Well, that seems odd

The 21" Retina iMac showed up today just as predicted by MacRumors, but Apple also changed some of the other configuration options. Yesterday I could order a 21" non-Retina iMac, 3.1GHz quad core i7, 16GB RAM and 1TB fusion drive for $2100.00 (well, $2099.00 but you know what I mean). Today that configuration is completely gone and is replaced by the Retina model and the same add-ons (3.1GHz quad core i7, 16GB RAM and 1 TB fusion drive) is now $2000.00. It just seems odd to me that Apple upgraded the hardware and lowered the cost.

I am not complaining, but a bit surprised. Thank you, Apple.

MikeFromMesa said:

It just seems odd to me that Apple upgraded the hardware and lowered the cost.

Click to expand...

I would not call it odd…I would call it business as usual. If one was to look at the price-point of various Apple models over the last 8-10 years or so…you would see (for the most part)…that the price is fairly flat (or even has gotten less). But…in that same 8-10 year period…hardware performance improvements have been significant.

If the cost of new & improved hardware always meant a price increase (versus the previous model)…an iMac that cost $1500 10 years ago would cost (for example) $10,000 today. Apple & other computer companies know that consumers are comfortable with certain price-points…and certain "value-points". If Apple charged too much for this new 21" retina iMac. Folks would simply get a 27" retina iMac.

Congrats that the rumors were true…and Apple released the 21" retina iMac. If this 21" retina iMac is a better fit for you (rather than the 27" retina iMac)…go for it.

- Nick

pigoo3 said:

I would not call it odd…I would call it business as usual. If one was to look at the price-point of various Apple models over the last 8-10 years or so…you would see (for the most part)…that the price is fairly flat (or even has gotten less). But…in that same 8-10 year period…hardware performance improvements have been significant.

If the cost of new & improved hardware always meant a price increase (versus the previous model)…an iMac that cost $1500 10 years ago would cost (for example) $10,000 today. Apple & other computer companies know that consumers are comfortable with certain price-points…and certain "value-points". If Apple charged too much for this new 21" retina iMac. Folks would simply get a 27" retina iMac.

Congrats that the rumors were true…and Apple released the 21" retina iMac. If this 21" retina iMac is a better fit for you (rather than the 27" retina iMac)…go for it.

- Nick

Click to expand...

Perhaps I am too new to the Mac. I expected that the introduction of the Retina screen would have boosted the price at least $100 for an equivalent configuration and would have been very happy to have seen the price remain the same. To see it drop for essentially the same machine just surprised me. Pleased me as I am considering purchasing it, but surprised me. Perhaps it should not have, but it did.

MikeFromMesa said:

I expected that the introduction of the Retina screen would have boosted the price at least $100 for an equivalent configuration and would have been very happy to have seen the price remain the same.

Click to expand...

Actually (in contradiction to what I posted above)…if I was asked the question…"When introduced would a new 21" retina iMac cost more than the previous non-retina 21" iMac with the same ram & CPU spec's?" I probably would have said yes. Since the "retina display" in the new 21" retina iMac has got to cost more then the previous 21" non-retina display.

But here's the part that you & I don't know. The cost to manufacture the old 21" iMac has probably gone down since it was introduced:

- parts may cost less now
- certain efficiencies in the manufacturing process may have been discovered
- design changes in the new 21" retina iMac may make it less costly to produce (materials & labor)

The older technology in the previous 21" iMac may have been over-priced at this point ($2100 for the previous iMac may have been too much)…and maybe it NOW…should be closer to $1800 or $1600. So maybe…if we took an older non-retina 21" iMac which should be selling for $1800 or less (rather than $2100)…plus the cost of the newer more expensive 21" retina display. This gets us back to the $2100 price point.

This is the way Apple (and other electronics manufacturers) can release newer & better models year after years (with better hardware & performance)…yet still charge the same price as last years model.

- Nick

I should also mention (if I'm not mistaken). The other two remaining non-retina 21" iMac's received a small CPU "speed-bump"…and a GPU upgrade. So the two non-retina 21" iMac's are also "better"…but are also still selling for the same price as the previous model.

- Nick

p.s. I also believe that the lowest end 21" non-retina iMac now comes with a 1 terabyte drive rather than 500gig.

MikeFromMesa said:

Yesterday I could order a 21" non-Retina iMac, 3.1GHz quad core i7, 16GB RAM and 1TB fusion drive for $2100.00 (well, $2099.00 but you know what I mean). Today that configuration is completely gone and is replaced by the Retina model and the same add-ons (3.1GHz quad core i7, 16GB RAM and 1 TB fusion drive) is now $2000.00.

Click to expand...

By the way…I also wanted to mention that "today's" new 21" retina iMac is NOT exactly the same as "yesterday's" non-retina 21" iMac (minus the retina display part of course).

All of the new 21" retina iMac's ONLY come with integrated graphics hardware. Some of "yesterday's" 21" non-retina iMac's came with dedicated graphics hardware. Whether or not the new Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is better than the previous dedicated graphics in the 21" iMac will have to be seen.

This is possibly one way Apple saved some money with the price of the new 21" retina iMac's (no dedicated graphics hardware). So yesterday's & today's 21" iMac's are not exactly the same (not counting the retina display).

- Nick

Good catch. For an overwhelming majority of users (I'm talking 97-plus percent) this will make no difference at all. Gamers who (curiously) choose a 21-inch though should be aware of that change, however. It's kind of a nice comment on Intel's progress with the Iris line that Apple did not feel the need for a dedicated card in a Retina 4K-quality machine!

pigoo3 said:

I should also mention (if I'm not mistaken). The other two remaining non-retina 21" iMac's received a small CPU "speed-bump"…and a GPU upgrade. So the two non-retina 21" iMac's are also "better"…but are also still selling for the same price as the previous model.

- Nick

p.s. I also believe that the lowest end 21" non-retina iMac now comes with a 1 terabyte drive rather than 500gig.

Click to expand...

The only iMac models, 21 or 27 inch, that you can buy now that have an i7 (quad core) are the retina models. The old 21" non-retina offered an upgrade to i7, but now does not. If you want an i7 quad core chip in your iMac, you have to buy the Retina model. However I had not noticed that the graphics card option was gone from the 21 inch Retina and that probably accounts for the price drop. I assume the graphics card and memory were more expensive than the integrated graphics. I do wonder if it is up to the kind of work the old 21 inch i7 non-retina was capable of.

MikeFromMesa said:

I do wonder if it is up to the kind of work the old 21 inch i7 non-retina was capable of.

Click to expand...

Now (with the release of new models) is a great time to start watching the Apple refurbished area to see if the former 21" i7 iMac shows up. Could be a rare find though…since Apple may not have had many orders for them. Could look for a previous 27" model as well.

- Nick

Given that the new ones are a serious graphics capability upgrade from the previous non-Retina ones, I should think that Mike's question is moot -- it should be able to do anything and more than what the previous model did until (possibly) you start getting into some area so complex that only a discrete card can do the job -- nothing any 21.5-inch owner is likely to be doing.

Another difference is that the Fusion Drive now has only a 24GB SSD portion rather than the 128GB it used to. Again, this is likely to not make a material difference to 99 percent of users, but I'm sure that saved a few bucks.

chas_m said:

but I'm sure that saved a few bucks.

Click to expand...

As always the thought of saving some money is appealing but I have generally found that spending a bit more makes the purchase both more satisfying initially but also make the product last longer before "processor envy" starts eating into one's soul.

Spend a couple of bucks on a faster chip and I will be more satisfied now, and in the future, with the performance. Spend a couple of bucks on more memory and I will be more satisfied now, and in the future, with the performance. And so on. At least the has been my experience.