Of course it looks thinner if you take care to only photograph it from angles where the hump isn't visible. It's also interesting that the cover glass was a challenge, since monitors don't need cover glass; it's purely an aesthetic addition.
It doesn't just look thinner. It is thinner. Yes, there is a hump around the base's hinge, but it is still significantly, noticeably thinner – per the article, the machine's volume was reduced by 40%.
> It's also interesting that the cover glass was a challenge, since monitors don't need cover glass; it's purely an aesthetic addition.
Screens don't need it, but that's not purely aesthetic. Having glass upfront means you can use whatever you want and clean that stuff, as the material is resilient and there's no leak around the seams. Also it's more robust against people poking their fingers into the screen, and more rigid overall. In D.Rams parlance, "good design has a purpose", and here it's a blend between form and function.
I disagree, I don't think this is purely aesthetic.
What follows is just an opinion:
The smaller you make the package, the harder it is to do active heat management with fans and big heat sinks. Apple spends a lot of R&D dollars on reducing the power usage of their computers - Macs are way more power efficient than their competitors.
Thinness is the authentic, unfakeable, consequence of all of that power management engineering. Competitors can't copy the look of an iMac without also investing heavily in design work to reduce power consumption.
In an ideal world, Apple could just publish power usage figures, but that doesn't really sell computers outside of the data center universe. Thin computers on the other handle are much more marketable, so Apple is using thinness as a marketing proxy for power efficiency.
It's not just as aesthetic addition it makes the iMac more durable.
Given that families are a big market for iMacs it seems to be common sense that you would make it as kid friendly as possible. Last thing you want is an errant toy to destroy your screen.
This is interesting, but I have no idea why they're spending money making a desktop thinner. Using the old thickness(which was fine) and todays technology could produce a better computer. Why do people want thin desktops(or why does Apple?).
I really don’t understand why some people are completely mystified how that could be an argument. So you don’t care about looks? Fine. Others do. And computers are a part of the furniture.
Some people buy those really nice looking but functionally identical faucets that cost three time as much, some don’t. That’s all.
There is nothing ridiculous about that, it’s just a difference in taste.
For apple it means less raw materials, perhaps less parts, less volume to move around, and they must have other secondary benefits in other areas that we don't know.
The older parts might also get more difficult to get from the supply chain as time goes by (a bit like the old processors that drop off the manufactory chains after a few years), and you don't get much in not using a recent/smaller version of the components.
iMacs are already a very good value proposition I think, and you wouldn't have your better computer without bumping the price point way over what an average consumer would buy I think.
I used to think this too. I was the guy that thought DVDs were unnecessary and that VHS was fine. But then I got a DVD player and of course there was no going back after that. Likewise, when I caved and bought an Air, there was no going back.
I'm not trying to compare Apple products to DVDs (except that I am) but this whole obsession with thinness is another great example of Apple giving us something we didn't know we wanted.
And on another note, which I have zero evidence to support, I'm sure there's a psychological effect of thinner feeling "faster."
I too find that design decision perplexing. Personally, it is ongoing choices like these which have pretty much made me decide to build a hackintosh instead and in the long run move away from Apple to Linux (only Photoshop holding me back now Adobe!). I have been using Apple computers for more than a decade so it has not been an easy choice. If I continue to stick with Apple however my hardware choices are:
1. Mac Pro - gouging prices, several generation old tech.
2. iMac - a Macbook Air in a monitor, practically zero expansion options.
3. Mac Mini - poor expansion options, poor graphics, expensive once you start adding the ram you need etc.
Seem to me Apple is now almost entirely focused on iOS and iDevices, which is understandable as that's where the money is. I don't see them investing anything much into the desktop computer line at all going forward. Time to move on.
Consider the contrary: what do you get with a thicker computer? These iMacs already have performance (top-end: 3.4 GHz i7, 32 GB RAM, GTX 680MX with 2 GB GDDR5, thunderbolt and USB 3). If they said, "okay, instead of making it thinner, let's keep it the same size and make it better," what exactly do you expect?
The only improvements you could get with a thicker computer are things that would also negatively affect the amount of power it requires. Thinness is just a pleasant consequence of power-concious design.
