New M1 iMac shipping with 256GB storage as standard!!!

[Blott]

So Apple announce a whole new line of iMacs...starting with just 256GB storage - that's an absolute joke!
Most people's phones have more storage than that for crying out loud!!!!
It's 2021, how the hell can they justify an iMac now having less storage space than an iMac that shipped in 2009???
Shameful!!!

[desmond]

Again, these are still the entry level M1 machines.

The bigger machines with more I/O, storage and power will be coming later in the year - iMacs, Macbook Pro etc.

As far as I can see, the SSD configs are largely the same as the previous iMacs - start at 256, go to 512, with an up to 2TB option, pricey as usual. Stingy for pro users of course, but for average family workloads with lots of cloud stuff to boot, probably fine...

And now the entry level machines are 24" displays rather than 21.5" ones, faster and quieter too.

I can't say I like the aesthetic look of them though that much... I'm also surprised there's two versions of the regular keyboard, one with touch ID and one without. Touch ID must be an expensive to build in feature - Steve Jobs I'm sure would have just had one, with the cool new feature, priced accordingly...

[CS70]

So Apple announce a whole new line of iMacs...starting with just 256GB storage - that's an absolute joke!
Most people's phones have more storage than that for crying out loud!!!!
It's 2021, how the hell can they justify an iMac now having less storage space than an iMac that shipped in 2009???
Shameful!!!

Ahah well, just do not buy it and you'll be fine!

[Blott]

They've been perniciously slimming down storage on Macs for last 5 or 6 years - particularly on laptops, but there's no excuse for that on a desktop.
An entry level iMac in 2009 shipped with 500GB.
A 500GB NVME SSD on Amazon sells for £46, so it'd be buttons for Apple to have started with that (also small) storage as the baseline instead.
The Mac OS itself takes about 35GB and you'll lose 10GB or so just for formatting the SSD, so basically from starting you'll have just 200GB of storage on the baseline iMac for apps and files.
Apple should be absolutely shamed for this - 8GB RAM and 256GB storage...on a desktop computer in 2021.
For the M1 Mac Mini, Apple charge £200 to upgrade the storage from 256Gb to 500GB or £400 to upgrade to 1TB.
Likewise upgrading RAM to 16GB is another £200.
Assuming it's the same for the iMac, that'd make an 'entry level' iMac with a modest 16GB RAM and 1TB storage £1849.00. Let's not forget no SD slot, no ethernet and just 2 USB ports too, so it actually has less ports than a 2009 iMac - like I said, they are taking the piss.
Apple are always going on about how their headquarters are carbon neutral and uses 100% green energy, yet simultaneously make their products almost unrepairable and effectively build in obsolescence by shipping them with these pitiful amounts of (unexpandable) RAM and thread bare storage space. So much for their 'green' credentials then!
It's poor practice at best, completely unethical at worst IMO.

[desmond]

An entry level iMac in 2009 shipped with 500GB.

Spinning drive though, not SSD, presumably. Might have even been a Fusion drive, worst of both worlds. And I don't think they had a 2TB SSD option back then either.

A 500GB NVME SSD on Amazon sells for £46, so it'd be buttons for Apple to have started with that (also small) storage as the baseline instead.

They've always treated storage and RAM as areas to massively profit on, and it could certainly be seen to be greedy, the prices they charge for addons. Good business for them though. Same with iCloud storage. You buy your 1TB iPhone, and it backs up to the cloud automatically... to your 5GB cloud space.

I know it's difficult at the scale they operate, but you'd have thought they could at least give iPhone purchasers (not a cheap device!) *at least* the size of iPhone's storage they buy so they can back it up as part of the price. Nope... another upsell, or an inconvenience for the user.

Again, good business I guess, but...

It's poor practice at best, completely unethical at worst IMO.

Not unethical - they make a product and price it as they think the market will bear. And people make product choices accordingly...

[blinddrew]

It's poor practice at best, completely unethical at worst IMO.

Not unethical - they make a product and price it as they think the market will bear. And people make product choices accordingly...

Actually I think the forced obsolescence strays into the unethical in my view.
Hence I don't buy Macs.

[ConcertinaChap]

Might have even been a Fusion drive, worst of both worlds.

Rather off-topic but we have a 2012 Mac Mini with 1TB fusion drive which has behaved well and performed well (much better than unaided spinning rust could) for a good few years. My own opinion is that the fusion drive was a nifty way of getting much of the performance of an SSD without much of the cost. The fusion drive's time is passing along with the HD but it was a clever and well implemented technology in its day.

Actually I think the forced obsolescence strays into the unethical in my view.

Even as a Mac user I have to question some of Apple's practices in this area.

CC

[Blott]

Desmond I meant their green practices were unethical, though you'd have a strong argument for their storage practices too. The two are linked.

The shoulder shrugging apathy and 'that's just the way it is' attitude only serves to ensure that Apple continues this kind of practice.

This should be derided by the press, the media silence on it is deafening!

At least in 2009 the end user could choose to increase the amount of RAM in future themselves, there's no such luxury for the current iMac.

To introduce an iMac in 2021 with almost half of the amount of storage of the corresponding model that is TWELVE years older is scandalous. I'd wager a 500GB SSD costs no more now than a 500GB spindle hard drive did in 2009.

