So after Apple introduced a cheaper iMac, a 21.5-inch model, for $1,099, it didn’t take long for the first tear-downs and benchmarks to appear. So we know, for example, that upgrading is impossible even if you take it apart. The 8GB RAM is soldered onto the main board, for example. But the target users probably wouldn’t fret over the standard configuration.

You see, early benchmarks indicate that the entry-level iMac’s performance is actually quite close to the previous bottom-of-the-line $1,299 model, at least in a single-core benchmark. This despite the fact that the cheapest model features the basic MacBook Air’s 1.4GHz dual-core Intel Core i5, compared to a 2.7GHz quad-core Intel i5. The former will Turbo Boost to 2.7GHz, while the latter goes up to 3.2GHz. But I suppose that feature, which impacts a single core under load, is the main reason for the minor performance difference.

In the real world, I’d probably challenge most Mac users to perceive a meaningful difference between the two, except for the lesser graphics chip with popular games. But that’s the point. Actual performance of a new Mac these days is, by and large, more than acceptable even for the $599 Mac mini. Improvements in Intel chip technology in recent years have focused mostly on power efficiency, which is a big deal on a note-book, and beefier integrated graphics.

The real change is in a solid state drive, which can bring a slower Mac close in performance to a much faster one since so many functions are disk-intensive. Bootup times, for example, are amazingly fast when an SSD is in place, even when you use the combo Fusion drive. But few customers for a $1,099 iMac will consider more costly options. It is probably perfect for the people who might otherwise have avoided a Mac because of price, or have modest computing needs that don’t require paying extra for more powerful hardware.

Indeed, the iMac lineup has become the mainstream Mac. Professional users can max out the processor, add beefier graphics, and a Fusion drive or full SSD, and get performance that may match or exceed that of a Mac Pro in most respects. The key issue is whether they are using the very few apps that benefit from multicore processors, or require the extensive external expansion that’s offered on a Mac Pro.

So I wasn’t surprised when one of my colleagues dumped an older Mac Pro and replaced it with a Mac mini a couple of years ago. Well, it was outfitted with faster drives and such, but for most of his needs, the performance difference wasn’t significant.

This explains why the window of compatibility for OS X Yosemite covers Macs that are from four to six years old, depending on whether they have true 64-bit processors. The possible fly in the ointment is the lack of support for Bluetooth LE, first introduced in 2011 and 2012 Macs, which may be required to make the Handoff feature run. I suppose this issue will be fleshed out more in the next few weeks, though it would be highly unfortunate to tout such an important feature and leave millions of users unsupported. I suppose Apple could offer support for one of those cheap Bluetooth LE USB adapters, which would resolve the situation for those who care.

Meantime, the fact that most Macs offer good enough performance for many users is the great equalizer. It means you can focus on price and configuration and not worry that your Mac may by poky for routine tasks. Obviously gamers would want a Mac with more powerful graphics, and those doing heavy-duty video editing, 3D rendering and other processor-intensive tasks will possibly place the Mac Pro in their sights.

Of course, Apple’s critics will continue to claim that Macs are overpriced, which is decidedly not true. When you actually compare the hardware and the software bundle, Macs are quite competitive up and down the line. Indeed, when it comes to the Mac Pro, Apple manages to make them cheaper than a PC, assuming you can even find one that’s similarly equipped, and that’s not so easy, as I discovered when I tried just that a while back.

It’s also true that the $1,099 iMac will get lots of criticism because of the lack of expandability. But I can see where Apple made the internal workings similar to the MacBook Air to keep the price down, expecting to reach a number of potential customers who might not have considered buying a Mac for $200 more. As the price goes down, resistance lessens, and this is a great time to go after Windows users. So many are disgusted with the pathetic state of PC hardware — even the Surface 3 — and the failings of Windows 8.1.

Of course, it’s also the twilight of the PC era, meaning that Apple and the PC makers are fighting for a diminishing market, but if Apple can continue to grow sales, for those who still want a traditional form factor, this may be the best time to make it so.