They're practicing for thin iPhones? It is pretty weird. They could probably release something thicker than the old model and market that just as well.
Why someone want to buy something like this? Just to have an unrepairable PC? And if something inside breaks you have to just buy a new PC? I like to mess with my PC internals, upgrade it and fix it if I can with my poor electronic skills.
If something inside breaks, you can get it fixed. For free, if it's under warranty. Most people have neither the time nor the technical ability to fix something themselves anyway, so this is a non-issue.
For me, I've had an iMac for 5 years and I upgraded both the RAM and the HDD (to an SSD) myself with no issues. And it shows no signs of slowing down and is better than the day I bought it, and is probably one of the best investments I've made. Hell, at the time, and this is still true, buying a monitor of comparable quality would've cost half what I paid for the entire computer.
[+] [-] wmf|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryannielsen|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lloeki|13 years ago|reply
Screens don't need it, but that's not purely aesthetic. Having glass upfront means you can use whatever you want and clean that stuff, as the material is resilient and there's no leak around the seams. Also it's more robust against people poking their fingers into the screen, and more rigid overall. In D.Rams parlance, "good design has a purpose", and here it's a blend between form and function.
[+] [-] fudged71|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] demallien|13 years ago|reply
What follows is just an opinion:
The smaller you make the package, the harder it is to do active heat management with fans and big heat sinks. Apple spends a lot of R&D dollars on reducing the power usage of their computers - Macs are way more power efficient than their competitors.
Thinness is the authentic, unfakeable, consequence of all of that power management engineering. Competitors can't copy the look of an iMac without also investing heavily in design work to reduce power consumption.
In an ideal world, Apple could just publish power usage figures, but that doesn't really sell computers outside of the data center universe. Thin computers on the other handle are much more marketable, so Apple is using thinness as a marketing proxy for power efficiency.
[+] [-] Osmium|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taligent|13 years ago|reply
Given that families are a big market for iMacs it seems to be common sense that you would make it as kid friendly as possible. Last thing you want is an errant toy to destroy your screen.
[+] [-] SenorWilson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arrrg|13 years ago|reply
I really don’t understand why some people are completely mystified how that could be an argument. So you don’t care about looks? Fine. Others do. And computers are a part of the furniture.
Some people buy those really nice looking but functionally identical faucets that cost three time as much, some don’t. That’s all.
There is nothing ridiculous about that, it’s just a difference in taste.
[+] [-] hrktb|13 years ago|reply
The older parts might also get more difficult to get from the supply chain as time goes by (a bit like the old processors that drop off the manufactory chains after a few years), and you don't get much in not using a recent/smaller version of the components.
iMacs are already a very good value proposition I think, and you wouldn't have your better computer without bumping the price point way over what an average consumer would buy I think.
[+] [-] commanderkeen08|13 years ago|reply
I'm not trying to compare Apple products to DVDs (except that I am) but this whole obsession with thinness is another great example of Apple giving us something we didn't know we wanted.
And on another note, which I have zero evidence to support, I'm sure there's a psychological effect of thinner feeling "faster."
[+] [-] da_n|13 years ago|reply
1. Mac Pro - gouging prices, several generation old tech. 2. iMac - a Macbook Air in a monitor, practically zero expansion options. 3. Mac Mini - poor expansion options, poor graphics, expensive once you start adding the ram you need etc.
Seem to me Apple is now almost entirely focused on iOS and iDevices, which is understandable as that's where the money is. I don't see them investing anything much into the desktop computer line at all going forward. Time to move on.
[+] [-] w1ntermute|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Osmium|13 years ago|reply
The only improvements you could get with a thicker computer are things that would also negatively affect the amount of power it requires. Thinness is just a pleasant consequence of power-concious design.
[+] [-] Detrus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jtsagata|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Osmium|13 years ago|reply
For me, I've had an iMac for 5 years and I upgraded both the RAM and the HDD (to an SSD) myself with no issues. And it shows no signs of slowing down and is better than the day I bought it, and is probably one of the best investments I've made. Hell, at the time, and this is still true, buying a monitor of comparable quality would've cost half what I paid for the entire computer.
[+] [-] MrScruff|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 89a|13 years ago|reply
It's not like I ever see the back anyway