New imacs to become "Chin-less"??? Say it ain't so! :-)
How do you people feel about the reports saying that the next imacs will lose their infamous "chin"?
I never knew what all the negative reaction to the so called "chin" on the imac was all about.
It never bothered me at all. Not aesthetically, and it actually comes in handy on my desk. I love to use the "chin" to put post it notes on.
I am due for an upgrade. My G5 imac will go to my bro. Of course I'll learn to love whatever Apple puts out next for the imac. But I for one will be sad to see the the "chin" go.
I personally think that people fall in love with their macs so much, that when a redesign comes out, they sometimes find it hard to let go and often try to find reasons why the new design isn't as good. Thats probably why when Apple went from the "lampshade" imac to the current design, some people jumped all over the "chin" as distraction. I remember them also saying that the lack of an "articulated" arm would limit viewing options.
I think both reactions turned out to be false knee jerk reactions. Perhaps because I never had the "lampshade" model, I didn't have such an initial reaction. I loved it at first sight.
Maybe now it's my turn to find it hard to "let go". I've become attached to my imac with its prominent chin. As excited as I am about getting a new imac with santa rosa, leopard and all the bells and whistles...I am sure at first sight, I will feel a sense of loss if it doesn't have a chin.
But I am sure over time I'll get over it, and learn to love my "chin-less" imac with the same kind of intensity.
Woo Hoo!
Peace out,
Reg
I never knew what all the negative reaction to the so called "chin" on the imac was all about.
It never bothered me at all. Not aesthetically, and it actually comes in handy on my desk. I love to use the "chin" to put post it notes on.
I am due for an upgrade. My G5 imac will go to my bro. Of course I'll learn to love whatever Apple puts out next for the imac. But I for one will be sad to see the the "chin" go.
I personally think that people fall in love with their macs so much, that when a redesign comes out, they sometimes find it hard to let go and often try to find reasons why the new design isn't as good. Thats probably why when Apple went from the "lampshade" imac to the current design, some people jumped all over the "chin" as distraction. I remember them also saying that the lack of an "articulated" arm would limit viewing options.
I think both reactions turned out to be false knee jerk reactions. Perhaps because I never had the "lampshade" model, I didn't have such an initial reaction. I loved it at first sight.
Maybe now it's my turn to find it hard to "let go". I've become attached to my imac with its prominent chin. As excited as I am about getting a new imac with santa rosa, leopard and all the bells and whistles...I am sure at first sight, I will feel a sense of loss if it doesn't have a chin.
But I am sure over time I'll get over it, and learn to love my "chin-less" imac with the same kind of intensity.
Woo Hoo!
Peace out,
Reg
Comments
Maybe now it's my turn to find it hard to "let go". I've become attached to my imac with its prominent chin. As excited as I am about getting a new imac with santa rosa, leopard and all the bells and whistles...I am sure at first sight, I will feel a sense of loss if it doesn't have a chin.
When I first saw the current iMac, I thought "this will look really great when they can toss that chin." To me, the chin never looked right, just a stop-gap measure, a temporary fatbag of computer parts that had yet to slim down and get their fatness out of the way, a reminder that the iMac was still a work in progress. The chin distracts from the screen and screams out "yes, we are getting there in terms of miniturization, but we are not there yet."
When you look at the iMac you should see screen, not chin, and the chin only serves to remind you of failure. From an evolutionary point of view, the chin is a transitory accomodation, one Galapagos island away from extinction.
The iPhone is a marvel of miniturization. Nanotechnology is everywhere. By comparison, the ugly appendage that is the chin, that distracting technological fatbag, is as anacrhonistic as the bustle. Do you even know what a bustle is? A few more years of miniturization and chins will be every bit as esoteric. "Chin? What is a 'chin'"? Excatly.
The only reason you like the chin is because you are willing to embrace life's foibles: a friend with a scar, a girlfriend with a limp, a buddy who stutters. Sure, it's an admirable trait when judging people, but poison when developing computers. As the last chinned iMac rolls off the plant in Guangdong Province, you will here a collective sigh of relief from Cupertino.
