated graphics in the Mini and low-end iMacs is faster than the ATI Radeon HD 2400XT card the previous 20-inch iMac model used, that’s an older, low-end card.
Any current graphics card, even a low-end one, would deliver better performance particularly on systems with less system memory.
What puzzles me about this is that we are only months away from the launch of the next version of Mac OS X, Snow Leopard, which Apple promises will harness the graphics chips in your Mac to boost overall computing speed. It seems like an odd time to remove the dedicated graphics cards from any members of your flagship desktop line.
The Mac Mini always had integrated graphics, so the new NVIDIA graphics should be a hefty improvement over the long in the tooth Intel GMA 950 graphics used in the previous Mini.
One change that may irk veteran Mac users with legacy FireWire devices is the replacement of FireWire 400 ports with FireWire 800 ports on all models. After Apple did the same with its laptop line – and eliminated FireWire entirely from the MacBook Air and new aluminum MacBooks – the move is not a surprise.
But the transition may be an inconvenience for some. Unlike USB 1.1 and USB 2.0, the FireWire 800 ports are not the same shape as FireWire 400 ports. So users will need an adapter to connect older FireWire peripherals such as video cameras, scanners and external hard drives.
One other common change, also introduced on the aluminum MacBooks, is the adoption of the Mini DisplayPort. Like the FireWire 800 issue, this may mean the purchase of adapters for some users.
Apple is also promoting its new desktops as more environmentally friendly than ever, as they all comply with the new, stricter Energy Star 5.0 standards.
A closer look at the new Macs model by model:
Mac Mini: Not much changed. The $599 Mini gets a tiny speed boost and no extra base RAM; the $799 model gets double the base RAM but no speed boost. The Mini does use a faster type of RAM, and is now expandable to 4GB (up from 2GB).
Both models get substantially larger hard drives and a fifth USB port. The $599 gets upgraded from a combo drive (can burn CDs but only read DVDs) to a SuperDrive (can read and burn both CDs and DVDs).
iMac: Where are the quad-core iMacs? Many expected a quad core version at the top of the iMac line for this refresh. It have made sense, since another of Snow Leopard’s features will be to better capitalize on multiple processing cores. Maybe next time, eh?
The iMacs, like the Minis, benefit from a faster type of RAM. And Apple has increased the maximum RAM possible from 4 GB to 8 GB. But the 8x SuperDrives appear to be the same as those in the previous generation.
The biggest change here is to the middle-of the-line $1,499 model, which gets the larger 24-inch display and double the RAM and hard drive capacity. However, it’s saddled with the NVIDIA integrated graphics rather than the GeForce GT 120 card bestowed on the $1,799 model. And no speed bump whatsoever.
At least the entry-level 20-inch $1,199 iMac gets a tiny speed bump, although it too receives the downgrade to integrated graphics.
The $1,799 iMac’s dedicated graphics card and tiny speed boost combined with the doubled RAM and hard drive specs make it the most-improved iMac of the lot, and possibly the best deal.
In addition, Apple now offers a 3.06 GHz base variation (you could buy one before as a build-to-order option). This top-end iMac gets a better graphics card than the $1,799 model as well as the doubled RAM and hard-drive capacity, but whether it’s worth $400 more than its closest sibling is questionable.
Mac Pro: “The Mac Pro is a significant upgrade and starts at $300 less than before,” Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Product Marketing Phil Schiller boasts in the press release. Phil, I love you buddy, but aren’t you being just a bit disingenuous here? That $2,499 Mac Pro to which you refer is a quad core, but you’re comparing it to the price of the early 2008 8-core Mac Pro, which came in just one base configuration. Dropping that model down to a quad-core – the equivalent of the new quad model -- gave you a $2,399 Mac Pro. Shame on you, Phil.
Other than that, the new Nehalem chips are an excellent upgrade. It’s hard to say how much faster they’ll be than the Harpertowns in real world situations, but the benchmark charts on Apple’s Web site look promising.
The new Mac Pro also gets a slightly faster SuperDrive (18x, up from 16x), better RAM (1066 MHz DDR3, up from 800 MHz DDR2) and two more PCI Express 2.0 slots than its predecessor. Unfortunately, the base 8-core model also gets a $500 higher price tag. That’s crazy.