Hardly a day passes where I don’t see a dumb headline about Apple. As you regular readers know, putting Apple in a headline is often guaranteed to generate traffic. Even users of products built by other companies can’t resist Apple, so if you want to build up that hit count, and beef up your monthly payment from Google for its AdSense service, that’s the way to do it. I suppose. What’s more it doesn’t matter whether the content is worth a second look. The magic headline is enough.

So this week, as rumored for a while, Apple introduced a cheaper iMac, the first one listing for $1,099 in a couple of years. While that may still seem a tad expensive compared to those PC boxes you can get at the local discount store, as all-in-ones go, it’s quite favorably priced. But one online commentator wants to suggest that maybe it’s a little too cheap.

In any case, to cut $200 from the price, Apple “decontented” the cheapest 21.5-inch iMac. Instead of the 2.7GHz quad-core Intel Core i5, you get the 1.4GHz dual-core low-power variant already used in the latest MacBook Air. Hard drive capacity drops from 1TB to 500GB. That’s still enough for most, and if your budget is tight, this may be the perfect personal computer for you. But remember that RAM cannot be upgraded, though 8GB ought to be sufficient to run most apps with pretty good performance. Remember that multiple cores doesn’t count for much except for a few apps that are more suited to a Mac Pro.

So this seems to be a pretty decent deal, same for the $899 MacBook Air. It may also entice more customers to try a Mac, particularly at a time when Microsoft is turning off customers right and left with Windows 8.1.

What’s more, I think that a lot of customers would accept the tradeoffs, considering the junk that passes for a cheap PC these days. While spending upwards of $1,000 is still fairly high, it’s not that Apple has had any problems beating the PC market in growing sales of new Macs.

There appears to be another reason why Apple has opted for tiny upgrades, or lesser content to reduce the price of new Macs and keep sales moving. It’s also a possible reason why speculation about Apple switching to ARM chips — however improbable — has arisen again. Evidently Intel is having trouble finishing development of the next generation chips, code-named Broadwell.

After a number of delays, the latest promise is that the new CPUs will be available before the end of the year. But it may not be early enough to deliver them in sufficient quantities to refresh new Macs. I would also expect that it’s possible delivery dates will slip to 2015, and Apple is a cautious beast.

Left without a new chip family, Apple is taking the best way out. It’s possible there will be more Mac refreshes later this year, but they won’t be substantial. If not a price reduction, slightly faster chips will be used, although performance changes will be barely measurable except with a stop watch.

Perhaps the lone exception is the oft-rumored MacBook Air with Retina display. That will also depend on Apple getting enough displays and keeping costs down so it won’t get too expensive. Such a move would also keep Macs current, more or less, so someone won’t feel slighted by buying a model with a “2013” label in late 2014.

Makes sense.

Besides, other than improved graphics, the performance boosts of new Macs in recent years hasn’t been terribly significant. When I read reviews citing a 5-10% improvement in benchmarks, it’s ho-hum. Well, there’s always that Fusion drive or a full SSD, which does make an iMac or Mac mini seem a whole lot faster, since drive speed is a huge factor in enhancing performance.

But when someone wonders whether a Mac is too cheap, I’m sure most of you would suggest Macs aren’t cheap enough. Certainly Apple has moved more aggressively on price, and the PC race to the bottom seems to have stalled. But if you could buy a new Mac and be reasonably assured it will run just fine five years from now — and that you’ll still be able to install the latest OS X — that makes it a great long-term value.

How many new $399 PCs will be functioning just fine in 2019? Or would you be on your fourth computer by then, assuming you’re still using a PC?

Just one more thing: I am sure Apple isn’t happy that Intel is hitting roadblocks developing and delivering faster or at least lower powered chips. I suppose there is a temptation to consider an ARM switch. But there are barriers to entry. First is boosting performance to a level that’s matches or exceeds Intel. Otherwise why make the switch? If a few dollars are saved, maybe Macs could become cheaper, but there’s still the issue of running Intel-based software. Apple could build an Intel-to-ARM translator, maybe make it chip-cased for maximum efficiency.

But would it make any sense?

I suppose Apple might also consider building a combo chip that’s both ARM and Intel compatible, so developers have time to make the transition. But wouldn’t that require a license from Intel? Unless Intel were tasked with building the new chips, of course, in which case they could be assured of continued business from Apple regardless of what chip goes inside your new Mac.

But I don’t believe in the possibility of an ARM-based Mac. Well, at least not for a while. But it’s nice to see cheaper Macs available.

Hardly a day passes where I don’t find yet another undiscovered treasure in OS X Yosemite. At a time when you wondered how Apple could possibly come up with another 200 new features or enhancements, it seems they’ve gone way beyond that.

So just his week, Computerworld blogger Jonny Evans reported on 18 items that consist of undiscovered treasures or, in the case of Continuity, news about a possible limitation not yet mentioned officially by Apple.

Let’s look at that possible negative. According to Evans, Apple’s Continuity feature will only work with Macs that have Bluetooth LE support, which restricts it to a number of models dating from 2011 and 2012. Older models need not apply. However, he does suggest that, “It is theoretically possible that a Mac-compatible Bluetooth 4.0 dongle may enable Continuity on unsupported Macs, though this is not guaranteed — don’t invest until it’s tested.”

Or maybe not. I found one for $4.99 on Amazon that’s for a Mac, Windows and Linux, so this may be a trivial issue if you want to use that feature, but that assumes the dongle will allow Continuity to work. Before you fret over this limitation, I should mention that Apple doesn’t refer to any Bluetooth LE requirement as part of the OS X Yosemite presentation on their site, although third parties insist this is required because, “This feature of Bluetooth allows enabled devices to maintain constant connections with devices even when in sleep and other low-power modes, allowing for better use with healthcare, fitness, and security services, as well as Handoff in OS X.”

If that limitation exists, Apple should have made a more proactive effort to mention this fact. Of course, things might change, which means that the feature that isn’t supported now might be, though the possibility might be slim.

One other interesting tidbit, according to Evans, is that Dashboard will be deleted by the Yosemite installer if you’ve never used it. That means that if you have, nothing changes. But it’s clear Dashboard was on the endangered species list for a while.

The other fascinating feature is the ability to batch rename selected items via a Control- or right-click of an item in the Finder. I wonder how granular this feature might be, and how or whether it steps on the features offered by a venerable third-party Finder utility, A Better Finder Rename. Of course, you can argue that there are a whole lot more options in such apps, but adding a core function or two is apt to discourage some users from seeking out these alternatives.

iCloud Keychain, for example, is great for storing passwords and other account information, including credit cards, on your OS X and iOS device, but does it replace iPassword? Possibly for many users, but it may also create the appetite for more.

Overall, what I’m seeing essentially confirms what has been obvious since the WWDC: After claims that Apple was ignoring the Mac platform because sales are much lower than iPhones, Apple has added an extremely large number of changes, far more than any previous OS X release. In fact, perhaps far more than any release since the original switchover from Mac OS, the Classic version, to OS X. Even then, many important features of OS X 10.0 merely mirrored comparable features in Mac OS 9, or offered them in a somewhat different fashion.

Now this doesn’t for a moment mean that Apple has answered every single request from OS X users. There are still items from the Classic Mac OS that remain unaddressed, such as a highly configurable Location Manager. The Finder doesn’t get the love from some, and the Apple menu doesn’t quite have some of the extensibility of the older version, although there are extra things you can do.

However, it’s also true that the vast majority of the 80 million Mac users weren’t actually using Macs in the “good old days.” That’s one issue that old-timers might overlook. Sure, we may have followed Apple through thick and thin over the years, but most of today’s users of Apple gear never used a Mac, or don’t use one now. This is a hard thing to admit, but it’s quite true. So Apple is catering to a very mixed audience, many of whom are loyal to iOS and their iPhones and iPads. They might be new to the Mac, or they are considering one in the future as a way to get out from under the Windows 8/8.1 mess. They will expect an easy migration path, and easy switching among Apple products.

At the same time, I don’t think Apple has ignored the traditional Mac user, even if all the features aren’t quite what they want. This is a bit of a juggling match, but one that appears to be mostly succeeding.

All right, maybe I do have to get a Bluetooth LE adapter to use Handoff on my aging iMac, but I think I could swing the $4.99, if that’s what it takes.

When The New York Times claimed, in that controversial hit piece on Tim Cook, that he took over after the death of Steve Jobs, I realized the writers were out of touch. And that was before reading much else. It’s not that they haven’t covered Apple for years, but they could hardly fail to notice that Jobs famously quit the CEO position on August 24, 2011, at which time Cook took over. Jobs died on October 5 of that year, the day after the introduction of the iPhone 4S.

I suppose you can suggest he hung on for a few weeks to see how Apple was running after his resignation, and, upon watching the keynote and feeling satisfied with the results, felt secure in leaving. That sentence may carry a tinge of mysticism, but it’s not so unusual. My father died on my birthday, the day after I had a relatively long phone conversation with him, where he seemed to want to assure himself that I was happy and my life was moving in a good direction. He evidently felt his job as a parent was over and he could move on.

But I won’t go any further into that subject.

The point is that I find it amazing that the simple truth about when Cook became Apple CEO is being ignored by one of the most prestigious newspapers in the U.S. Besides, it’s not that Cook had no prior experience running the company, since he took that position several times for a number of months when Jobs was on extended sick leave. How soon they forget.

At almost a steady pace since then, tech and financial pundits have been calling for Cook’s ouster. He’s the supply-side guy, not the product guy. How could he possibly know how to run Apple? How could he possibly replace Steve Jobs?

The reality is something different. Jobs was heavily focused on some parts of the company, particularly figuring out the next great gadget and micromanaging the development process, but Cook clearly has a more expansive view.

Some have criticized Cook for the way he’s handled Apple’s financials, with the decisions to grant dividends, engage in stock buybacks and a stock split. It’s not that Apple hasn’t had stock splits before, but not for a while. It’s not that Apple’s stock price hasn’t had its ups and downs, but since the latest episode occurred under Cook’s watch, it must be something bad.

Besides, weren’t all these financial maneuverings simply smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that new products weren’t coming out? Sure, the market has reacted favorably, but still?

Well, you can’t call the Mac Pro a minor product refresh. Building the first 64-bit mobile processor may not seem such a big deal now, but it’s clear from the WWDC that there are long-range plans afoot. Besides, the incredible number of new features for iOS 8 and OS X Yosemite, not to mention new developer tools and a more expansive view of access to the system by third-parties, are quite revolutionary for Apple.

And don’t forget opening OS X betas to regular people without having to claim to be a developer and paying a $99 fee.

Would Jobs have done any of that?

But to some, including The New York Times it seems, very little at the WWDC matters. It’s just software, as if these so-called reporters have forgotten that smartphones, tablets and personal computers are just bricks without the software. Is that too difficult a concept to understand? Well, evidently. I mean, some folks still want Apple to license OS X and iOS to other companies. If it’s just the hardware, why would the operating system and apps matter?

It’s foolish to speculate on how Jobs would have functioned had he survived and decided to stay on top. Some suggest he might have stayed on as Chairman of the Board, and become a “chief strategist,” perhaps in the fashion of a Bill Gates, and let Cook run the day-to-day affairs. But I rather doubt that Jobs could keep himself from micromanaging every little detail. With Cook totally in control, nobody looking over his shoulder, he’s been free to make Apple his own. Clearly he never asks what Jobs would have done.

The next few years will be of critical importance to Apple. The products and services Jobs may have approved before his death may already be available, or have been put on the back burner. It’s up to Cook and his team to prove that Apple was never a one-man band.

I think he’s already demonstrated that. But there will still be plenty of skepticism until the first round of all-new products begins to show up. Clearly that wasn’t appropriate for a WWDC, although some suggest the arrival of the iWatch was hinted with HealthKit and HomeKit.

No matter. Even if Apple delivers the rumored iWatch and other stuff, as yet unknown, some won’t be convinced. It’s already being suggested that even selling 10 million or 20 million iWatches wouldn’t be sufficient to seriously impact Apple’s bottom line.

But if a smartwatch refashioned as an Apple gadget is destined to take off, tens of millions may become hundreds of millions before long. But wait — wouldn’t they simply say that the iWatch was something Steve Jobs approved before his death? Oh well, so maybe he’s still running the company from beyond the grave. Right. Sure.