Continuing to disappoint

Mac
#41

It’s far fetched because by thinking that Apple is only shipping hard drives in iMacs to make money off consumers, you automatically dismiss other, perhaps equally as likely, possibilities. You’re twisting facts to fit the narrative, not the narrative to fit the facts — even though no one outside of Apple, no matter how vehemently they argue on online forums, knows why they’re still shipping hard drives in iMacs.

Sure, Apple could still be shipping hard drives in iMacs to make the most amount of money possible. It’s definitely a possibility, and it may even be a likely possibility. But if someone truly believe that, where does it stop?

It’s a slippery slope, that one. What next? Apple only laminate displays on iPads because they feel it’s a premium feature? Only the iPad Pro with the highest amount of storage gets the most RAM, because screw you? What are you, poor or something? Before you know it, next you’ll be telling me that Apple deliberately price iPhones at the very edge of what people can afford, instead of what they’re actually worth. :unamused:

Like I said, I don’t disagree. Hard drives in iMacs are bad for everyone. But saying that Apple are only doing it for the money feels… wrong, somehow. There’s a whole myriad of possible reasons that iMacs still have hard drives, and the conclusion you come to is that Apple wants to extract as much money as they can from anyone even glancing in the direction of an Apple Store?

Maybe they are! You’re allowed to think what you want. It just seems… implausible, especially in the face of everything else Apple has done, and everything Apple stands for.

Hey, maybe I’m just more of an optimist than you are. All I know is, hard drive in iMacs are terrible, but I refuse to believe that Apple are solely doing it for the money. That seems like a long bow to draw, at least far longer than accepting that there’s some other — perhaps unknowable — explanation at play, and it’s not just part of the late capitalist world we live in.

#42

The difficulty in upgrading an iMac is the crux of this issue I think Benny. Apple are really committing the spinning HD in these machines for its entire life, hence making the useable lifetime shorter so the effective annual cost of ownership goes up, because a replacement machine will be desired sooner.

But, for a desktop machine, wouldn’t an adequate SSD or hybrid drive on board, with a Thunderbolt 3 external for data storage be a quite satisfactory set up ? - I know that is an added cost for the set up though, and is visually less appealing, unless you stick the external on a long leash under the desk maybe.
I run like this with my 2015 MBP with a 1TB SSD, and use a 2TB 2.5 inch thunderbolt drive for all the less often accessed or archive files that I want at hand, and also for critical backup copies.

Like the man said, “I feel the need for speed” - but how much speed do you really need ?

#43

For me that’s the big downside, the primary reason I buy iMacs is the visual appeal.

Sure I want good performance but the visual look is an essential and if I have to have a cable and external enclosure off the iMac then that’s gone.

I get that lots of people couldn’t care less but I do shrug.

#44

I see this said a lot, but really, they are easily upgraded. Needs to be done by an Apple certified tech, but it’s totally doable – indeed it’s the last Mac with upgradeable storage! Shouldn’t cost more than $200 in labour. I realise that’s not peanuts, but it means you can buy a Samsung SSD and have it installed easily. All up for a 1TB would be less than ~$450 or a 2TB for ~$700.

Beware the day Apple switch to SSD inside iMac as then it’ll have a T2 and no upgradability at all!

P.S. Oh, and the RAM can be upgraded too while the tech is in there in a 21.5-inch model still I think. Win Win.

#45

With all due respect, I think you’re giving Apple more credit than is due.

2 Likes
#46

Someone around here has to.

1 Like
#47

I think a few things are contributing here…

  1. Unlike laptops, there’s no ‘failure of parts due to movement of device’ associated with HDDs on desktops, so no net benefit other than speed.
  2. But, the downside is they are WAY more expensive $/gig. I think Apple have decided that they don’t want to go backwards in storage space on iMacs (imagine how many ppl out there would be migrating from an iMac that’s 10 years old)
  3. Apple has always famously tried to maintain their margins. I’m convinced that if Apple could make an iMac with an SSD with the same amount of storage for the same price they would do that instead. But viewed with (2) above that isn’t possible.
  4. Apple likely don’t want to put in an SSD as standard in any model unless they go all SSD across the range. That means ppl previously with 1/2/3TB fusion drives suddenly going back to 256GB SSDs or facing a huge price hike.

I really don’t think it’s some malicious thought from Apple. I think it’s them balancing these things.

I would LOVE to see them stock some SSD models (purely to make it quicker to get one for my clients when needed — I don’t let anyone order a non CTO SSD model!). And while it’s criminal to have non Fusion models, I reckon that really is just a price point issue. I would LOVE if the iMac had at least Fusion across the line.

1 Like
#48

The correct answer for a desktop machine is to fit a small system drive (say 256Gb) and a large storage drive (say 1/2/3 TB). That may well be what Apple are attempting to do with the Fusion drives but it just doesn’t work well and they should bite the bullet and start installing 2 separate drives.

1 Like
#49

Completely disagree. For non-techy users having separate drives is confusing and hard to manage. I love the concept of the Fusion drive, and with more flash storage it’s better than without. But obviously pure SSD is best.

#50

There are simple ways for an operating system to make the process of having a system drive and a storage drive completely invisible to the end user.

That way there is no downside and lots of upside.

#51

I’d argue that’s what a Fusion Drive is. :slight_smile: I understand the limitations, but the biggest issue with Fusion Drives is how big the SSD component it. It used to be much bigger.

#52

I don’t remember but I doubt it approached 256Gb or even 128Gb.

