Apple, please. Can we focus again on better, not thinner.

[bent christian]

The closest competitor to the iMac 27 in the marketplace is the Dell XPS 27. It is much thicker, heavier, clunkier-looking and louder -- yet no faster. Like the iMac it is not expandable. Using a much thicker case didn't buy them (or the customer) anything vs the iMac: http://www.dell.com/us/p/xps-27-2720-aio/pd

Look at that, an all-in-one with access through the back! What a novel idea!

If you don't think the iMac has been designed to purposefully discourage even basic user serviceability and repair...I don't know. I don't really know what to say that wouldn't come off as insulting.

 

[NT1440]

Look at that, an all-in-one with access through the back! What a novel idea!

If you don't think the iMac has been designed to purposefully discourage even basic user serviceability and repair...I don't know. I don't really know what to say that wouldn't come off as insulting.

I don't understand why people on a tech forum can't understand that their knowledge of what a hard drive is puts them in a different stratosphere of technical literacy.

Consumers don't give a **** about access to components, thats what they pay people for.

FYI, working on an iMac is incredibly easy. I used to be able to swap out 5-6 in an hour when we had to do replace the drives in 200 machines that were being donated.


Edit: Bent, I didn't even realize that was you. I'll see you in PRSI buddy

 

[brewmonkey]

Share my frustration? Add your voice below.

It seems like Apple has chased its market pretty well considering all the ridiculous profits, but there's at least one glaring hole in their lineup: an enthusiast desktop option. Yes, the maxed out iMac is pretty cool, but an option for a thicker one with top-specced desktop hardware (GTX 980, please) and an outstanding cooling solution (cool and quiet) would be really awesome. Such a setup might even attract more serious game development for OS X.

The *real* tragedy to me here is there is no meaningful mainstream alternative to OS X now that Microsoft has doubled and tripled down on its sinister spyOS (i.e. Windows 10). For we who care a lot about privacy and security, we're stuck with OS X and therefore whatever hardware Apple gives us.

 

[joema2]

Look at that, an all-in-one with access through the back! What a novel idea!...If you don't think the iMac has been designed to purposefully discourage even basic user serviceability and repair...I don't know. I don't really know what to say that wouldn't come off as insulting.

And to achieve that Dell had to make a big, clunky case. An All-In-One computer that looks like it was designed in the former Soviet Union -- all so 1 out of 50 customers can replace some internal component.

The general trend in all areas of consumer electronics -- not just computers -- is higher levels of integration, and diminished serviceability. This is a natural outgrowth of improved manufacturing efficiency and ever shrinking components. RFI issues are much greater and frequencies are higher, so this encourages fewer access panels.

iMacs are shipped across the country in the product box. They usually arrive safely, partially because the case is light, sealed and resistant to vibration. My last Windows PC came in a big shipping box with styrofoam standoffs, but the card cage was warped because it got dropped in shipping and was a big, heavy bulky case.

I disassembled my 1984 Mac and removed the memory chips with a soldering iron. Today the chips are surface mounted with a tiny lead pitch, so this isn't possible. If today's iMac kept using DIP chip packages with 0.3" lead pitch, we could still replace chips with a soldering iron -- but the case would be a lot bigger, and it would be more expensive.

These evolutionary changes in manufacturing and serviceability are not unique to Apple, but Apple is on the leading edge. In several more years the above Dell XPS line will reach the point where the iMac is today. It will be just as sealed. By then Apple will have moved on to something even better because they didn't try to make a big clunky box to satisfy 1 out of 50 tinkerers.

 

[merkinmuffley]

It has been this thin since 2012. The current top-spec iMac 27 is vastly faster than the thicker equivalent 2011 model. What have you lost vs the thicker 2011 model?

Optical drive? I don't see one on the post 2011 models, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place and you can enlighten me.

 

[joema2]

Optical drive? I don't see one on the post 2011 models, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place and you can enlighten me.

You are correct, starting in 2012 there was no built-in optical drive in the iMac. Also both Apple and Adobe quit developing DVD authoring software roughly that time. There is no optical drive in the MacBook Pro, MacBook Air or iPad. This is an example of a waning technology. DVD cannot do high def, so if you want to watch standard def video from a DVD on your iMac 27 you will need an external optical drive.

As a professional video editor, I have not produced any DVD content in a long time. Increasingly our customers have mobile devices or thin laptops -- they have no way to play a DVD. I realize there is still a market (albeit rapidly shrinking) for DVD playback on a desktop computer, and for that Apple has a USB external optical drive.