As you probably know, I am a cat, and have only the tinniest of chins, pleasantly covered with fur and obscured in the roundness of my face. It is barely a chin at all. Which is how it should be. The new iMacs will be not only much more like the iPhone, they will also be much more like, well, me, with whatever is left of their anachronistic chins pleasantly obscured by the fullness of their screens.
Meow.
When I first saw the current iMac, I thought "this will look really great when they can toss that chin." To me, the chin never looked right, just a stop-gap measure, a temporary fatbag of computer parts that had yet to slim down and get their fatness out of the way, a reminder that the iMac was still a work in progress.
Same here, that's almost exactly what I thought when I saw it for the first time. Here I am more than two years later thinking the same thing. Getting rid of the chin is long overdue. Beauty is symmetry and the chin is asymmetric. I've heard this stickies thing so often but people at my work have normal LCDs and put stickies on their screen too.
I think getting rid of the chin will make the whole machine smaller as they will be able to lower the display by about 3 inches. This means smaller boxes and bigger displays fit more easily into computer cabinets. It will also stop some idiots from answering people when they ask where the computer is by pointing to the chin. This will impress people so much when they know the machine is somewhere in an enclosure that is the same dimensions as a normal LCD. It'll be like explaining the Tardis.
As you probably know, I am a cat, and have only the tinniest of chins, pleasantly covered with fur and obscured in the roundness of my face. It is barely a chin at all. Which is how it should be. The new iMacs will be not only much more like the iPhone, they will also be much more like, well, me, with whatever is left of their anachronistic chins pleasantly obscured by the fullness of their screens.
Meow.
For a minute, I thought you were crazy but I think you're talking about the fact that the systems have cat names. I'm not sure the machines are designed around that premise though.
But I am sure over time I'll get over it, and learn to love my "chin-less" imac with the same kind of intensity.
Woo Hoo!
Peace out,
Reg
If you could get over using "peace out" again, I think it would make things easier on all of us.
For a minute, I thought you were crazy but I think you're talking about the fact that the systems have cat names. I'm not sure the machines are designed around that premise though.
Actually, Apple's practice of using cat species to name versions of their operating system is just a coincidence.
I am, in fact, a cat.
Meow.
When I first saw the current iMac, I thought "this will look really great when they can toss that chin." To me, the chin never looked right, just a stop-gap measure, a temporary fatbag of computer parts that had yet to slim down and get their fatness out of the way, a reminder that the iMac was still a work in progress. The chin distracts from the screen and screams out "yes, we are getting there in terms of miniturization, but we are not there yet."
I believe that you are exactly right. In fact if you look at every Apple product (except the Mac Pro which is an exception for obvious reasons) this is the trend. Smaller. Thinner. Lighter. Etc.
I would take all of this a step further. Steve Jobs (who, reportedly, hates cables) is on a mission to rid us of all unnecessary cables. The iMac is also on the way to disappearing. The iPhone tells us this. The iPhone is the interface. Soon iMac will be exactly the same. Notice the same is true for Apple TV and slightly less true for iPod. Apple has always been great about industrial design. This will continue to matter but for different reasons and in different ways. For example, the iPhone is a marvel of engineering (and miniaturization) as you have pointed out. This requires great industrial design skills. It's just that the hardware is beginning to disappear (and good riddance!)
The iMac of the future* looks something like this:
- extremely narrow bevel, no "chin", the appears of a large beautiful display just "floating" in space in front of you
- (possibly) camera integrated into the display to enable much more natural video conferencing (note their patents on this front and note, also, their attempt to accomplish this with the current placement and integration of the iSight)
- (probably) multi-touch display
- wireless keyboard and mouse (hopefully improved a bit)...no more cables!
The only wire you'll really need will be the power cable (long way from wireless power I'm afraid)...and the occasional external device (HD, scanner, maybe iPod dock...waiting for this syncing to go wireless too!)
The computer is disappearing. The UI is the computer (and really it always has been it is just that the ability to shrink things has finally started ti make this a reality).
Actually I like putting post it notes on my girlfriends chin as well. :-)
If you are worried you have nowhere to put your post-it-notes, you always have your tables, walls and your fridge.
It's funny when people hear aluminum the first thing they think of are the Cinema Displays, not the iPhone--that could be very well the design direction they are headed in--same, slick, curvy, alloy look.