#53

I agree. And I think this is far more plausible than the “Apple is just a bunch of money grubbing meanies” idea.

To believe the latter, one has to accept that Apple’s publicly expressed rationales for why they do things is just an elaborate and breathtakingly cynical hoax. Clearly that’s possible, but given how hard it is to keep secrets when lots of people know them, it is far more likely that Apple is more or less who they purport to be.

Do they go hard at being “operationally competent”? Of course they do. Who wouldn’t? Do they tenaciously maintain high margins on their stuff? You bet. Would they, as one of the largest publicly traded companies in the world, go against all their legally binding guidance to shareholders and engage in a bizarre social science experiment to see how far they can screw their customers with price rises? Seems unlikely. For so many reasons, not the least of which is that it would expose them to large numbers of lawsuits because lying to shareholders is not a trivial matter and they could all sue.

As another of many examples, their commitment to renewables and recycling and supply chain ethics, imperfect though they may be, are not the actions of a company who has no other concern than milking customers. Why? Because there are far cheaper ways to pretend you give a shit and plenty of examples of what that kind of company looks like. And it’s nothing like Apple.

I also really wish they were making a Mac Pro whose target market included me because I’ve had a few and I would love to keep buying them, but it seems like those days are over. I look at the current model and feel similarly to when I see an advertisement that doesn’t seem to make sense: It may be utter crap, or it may simply be targeted at someone else.

1 Like
#54

They used to be 128GB, and are now 32GB on lower end models.

1 Like
#55

128Gb is marginally ok, 32Gb is so small as to be almost pointless.

#56

There are some good thoughts in this discussion.

Apple are aware that their products are very expensive in some markets. They want to offer a lowest-cost entry level iMac without sacrificing margin. Hard disks are less expensive than SSD. So they offer a hard disk.

Apple products seem more expensive. They are. Our exchange rate in 2011 was 1.07 USD per AUD. Now it is about 0.6 USD per AUD. The $999 for an entry level MacBook Air has increased in price over time to $1,780 just due to the exchange rate.

Hard disks are slower and less reliable than SSD. However, they do function and are adequate for many people who just browse and email.

Apple is a huge, for-profit company. It designs and manufactures many great products (and some not-so-great products). It is not a benevolent organisation or charity. I am sure that the Apple design engineers take great pride in their products and would love to fit a 1TB SSD in every Mac. However, the necessary increase in selling price would kill sales, particularly in high priced markets such as ours.

I confronted iMac pricing late last year. After using, and self upgrading a 20” 2008 iMac for 11 years, I purchased a 27” iMac with a 500GB SSD and 16GB RAM. The price was large, but if it lasts say 10 years, it equates to about $340 per year, or less than $30 a month. In comparison, I spend $25 a month for a digital subscription to The Age.

When I bought that 2008 iMac, I had to pay for OSX upgrades each year. From memory, iCloud did not exist. I paid for iWorks and iLife app bundles. The Apple ecosystem was hardly a thing. Now MacOS upgrades are free, iWorks and iLife apps are free and the ecosystem is huge. That all costs Apple to develop and maintain.

In short, I can see why Apple products cost more in AUD now. It is sad.

3 Likes
#57

I argue that HDDs are inadequate and have been for years, they leave the current low and mid range iMac being slower than 10 year old machines. Apple’s margins on Macs are massive, and every year they continue to leave the HDDs in, instead of an SSD, the margin grows.

I don’t get why they can’t put SATA SSDs in for the low end, why does it have to be super expensive 2000mbps SSDs or cheap as chips 50mbps HDDs. SATA SSDs are cheap as chips today, and the fact they can’t swap out borderline ineffectual technology for something that would improve their base and mid range iMacs greatly, is beyond me.

Apple does not sell budget machines, even in the US their machines are seen as high end, so they should be, so they shouldn’t be including budget components. It is taking advantage of those who trust the Apple brand.

And this is where, if Apple cared about offering ‘the best experience’ they’d take the slight hit and put SATA SSDs in. I firmly believe that Apple has lost touch of the balance between offering the best experience and profit making, that they used to have.

2 Likes
#58

The fusion drive works well, but in another event of Apple cost cutting, the 1TB Fusion drive has a 24GB SSD in it (they used to have 128GB). The 24GB is barely enough to hold the OS + applications.

Isn’t that one of the key components of capitalism - pricing is set to what the market can bear?

1 Like
#59

Our iMac is running from a USB C connected Samsung T5 which is Velco taped to the back out of sight. Works a treat and is much faster than the fusion drive was.

I have been meaning to try splitting the Fusion drive to install the OS to that and save stuff to the HDD. It shows up as a 28GB SSD** and happily installed Catalina from an image a created just before the last update was released… when I’ve tried to install the update today it tells me I don’t have enough free space :stuck_out_tongue: So it seems 28GB isn’t enough even for just the OS to operate. Oh well, USB drive plugged back in and I’m running from that again with a re-created fusion drive for storage.

If Apple were to have a 256GB SSD + HDD it would likely work far better since it really could keep most stuff on the SSD. I’d like to think that it was coded to ensure the OS (and apps) were on the SSD at all times since that’s the bit most people want to be fast.

**Note that I bought the mid range 27" iMac of the three off the shelf units available, so we aren’t talking bottom of the range, yet this is the fusion drive it comes with? I get the idea of the lowest possible cost entry-level model which may be compromised to make that price point, but something a little better as you moved up the range would be nice. How many people even know about BTO options vs just walking into the store to purchase?

#60

If your iMac has a Fusion, it has an NVMe slot for SSD… :wink: