Just days after experiencing a dramatic improvement in shipping times for new orders through Apple's online stores in North America, the iMac has seen its availability improve once again with stock configurations now shipping "within 24 hours". The rapid improvement in availability indicates that Apple is quickly reaching supply-demand balance for the new iMac some three months after its debut.
/article-new/2013/03/imac_2012_within_24_hours.jpg?lossy)
Apple's online stores in other countries still show some lag in availability, with Australia seeing quotes of 3-5 business days for all models while Europe is generally seeing 5-7 business days for 21.5-inch models and 1-2 weeks for 27-inch models.
Even in the countries such as the United States and Canada where stock configurations are being quoted nearly immediate availability, build-to-order configurations are still seeing rather lengthy build times with quotes of 7-10 business days. The disparity suggests that Apple has been prioritizing the building of stock configurations in an effort to fill distribution channels, with custom orders holding lower priority.
Simple build-to-order customizations such as the addition of RAM or a different hard drive typically only add a few days to shipping estimates, so the current quoted timeframes should drop as availability continues to improve. Likewise, Apple's international online stores should also see their availability improve as increased stock filters throughout the company's distribution channels.
Top Rated Comments
Probably won't be in the market for a new iMac for a few more years.
I have one of those 2010s myself and prefer it. I saw the new ones in the Apple store recently and they sure are pretty, but the 2010 has more usable functionality and is easier to upgrade. Besides I could care less about how thin the edge of a desktop computer can be. Looking at the 2010 or 2013 head on (which is what we will all do the vast majority of the time we own either), the thin edge is irrelevant at best (why did that SD card reader move around to the back again???).They really do make my 2010 iMac look old though.
Apple has done a great job on making some of the masses believe that ever-thinner is some kind of major benefit- even when to achieve that thinness, Apple must remove hardware utility and/or shift that utility to separate accessories. I suppose eventually all Apple gear will be as thin as a single sheet of paper, at which point the focus could perhaps shift to other targets that actually make newer models do more than older models (not just a little faster or via accessory attachments). Frankly, in my own case, I could almost care less how good (or thin or fat) my Mac looks as opposed to how well it helps me do what I need done.
The 2010 model also still runs Snow Leopard which is a bridge back to any legacy software dependent on Rosetta while the 2013 model pretty much put legacy software out of its misery. There's pros & cons in moving on, but the leanings are entirely in the subjective: if you need something that runs on Rosetta, you need Rosetta. If an upgrade is not available, the older SL-capable Macs are THE way to go. I have a few crucial applications that require Rosetta (no upgrades available), so I appreciate being able to still use those programs.
I hope that someone at Apple will eventually decide that how pretty the case looks is only important to the aesthetics crowd or the first impression "grab". It's the invisible engine inside that is much of what drives the lasting experience for Mac buyers. Sure, we want good-looking computing devices... but not to the point (IMO) where we overly sacrifice the muscle to squeeze a few more millimeters out of the shell. I want Macs that help me get more things done, not something to enter in "who has the thinnest desktop?" contests.
They really do make my 2010 iMac look old though.
Thats Great News :D
I have one of those 2010s myself and prefer it. I saw the new ones in the Apple store recently and they sure are pretty, but the 2010 has more usable functionality and is easier to upgrade. Besides I could care less about how thin the edge of a desktop computer can be. Looking at the 2010 or 2013 head on (which is what we will all do the vast majority of the time we own either), the thin edge is irrelevant at best (why did that SD card reader move around to the back again???).
Apple has done a great job on making some of the masses believe that ever-thinner is some kind of major benefit- even when to achieve that thinness, Apple must remove hardware utility and/or shift that utility to separate accessories. I suppose eventually all Apple gear will be as thin as a single sheet of paper, at which point the focus could perhaps shift to other targets that actually make newer models do more than older models (not just a little faster or via accessory attachments). Frankly, in my own case, I could almost care less how good (or thin or fat) my Mac looks as opposed to how well it helps me do what I need done.
The 2010 model also still runs Snow Leopard which is a bridge back to any legacy software dependent on Rosetta while the 2013 model pretty much put legacy software out of its misery. There's pros & cons in moving on, but the leanings are entirely in the subjective: if you need something that runs on Rosetta, you need Rosetta. If an upgrade is not available, the older SL-capable Macs are THE way to go. I have a few crucial applications that require Rosetta (no upgrades available), so I appreciate being able to still use those programs.
I hope that someone at Apple will eventually decide that how pretty the case looks is only important to the aesthetics crowd or the first impression "grab". It's the invisible engine inside that is much of what drives the lasting experience for Mac buyers. Sure, we want good-looking computing devices... but not to the point (IMO) where we overly sacrifice the muscle to squeeze a few more millimeters out of the shell. I want Macs that help me get more things done, not something to enter in "who has the thinnest desktop?" contests.
Appreciate your view.
But I'm with the OP. I really like the new one (own the same style as you but a 24" from 2008).
By no means does ours look bad - still look good after all these years (I mean look at the HP Spectre One, so very ugly IMO even though they have obviously taken the iMac as inspiration).
When I was a student and even in my low twenties I really didn't care about how the computer looked I just wanted fast (probably why I built my own Windows box). But now as a homeowner that spends extra on furniture that looks good (I mean a couch is a couch - somewhere to sit right? - but I'll pay more for one that looks good in my room). Same goes for my computer, and personally I think the new one is gorgeous and yes I'd pay more for 2 identically spec'd Windows machines if one looked better than another. I'm not going to run out and buy the new iMac. But I will probably get one when my iMac dies.
I wrote a bit recently regarding upgrading iMacs here: https://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=16941638&postcount=96. In summary I really don't think the iMac is the choice for anyone that needs to upgrade - whether we like that or not it's obviously the route Apple have gone down and I don't mind it. I think the number of people who NEED big horsepower and upgrade-ability are in the minority overall (although obviously it's a higher percentage on a site like this).
So in a mirror to your thoughts, I hope Apple keep pushing the aesthetic envelope as the power of these machines is good enough for most of the people buying them (not all buyers (like you for instance) - but Apple rarely caters for the niche these days).
Now if we were talking about the work horse Mac Pro, I'm with you - power, power and more power and definitely no sacrifices in size at the expense of performance.