If you are worried you have nowhere to put your post-it-notes, you always have your tables, walls and your fridge.
It's funny when people hear aluminum the first thing they think of are the Cinema Displays, not the iPhone--that could be very well the design direction they are headed in--same, slick, curvy, alloy look.
I, for one, like the ice-white case of the iMac just as much as the alloy of the Cinema.
As for the iPhone being the marvel of miniaturization, remember that it's not a full-fledged computer. It's got an ARM processor in it, which usually run at around the 600-700MHz range. Not exactly my next home computer. Sure, it's cool. It's got a lot of snazzy features. But it's essentially just a phone, and a rather large one at that.
I, for one, like the ice-white case of the iMac just as much as the alloy of the Cinema.
As for the iPhone being the marvel of miniaturization, remember that it's not a full-fledged computer. It's got an ARM processor in it, which usually run at around the 600-700MHz range. Not exactly my next home computer. Sure, it's cool. It's got a lot of snazzy features. But it's essentially just a phone, and a rather large one at that.
What are you talking about?
As for the iPhone being the marvel of miniaturization, remember that it's not a full-fledged computer. It's got an ARM processor in it, which usually run at around the 600-700MHz range. Not exactly my next home computer. Sure, it's cool. It's got a lot of snazzy features. But it's essentially just a phone, and a rather large one at that.
I may just be a cat, but I know wrong, and that's wrong.
The iPhone is a full-fledged computer, running real OSX, two generations ahead of currently-shipping iMacs.
You are, however, right about the processor. Offhand I believe it runs around 667MHz. Quadrupling speed, however, and adding everything else that makes an iMac an iMac need not significantly increase its size; the overall size difference between the iMac and iPhone is disproportionately greater than their difference in every computational metric you can measure. Given the accellerating rate of power per pound per $1000 of computer and the iPhone as a preexisting benchmark, the current iMac is yesterday's room full of vacuum tubes.
One of the ways Steve Jobs improved Apple once he returned was through standardization. Developing shared parts meant leveraging efforts and budgets, and accelerating progress (didn't have to reinvent the wheel for every computer). The initiative to standardize continues - you see it in the new website, in Leopard, and in the elephantine effort that went into the iPhone. Lessons learned from (and parts developed for) the iPhone will trickle up to the forthcoming iMac and after that, the forthcoming ultraportable laptop.
Because the iPhone exists, the chin is history.
What are you talking about?
Here, I'll show you...
The iMac is also on the way to disappearing. The iPhone tells us this.
This implies that the iPhone is the harbinger of the iMac losing nearly all of it's form factor that doesn't include the screen, which isn't true. Just because they can fit a tiny micro-processor and a 4GB flash unit into a iPod-sized device doesn't mean that the iMac is suddenly capable of losing all of it's baby fat. Some components, like hard drives, fans, and optical drives just can't get that small, at least not that fast. If they make a tiny iMac, or, for instance, an ultra-portable MacBook, it will sacrifice power for size. Maybe a 1/4" thick laptop, or an iMac that is thinner and more compact than a Cinema is possible in the near future, but not today. Probably not even this year.
I may just be a cat, but I know wrong, and that's wrong.
The iPhone is a full-fledged computer, running real OSX, two generations ahead of currently-shipping iMacs.
You are, however, right about the processor. Offhand I believe it runs around 667MHz. Quadrupling speed, however, and adding everything else that makes an iMac an iMac need not significantly increase its size; the overall size difference between the iMac and iPhone is disproportionately greater than their difference in every computational metric you can measure. Given the accellerating rate of power per pound per $1000 of computer and the iPhone as a preexisting benchmark, the current iMac is yesterday's room full of vacuum tubes.
...
Because the iPhone exists, the chin is history.
Untrue. As a technician who has repaired countless iMacs, I can tell you that the "chin" area is the most important area of the machine. There is more circuitry packet into that area than anywhere else on the machine, and the only thing that isn't there is the optical and hard drives. It's possible to get a little smaller, perhaps, but not much. The iPhone, on the other hand, has two circuit boards, both about the area of an iPod shuffle. The only thing it really is made of is a micro-processor, a flash unit, a screen, and a transmitter. Can it run my FileMaker apps? Can I stream online content on it? Can I download the newest Diggnation podcast? Can I boot up Halo or World of Warcraft? No. It's a juiced-up phone, it's not a computer. Sure, it has full-fledged internet. That's the only thing computer-like about it. And even then, that's internet being viewed on a 3" screen with a zooming system that seems iffy to me. The iPhone is just that, a phone. It may be a cool one, but I wouldn't trade my 4-year-old PowerBook for one.