Anyway, you clearly don't agree so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I'm all for Apple making money on upgrades btw, but their products shouldn't offer less than they did over a decade ago, purely to encourage upgrading - especially when there's no way for the user to address this in future, which shortens the lifespan of the product considerably.

They should be taken to task for this unnecessary practice which is unethical and contributes to the disposable culture that is a real problem for the environment.

[Jumpeyspyder]

Looks pretty, but seriously horrible for us running mac labs in education

The ethernet is on a wall wart
Magnetic attached power cable better be very secure
no standard USB Ports (Yes some of us need to connect Keyboards and mice, iLok dongles, Midi Keyboards, graphics tablet, memory sticks)

[Blott]

Looks pretty, but seriously horrible for us running mac labs in education

The ethernet is on a wall wart

Ethernet is only on the middle model, there's no ethernet at all on the entry level iMac.

[desmond]

Desmond I meant their green practices were unethical, though you'd have a strong argument for their storage practices too. The two are linked.

Ok, I don't agree, but I understand what you mean...

The shoulder shrugging apathy and 'that's just the way it is' attitude only serves to ensure that Apple continues this kind of practice.

Hmm, I guess that one is directed at me. Yes, I would prefer more features/specs for my money, and I suspect that, well, pretty much everyone also does. Ok, so what am I supposed to do? Write an angry forum post? Tell everyone I know how much Apple sucks? Email Tim Cook and tell him he should spec and price his products as I want them to be?

Or should I just not buy an Apple computer, and instead buy something else that is vastly inferior for my needs and requires a huge switching cost just so I can get a bigger drive for my money?

At least in 2009 the end user could choose to increase the amount of RAM in future themselves, there's no such luxury for the current iMac.

Sure, and again, I also would prefer user-upgradable components. However, now the RAM is inside the SOC, which gives a whole bunch of performance advantages, that's difficult. Unless I stick with my now aging 2010, overheating laptop, which does have user-replaceable RAM (not that it means that much anyway, as I can't put in more than I already have in there!)

To introduce an iMac in 2021 with almost half of the amount of storage of the corresponding model that is TWELVE years older is scandalous.

I don't see it the way you do, sorry. If you were to argue the case for coming with 8GB of RAM, I'd be more sympathetic. Honestly, of the typical Mac user base, I don't know the percentages, but I'd be willing to bet that consumers barely use a fraction of that SSD space (they probably won't install much more on that machine than it comes with, the rest of the use cases are email, web browsing, documents etc), and for the more more demanding user - the creative pro types, for example, they will absolutely have plenty of available external storage and wouldn't expect to have, eg, multi-terabytes of sample libraries on their laptop.

Anyway, you clearly don't agree so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I don't disagree that the default options are small for *my* needs, and I don't disagree that Apple's pricing is aggressive on their options. However, I don't think it's some kind of scandal, as you're suggesting.

I'm all for Apple making money on upgrades btw, but their products shouldn't offer less than they did over a decade ago, purely to encourage upgrading - especially when there's no way for the user to address this in future, which shortens the lifespan of the product considerably.

You're taking that by size, that's one metric. Performance is another. SSD's vastly - *vastly* - outperform spinning drives, so as far as machine performance goes, you're getting *way more* than those old machines, ie a much faster, quicker booting, quicker to run applications machine - not to mention the CPU performance, lack of heat, fan noise and all the other great things about this current generation of products which, to me, make them extremely attractive and exciting. Honestly, you're getting such a vastly better machine for a similar amount of money it's almost not worth comparing with the old stuff (which I'm still on, BTW). But you're still stuck on that one metric. Fair enough, I get that it's important to you - it's going to be an issue for me too, and until all the machines are out I haven't decided which way to go yet.

But demanding that everyone in the media shout "it's not fair!" because you want to have a larger hard drive by default doesn't seem that useful to me. Probably just my shoulder-shrugging apathy, though...

[desmond]

Ethernet is only on the middle model, there's no ethernet at all on the entry level iMac.

Thanks - as I said, I haven't seen the specs for the range, and had only seen the event at the time, where the feature breakdown of various models was not discussed.

[dbfs]

As mentioned recently, Apple machines are consumer machines. The os changes far too often causing all sorts of bother for media professionals. Looking at these new machines confirms the consumer focus. I say just avoid them. Thats what i started doing and its going well. I actually feel relieved. I switched to Reaper for Daw after years of Logic and Cubase. Got an Rme interface and I have no major updates to dread and the system is very solid. Why did take me so long.

[Howdy Doody Time]

This is typical, on this forum historically, goes back years. Someone complains about Apple products, and Sheldon (read Desmond) disects each point and defends it on Apples behalf.

On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with that, except it does nothing to alleviate the problem if it can't be fixed by a visit to Terminal for example because it is a marketing or design fault, but instead annoys the OP even more.

Sheldon does regularly suggest fixes to problems which can be solved by the user though, so that's OK, no excellent.

The real problem with the Sheldon approach is that it hides or masks genuine difficulties caused by Apple releasing products with unsolved issues. Catalina was a perfect example, and there are others.

Whether he means it or not, Sheldon paints the best possible picture of the perfect Mac by dismissing issues out of hand, item by item, issues which perplex users to the point of distraction, and even prompt them to invest in Windows equipment out of frustration.

However, every forum probably needs a Sheldon, and a grumpy old git like me.

[ConcertinaChap]

Hmmm. Just goes to show how out of touch with popular culture I am. I had to look up "Sheldon"

CC