The Dell XPS 27 has a built-in optical drive, so that is one advantage for the % of All-In-One desktop customers who feel that's a vital feature.

 

[MacStu09]

There are many silly arguments here, and clearly some straight fanboy arguments. (The worst being the "imac says more professional in an office. - No one cares what computers an office has. Many of the most successful businesses in the world are littered with dell monitors; considering the incredible limitations of apple's monitor lineup, and limitations of the imac itself.)

Basically, the OP is correct. Just as the current mac pro is getting beat by 6 year old mac pros with upgrades that the new one simply can't utilize, Apple's iMac is on just as silly of a path. No one needs their desktop to be light and portable, but the general consumer enjoys it. Apple is no longer the company for "techies." It's for the general consumer. (An excellent business decision.)

Everyone knows the top of the line imac's graphics are a joke; the new (what i call "netbook") macbook line is a joke with it's single usb-c port and pathetic processor (at that price point.)

As an editor for a mid-size production company, I'd say approx. 200 out of 250 clients request a physical disc copy. Granted, not a standalone DVD, those are fairly rare now, but simply a DL physical disc with the content on it. As much as I agree that discs are dying for the general population - in the professional world they are still widely used for long-term storage and archiving. You find out quick after 100+ SSD/HDD/USB drive failures.

The bottom line is this - Apple does not cater to the professional user. It's as simple as that. Professionals need expandability/upgradeability/options. Apple used to, and they used to pride themselves on having some of the greatest computers. But they found a much larger revenue base with the general consumer, by producing "nice and shiny" products. It doesn't mean the products are bad by any means, but they're just not suitable for high end pro. users in any regard anymore.

Trust me, switching from FCP to Premiere killed me, but it's just no competition between my windows desktop and our shortly lived 2013 mac pro. And 4k after effects comps - have you tried on a maxed out nMP? Not a capable machine compared to running 980ti's on a windows desktop. I do hate windows 10, but the hardware forces me to compromise.

 

[richinaus]

There are many silly arguments here, and clearly some straight fanboy arguments. (The worst being the "imac says more professional in an office. - No one cares what computers an office has. Many of the most successful businesses in the world are littered with dell monitors; considering the incredible limitations of apple's monitor lineup, and limitations of the imac itself.)

Basically, the OP is correct. Just as the current mac pro is getting beat by 6 year old mac pros with upgrades that the new one simply can't utilize, Apple's iMac is on just as silly of a path. No one needs their desktop to be light and portable, but the general consumer enjoys it. Apple is no longer the company for "techies." It's for the general consumer. (An excellent business decision.)

Everyone knows the top of the line imac's graphics are a joke; the new (what i call "netbook") macbook line is a joke with it's single usb-c port and pathetic processor (at that price point.)

As an editor for a mid-size production company, I'd say approx. 200 out of 250 clients request a physical disc copy. Granted, not a standalone DVD, those are fairly rare now, but simply a DL physical disc with the content on it. As much as I agree that discs are dying for the general population - in the professional world they are still widely used for long-term storage and archiving. You find out quick after 100+ SSD/HDD/USB drive failures.

The bottom line is this - Apple does not cater to the professional user. It's as simple as that. Professionals need expandability/upgradeability/options. Apple used to, and they used to pride themselves on having some of the greatest computers. But they found a much larger revenue base with the general consumer, by producing "nice and shiny" products. It doesn't mean the products are bad by any means, but they're just not suitable for high end pro. users in any regard anymore.

Trust me, switching from FCP to Premiere killed me, but it's just no competition between my windows desktop and our shortly lived 2013 mac pro. And 4k after effects comps - have you tried on a maxed out nMP? Not a capable machine compared to running 980ti's on a windows desktop. I do hate windows 10, but the hardware forces me to compromise.

Sorry but I cannot remember the last time I needed to burn a disc and also I really care on the aesthetics of the office and what computers are in there.
I am also a professional user and get by very well indeed on this locked down hardware. Never once wished I could open up my macbook pro, which I used to do 5 years ago. The specs are just fine.

I agree that for very 'high end' work Apple fails to deliver, but I actually know very few people professionally who could not do their job on the top end iMac. Having said that, I also agree that the iMac has become quite ridiculous in terms of being thin. I love my design products and the current model looks great, however I would not care if it was thicker and accessible. A desktop can be and no one would bat an eyelid.

 

[MacRazySwe]

I used to share much of your opinion. I had a 2011 iMac, which was flawless for the 4 years I owned it. I did not agree with Apples logic, making a desktop computer thinner than necessary. I was really annoyed by their decision of removing the SuperDrive in a desktop computer.