The quad model is much more reasonably priced -- $900 less than the 8-core -- but with one drawback. It has only four RAM slots, so is expandable only up to 8 GB (the 8-core can handle 32 GB in its 8 slots, just like the previous model). Otherwise its specs and architecture appear to match its pricier brother’s.
One final nit on the Mac Pros: Apple puts six 1 GB modules in the 8 core and three 1 GB modules in the quad, which leaves the users only two open slots in the 8-core and just one in the quad. So expanding RAM significantly will require the user to toss out some of those 1 GB modules. Why not put larger RAM modules in the Pros to retain more open slots?
Comments
This is the most thorough review of the recent Mac updates that I have read on the web - thank you!
Unfortunately, it confirms for me that this round of updates - across the entire Mac desktop line - is the worst update yet.
Come on Apple... you gave us the iPhone & multi-touch. We know that you can do great things.
These updates reinforce my view that Apple deliberately cripple select models, to push potential buyers into a higher price tier. This, and the continued lack of a reasonably priced mid-range tower Mac, is keeping me from spending any money on Apple products.
Posted by: bukweet | March 6, 2009 7:39 AM
There are many of us who will not buy new Mac's, because of the gloss screens. There are substantial numbers who want matte screens, i.e. anti-glare. Apple has given the anti-glare option to the new 17" MacBook Pro, so there is no reason why it can't off the matte, anti-glare screen as a paid-extra on the other computers.
Posted by: CJ | March 6, 2009 9:41 AM
For you to express disappointment at the lack of price drops tends to indicate that you do not quite understand how Apple operates. Apple does not allow units to stand pat and then drop the price. They establish price points and then upgrade the unit which is sold at that price point.
If you sell, at a particular price point, a unit with increased screen size, double the ram, double the storage, and improved graphics over the unit you previously sold at that same price point, you have effectively accomplished a rather significant price drop. Units at every price point received this treatment in some measure.
By upgrading units at unvarying price points, they are able to take advantage of economies of scale with respect to component acquisition, while maintaining their margins. By not jumping all over the map with their prices, they deemphasize price as a differentiator, thus facilitating their goal of competing on the basis of value.
Also, why the urgency about changing the cases? The aluminum cases are already striking designs, and I do not see them needing an immediate update.
Posted by: Steven | March 7, 2009 12:04 AM
@ Steven:
I have no problem with Apple "standing pat" at a particular price point. But to do this (and remain relevant in the marketplace), they must provide significant upgrades. My contention is that, at each respective price point, Apple have not provided a significant and compelling reason to upgrade. These are basically speed bumps, and they come at a premium price.
Apparently, this observation has been recognized by some investors, as shares of Apple fell 4 percent Friday after JPMorgan lowered 2009 and 2010 earnings estimates for the company. Given the current severe economic downturn, it is highly unlikely that Apple can maintain such premium prices and continue market share growth.
And I concur with CJ: why is there no matte screen option of the 15" MBPro, yet it's available for the 17" model? Also, why are iMacs available only with glossy screens? Why is the MacMini so damned difficult to open and upgrade? Why was the FireWire port deleted from the latest MB upgrade? Why doesn't Apple offer a mid-range mini-tower?...
The list goes on, and unfortunately I believe that 2009 will not be a good year for Mac hardware sales, even with Snow Leopard.
Posted by: bukweet | March 7, 2009 11:32 AM
I appreciate the thoroughness of the review, but I also disagree regarding the needed case redesign of the iMacs. Maybe the MacPro case (which has been around since the PowerMac G5). I also agree with others about the IMac gloss screen. Apple, provide an option.
I recently bought a used first generation MacPro 3.0GHZ 8-core and maxxed out the RAM while I knew the new processors were coming and a likely across-the-board upgrade of Macs was about to appear.
And they did.
While I was initially disappointed and thought maybe I should have waited, I am now thrilled about having my machine because Apple has apparently gone back to the thinking when they released the first G5 PowerMacs. The bottom unit similarly has different specs, lesser RAM capacity, etc.
I will applaud Macs over any other system when compared equally, but I think Apple missed the boat on this one.
After even a few months of the release of the PowerMac G5s, was anyone buying the Single Processor 1.6GHZ G5.
No.
