Agreed. I run a small game company and I was looking forward to buying a high-end computer. I was considering the iMac due to its form factor. Then, one of my friends suggested an HP Z1 workstation. Both are priced similarly and share the same form-factor, yet I realized I would be over-paying Apple if I went for the iMac because:
1) The fucking iMac still has no USB 3.0, though we're two years ahead of 2010
2) The HP Z1 comes with a professional NVidia Quadro card, whereas the iMac comes with a mobile Graphics (Radeon 6790M)
4) The HP comes with a Xeon, whereas, Apple gives me an i5 for the same price. (Wtf!)
5) The HP is user-upgradeable (including the graphics card), whereas you can't upgrade anything more than the RAM on the iMac.
And much much more. If anything, Apple has proved to be ultra-expensive and has always tried to make things expensive. When someone buys a professional computer, they buy it for the performance more than the design. The iMacs are simply overrated piece of under-rated hardware.
1) The fucking iMac still has no USB 3.0, though we're two years ahead of 2010
2) The HP Z1 comes with a professional NVidia Quadro card, whereas the iMac comes with a mobile Graphics (Radeon 6790M)
4) The HP comes with a Xeon, whereas, Apple gives me an i5 for the same price. (Wtf!)
5) The HP is user-upgradeable (including the graphics card), whereas you can't upgrade anything more than the RAM on the iMac.
And much much more. If anything, Apple has proved to be ultra-expensive and has always tried to make things expensive. When someone buys a professional computer, they buy it for the performance more than the design. The iMacs are simply overrated piece of under-rated hardware.