However, last year I wanted to upgrade to a 2011 iMac 27", from my smaller 21" model. When I found a one year old 27" model bought in 2014 for the same price as a 2011 version, it was very hard to say no.

Let me tell you, there is no way I'd go back to any of the thicker models now.

- The late 2013 27" iMac I have is blistering fast. Way faster than the thicker 2011 I used to have. Now imagine how fast the new Retina models must be!

- The thinner one is absolutely dead silent. The 2011 felt like a jet plane in comparison, which is weird as I never really considered it to be loud previously.

- It runs very cool. The new fan system is a great improvement over the thicker ones. I hardly ever hear the fans, still it remains very cool, whereas the 2011 model was always very warm to the touch, at its back.

- Although not top priority of course, but the newer models look so much better being so god damn thin.

I was very skeptical towards the thinner models at first, thinking the thinner design would've come at the expense of power and usability. This was absolutely not the case, the 2013 and onwards models are an improvement in every possible way. It's faster, it's much more quiet, it remains cool to the touch in most scenarios. Even the display is better thanks to being laminated. My current iMac is a computer I will happily use for many years to come. Needless to say, I don't play games on my Mac (in that case I'd buy a PC), but the iMac runs COD Black Ops at very high quality without even getting warm to the touch.

For the best possible gaming performance in Windows, I could see why you'd prefer a thicker computer with better performance, but for me personally the thinner Macs are really impressive.

If you're looking for the best possible all-in-one package, you can't go wrong with an iMac. If you're looking for the utmost performance for gaming et.c., I don't think the iMac will ever be perfect for you.

 

[Serban]

And lets not forget that are even lighter
So if apple will make them thinner and lighter this year or next one, it will be catalogate as an portable 21.5" and 27" displays

 

[joema2]

...Everyone knows the top of the line imac's graphics are a joke

I edit 4k multicam projects every day on a 2015 iMac 27 using FCPX, and it works fine. The $100 Will Smith movie "Focus" was largely edited on an iMac 27: http://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/in-action/focus/

...I agree that discs are dying for the general population - in the professional world they are still widely used for long-term storage and archiving.

Not sure what you mean here. The point was DVD optical drives since Apple quit using them in the 2012 iMac. You are saying DVDs are widely used for storage and archiving of video content? My documentary team often shoots 200GB per day, so archiving on optical media isn't remotely feasible. If you mean an HDD external drive, that wasn't the point.

...Apple does not cater to the professional user. It's as simple as that. Professionals need expandability/upgradeability/options.... they're just not suitable for high end pro. users in any regard anymore.

Macs are widely used by video production professionals. The below Hollywood films were and are being edited on Macs:

Focus: http://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/in-action/focus/

Whisky Tango Foxtrot: http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/art...y-tango-foxtrot-was-edited-on-final-cut-pro-x

Geostorm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostorm

And major TV network operations: http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/art...inal-cut-pro-x-in-national-network-operations

...it's just no competition between my windows desktop and our shortly lived 2013 mac pro. And 4k after effects comps - have you tried on a maxed out nMP? Not a capable machine compared to running 980ti's on a windows desktop...

I edit multicam 4k every day on an 2015 iMac 27. I also use Premiere CC and I agree it is vastly slower. In my tests the frame rate when fast forwarding in the timeline is 20 times slower than FCPX, and export to H264 is 4x to 5x slower. I agree in your case you can compensate by building a high end Windows machine.

 

[varian55zx]

Why not focus on both?

I want thin and better.

Thin doesn't have to mean worse. Apple simply has too low a standard for what they put out, and ultimately, end up embarrassing themselves time and time again with certain products.
[doublepost=1459603539][/doublepost]

Do you also judge people by the color of their skin?

out of nowhere. There's no need to troll

What he said was completely valid. If I'm walking into a receptionist's office and I see a Mac, automatically I like that doctor way better, that doctor is way better, that office is way better, and the receptionist is now better and more professional. I have much more respect for them.

If I see a disgusting Dell, well I'm simply disgusted.

You make the choice.

 

[colodane]

As much as I'd welcome a thicker and more user-assessable iMac - and keep hoping for one - I don't expect to ever see it.

I think the best hope would be for a "pro" level Mac Mini with a slightly larger enclosure which would allow for easy replacement of drives, memory, etc. and also for usage of external 4K and 5K displays of our choice. While this would be a very good value for us the users, it unfortunately won't look good to Apple on their profit spreadsheets. Selling each user a new $2K to $3K iMac every 3 years is a good deal for them vs. selling a $1.5K Mac mini every 5 years with the user upgrading it with 3rd party hardware.

So I'm not optimistic.

 

[varian55zx]

So I'm not optimistic.

I'm not either, in fact, I only think we're going to see Macs just get worse and worse over time.

I think the situation will be even worse in 3-4 years.

At the risk of saying something controversial, because the only person who had any emotional attachment to the company is dead, the founder, we're just going to see Apple ritualistically abused like never before.

Don't be surprised to see anyone who remotely identifies as a 'pro' user casually tossed aside unless they cough up thousands.

While Steve was primarily profit driven, he didn't want the company to be an embarrassment. Now, it is a disgrace in many respects.

I've seen the current management, I don't think any of them are any more involved with Apple than they are with other companies. Not to say anything bad about them.

However, as long as the high end products like the 5K iMac, MacBook Pro, and Mac Pro remain, I'll probably be happy.

 

[Fishrrman]

On a MacBook "Pro", I want a full complement of connection ports.
That's what differentiates a "Pro" model from the rest.

A MacBook Air doesn't need the ports, its design premise is "smallest, lightest" and it's a given that ports will be left out to achieve that goal.

I don't mind the "thinner" iMac as it still -has- a regular group of ports on the rear.
However -- I'd rather see it with a removable back, as the iMac g5 had.
So long as Apple continues to use spinning HDDs, they should be easily replaceable if a failure occurs.
(aside: not sure how much longer Apple will continue to use HDD's in iMacs)

Why not include an "openable" door that houses the new "blade" SSD, in a manner similar to the door for adding RAM?

 

[smacrumon]

I've been using Macs since System 6; very confused about Apple's design obsession right now.

(1) I don't care how many millimetres thin my computer is when it's viewed from side on. Just like I don't care what my car looks like when viewed from underneath.

(2) I do care—a lot—about how capably the machine will let me work and play when I'm facing the screen.

The problem with thin being the #1 design consideration is that it forces compromise.

Thin forces integrated graphics cards. Thin forces keyboards without travel. Thin forces insufficient ports, mobile class processors, reduced battery life...

It's not just MacBooks afflicted like this. With new iMacs hitting sometime later this year, which advertising copy would you rather see?

====================
THE NEW IMAC. WHISPER THIN.
You'll hardly know it's there. Up to 20% thinner than previous models. Will run games* and let you work efficiently**

*as long as you play at 640x480, and set graphics to "flubby pixel"
** once the 5400 RPM hard drive spins up.

or

========================
THE NEW IMAC. BLISTERING POWER.
Run everything. At once. At Maximum*.

* Seriously. Just dial everything way up. This new machine will eat it.


Apple, if you can produce the latter, please, take my money. I won't care of the machine is a foot thick; it will look exactly the same from where I'll be using it.

Share my frustration? Add your voice below.

Thanks for this. I do like the idea of a "whisper thin iMac", and with NO protruding camera, yes please! BUT only whisper thin if everything inside works properly, i.e. full graphics etcetera, etcetera. Get rid of HDD, replace with flash storage, it's so cheap. Get with the program, Apple!

 

[turbineseaplane]

Sadly, Apple seems to be moving towards only computing devices for the mass market (i.e. appliances), to whom marketing schtick like "super thin & sexy" really seems to work.

These folks do seem to care a lot about how the iMac will look next to their Vitamix blender on the 20' square slab granite 12 burner wolf stove kitchen in SoHo right beside the Bang & Olufsen 55" $15,000 rebadged LG television.

 

[maflynn]

Sadly, Apple seems to be moving towards only computing devices for the mass market (i.e. appliances), to whom marketing schtick like "super thin & sexy" really seems to work.

These folks do seem to care a lot about how the iMac will look next to their Vitamix blender on the 20' square slab granite 12 burner wolf stove kitchen in SoHo right beside the Bang & Olufsen 55" $15,000 rebadged LG television.

I will say, that their marketing approaching is doing something that the other computer makers have not been able to do lately. Have increasing sales numbers. Apple is succeeding where the others are failing, so they are doing something right.

It isn't a bad thing for them to focus on the consumers, as they're a huge buying segment. I still disagree with the idea of making a desktop computer razor thin.

 

[varian55zx]

Sadly, Apple seems to be moving towards only computing devices for the mass market (i.e. appliances), to whom marketing schtick like "super thin & sexy" really seems to work.

These folks do seem to care a lot about how the iMac will look next to their Vitamix blender on the 20' square slab granite 12 burner wolf stove kitchen in SoHo right beside the Bang & Olufsen 55" $15,000 rebadged LG television.

The thing is, in my opinion, I don't disagree with any of that.

I am happy with the care that Apple places into the appearance of their product. That's a reason why I like Apple and always have. They look much, much better than their plastic counterparts.

I believe the fact that an iMac looks so good in a house is actually a good thing.

And I am not altogether averse to the razor thin direction they are going.

However, it is when the quality of the product now somehow goes as well, then there is a big problem.

I don't care if you have a class that appeals to the consumer level. That's fine to me. But when you start to produce poor performance machines across the board. I am not happy. Let me tell you

In short producing an attractive or even 'thin' computer is not a bad thing. But when the performance of the computer suffers, it is now a serious concern.

 

[Seed101]

I think Apple's obsession with thinness has gotten in the way to producing great iMacs. There's absolutely no reason to make a desktop computer that is not normally moved razor thin

They look nice, front of house, on secretaries desk's in 'flashy' companies though...facebook has never looked so great!

 

[maflynn]

They look nice, front of house, on secretaries desk's in 'flashy' companies though...facebook has never looked so great!

While I don't disagree with you, Apple can produce a truly great looking computer, without resorting to making it razor thin

 

[Seed101]

While I don't disagree with you, Apple can produce a truly great looking computer, without resorting to making it razor thin

Do you think this is an 'ideological' quest then?
Of course apple could make more powerful iMac's but at what cost? Why don't they want to do this anymore?

I'd much prefer a more power/slighter thicker option's across the apple board..that would be great for me personally,but I guess I'm in the minority?

 

[Solomani]

I've been using Macs since System 6; very confused about Apple's design obsession right now.

(1) I don't care how many millimetres thin my computer is when it's viewed from side on. Just like I don't care what my car looks like when viewed from underneath.

(2) I do care—a lot—about how capably the machine will let me work and play when I'm facing the screen.

The problem with thin being the #1 design consideration is that it forces compromise.

Thin forces integrated graphics cards. Thin forces keyboards without travel. Thin forces insufficient ports, mobile class processors, reduced battery life...

It's not just MacBooks afflicted like this. With new iMacs hitting sometime later this year, which advertising copy would you rather see?

====================
THE NEW IMAC. WHISPER THIN.
You'll hardly know it's there. Up to 20% thinner than previous models. Will run games* and let you work efficiently**

*as long as you play at 640x480, and set graphics to "flubby pixel"
** once the 5400 RPM hard drive spins up.

or

========================
THE NEW IMAC. BLISTERING POWER.
Run everything. At once. At Maximum*.

* Seriously. Just dial everything way up. This new machine will eat it.


Apple, if you can produce the latter, please, take my money. I won't care of the machine is a foot thick; it will look exactly the same from where I'll be using it.

Share my frustration? Add your voice below.

Too bad Apple will not listen to whatever you are anyone says here in MacRumors. Having followed them for years (I once sold PowerMacs and Mac clones in the 1990s), I'm pretty sure the only critics they listen to are the veteran "Apple journalists" like Jim Dalrymple or that Walt Mossberg guy (whose criticism and advice Jobs took seriously).

Best strategy is to send off an email or Twitter those guys… and have them bring up these concerns to Apple.

 

[maflynn]

Do you think this is an 'ideological' quest then?
Of course apple could make more powerful iMac's but at what cost? Why don't they want to do this anymore?

I think Apple is more interested in making computers adhere to a specific design, rather then making them the fastest. I'm not saying this is a mistake, because the numbers don't lie. Apple increasing sales, Dell, HP, Lenovo, less then stellar sales reports. Yet, I think they can make a beautiful computer without being so obsessed with thinness.

 

[varian55zx]

I like the thin move just would prefer a computer that performs along with great design.

Thin is the trend (set by Apple), so I'm ok with it.

Apple always sets the design trends and all the unoriginal copycats come to copy (see attachment?).

So I'll buy Apple. But if only Apple would have a brain and incorporate adequate specs.

Stop embarrassing yourselves, some of your products are downright pathetic, and even borderline disgusting.

I'll admit it. Today I was at an Apple store and decided to give the new normal MacBook a try.

I was literally disgusted. I couldn't use it for more than a few seconds because I was simply overwhelmed with disgust. Truly pathetic

If you haven't used it, if you dare to, you'll see why instantly I say that.

First time I've ever been disgusting by something coming out of Apple, I must say. Not good.

Look at that, an all-in-one with access through the back! What a novel idea!

Oh please. The iMac used to have that when Steve was around and Apple was a company of pride.