And the same will happen to these lowest-end, lesser-capable Macs.
Apple, don't do this in the future - I'll be waiting for the next generations.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 8, 2009 1:18 PM
I think these updates are fine for Apple. You can make all these same complaints about other PC makers, car manufacturers, and so on. These are companies that have to make money, not deliver a Utopian product every time for very little. Compare the specs in the iMac to what you get for an AIO from Dell, Sony, and HP, and the Mac is the better deal. As far as the models not having enough horsepower, that is ridiculous, all I hear from people and read about is how people just want to read email, surf the net, and manage their photos. These systems provide plenty of horsepower and satisfy 95% of consumers out there. For the rest of us, we can spend a little more money.
Posted by: TheAshMan | March 10, 2009 9:25 AM
@buckweet,
You are certainly entitled to your opinion in this matter. But to criticize Apple for not altering a corporate culture and a business model which has been wildly successful by most measures is to demonstrate that you, too, do not have a depth of knowledge as to what makes Apple tick. Either that, or you just choose to ignore the obvious.
First of all, it is not Apple’s primary objective to provide “a significant and compelling reason to upgrade.” That’s a Windows philosophy, the objective of the Wintel coalition being to produce hardware which will render itself obsolete in short order, the better to spur repeat sales of “upgraded” hardware (along with, of course, the imbedded Windows license). The average Apple user is able to continue to use his or her hardware for a much longer period of time than the average Windows user, justifying, in part, the higher prices they pay. Because of this, Apple can concentrate its efforts on making it easier and cheaper for those users to upgrade their software. I have the original Intel iMac introduced in January, 2006. It was the best $1800 I ever spent, but because I did spend $1800, I have no intentions of buying new hardware anytime soon. But that’s OK - I added some RAM, and I can run any new software that Apple releases, including OS, at a reasonable speed. Apple is, however, providing significant and compelling reasons for those who are fed up with Windows to switch (I was one of those). Among Apple users, there is plenty of incentive to upgrade, but primarily for those whose hardware is 5-7 years old, as these new units represent more than mere “speed bumps” for them. Then again, my son’s school still has plenty of “lampshade” iMac G4’s running the latest version of OS X just fine.
And as for gauging any thing in Appledom by investor response, I think most of us recognize that investor response to Apple follows no rhyme or reason whatsoever. Apple reports beating all estimates and sets corporate records for sales and revenue, and the stock plummets the next day. Go figure. If I bought stock in Apple every time some pundit initiated investor hysteria with a negative earnings estimate (or a blurb about Steve Jobs' pancreas), I’d be a rich man right now. And illogical behavior not withstanding, Apple has been beating the pants off Microsoft, Dell, and others for several years now.
When I say that you don’t demonstrate that you know what makes Apple tick, here’s what I’m talking about: Apple (at least since Jobs’ return) has never concerned itself with making it’s hardware upgradeable, and they probably never will. The engineering decisions and compromises they must make in order to achieve (their stated goal of ) great industrial design are difficult enough without worrying about having to facilitate Gabby the Gamer being able to pop open the case with her pocket knife and replace a video card. And they have never shied away from encouraging those for whom this is a priority to purchase elsewhere. You then ask why no mini-tower. Really? Have you seen anything resembling a mini-tower from Apple in the past 11 years? I half-expected you to toss tired old, “Why doesn’t Apple license OS X?” into that paragraph. To continue to pummel deceased equines over why Apple doesn’t do something it’s never going to do, particularly if it’s been successful doing what it does – what’s the point?
I certainly do not consider myself an apologist for all Apple does. I, too, believe that leaving Firewire off the new MacBook was a major mistake. However, I have read accounts that, given the new design, they just didn’t have room in the case for it. Now that may or may not be true (I acknowledge that it might be just a blatant attempt to bump customers up to the MacBook Pro), but if it is true, it’s just another example of how engineering considerations drive product offerings. I also agree that if they offer the matte screen option for the 17’ MBP, they should offer it for the 15.4’ as well. Apple decisions do not always appear to make complete sense. But to suggest that a company on the kind of roll Apple is on is in danger of becoming irrelevant in the marketplace is to indicate that you are viewing the industry thru decidedly Microsoft-hued glasses.
Posted by: Steven | March 13, 2009 3:54 AM