Untrue. As a technician who has repaired countless iMacs, I can tell you that the "chin" area is the most important area of the machine. There is more circuitry packet into that area than anywhere else on the machine, and the only thing that isn't there is the optical and hard drives. It's possible to get a little smaller, perhaps, but not much.
I disagree. Look at the 15" Macbook Pro. Now make it 20" (i.e more space), remove the keyboard, replace the battery with a desktop PSU and use desktop hard drives. From looking at screen shots, it does look like they've put a lot into the chin but they left a lot of space elsewhere so they just need to juggle things around. I reckon they'll be able to almost eliminate the chin entirely now that they don't have to accommodate a 17" in the design and they aren't using the design for the G5s.
I disagree. Look at the 15" Macbook Pro. Now make it 20" (i.e more space), remove the keyboard, replace the battery with a desktop PSU and use desktop hard drives. From looking at screen shots, it does look like they've put a lot into the chin but they left a lot of space elsewhere so they just need to juggle things around. I reckon they'll be able to almost eliminate the chin entirely now that they don't have to accommodate a 17" in the design and they aren't using the design for the G5s.
When I say it is impossible, I go on the assumption that everyone wants it to remain at the current price point. The MacBook Pro has much more compact (and therefore, expensive) parts inside, and to include those in the iMac would bump up it's price. I'd have no problem with a super-compact iMac being released as a compliment to the iMac, but not as a replacement. Bigger, less compact parts are cheaper. I like similar power for cheaper. Besides, it's a desktop, super-compact should take a backseat to power and productivity. You want super-compact, that's what the laptops are for.
I still don't agree. I like the chin. I've always liked the chin. And I will go on liking the chin.
It gives the imac character. As well as being practical(gives you a space to post things on).
Everyone here is talking about a "floating screen".
Booooooring.
I don't care how amazing a design company Apple is....if you keep minimizing it to the point of just being a screen...you begin to look like ANY other screen out there.
Me personally? Either way, I'll be buying a new imac. But I for one, hope the chin stays in.
I mean seriously.
Touch screens are important for handhelds like the iphone. But puh-lease. On an imac?
What a silly idea. It'll be a gimmick at best. A novelty.
Talk about carpal tunnel syndrome. Imagine holding your arm up for more then 15 minutes touching your imac screen.
dumb. dumb. dumb.
No one here has convinced me that the chin is bad.
I still don't agree. I like the chin. I've always liked the chin. And I will go on liking the chin.
It gives the imac character. As well as being practical(gives you a space to post things on).
Everyone here is talking about a "floating screen".
Booooooring.
I don't care how amazing a design company Apple is....if you keep minimizing it to the point of just being a screen...you begin to look like ANY other screen out there.
Me personally? Either way, I'll be buying a new imac. But I for one, hope the chin stays in.
Agreed. I want something on my desk that looks kick-ass, and losing the chin would make the machine look even more like the average LCD.
But the point is that some parts of the computer need to be in the chin, because it's got more space than behind the screen, as well as the fact that some parts can't function when stuffed behind an LCD, like the sleep light, ambient light sensor, IR sensor, and speakers.
I have one of the original 20" G5 iMacs at home and also a 23" display attached to a PB at the office. My preference is the lower position that the 23" gives me - but that might be related to using bi-focals. I'd rather have a power brick outside the iMac and use the 23" display form factor (even if it is a bit thicker) than continue with the current iMac design. We'll see what Jonathan I and Steve J are able to do (hopefully) pretty soon.
Untrue. As a technician who has repaired countless iMacs, I can tell you that the "chin" area is the most important area of the machine.
In the existing iMac, not the next one.
There is more circuitry packet into that area than anywhere else on the machine, and the only thing that isn't there is the optical and hard drives. It's possible to get a little smaller, perhaps, but not much.
Congratulations. You have just written the most inaccurate appraisal of computer technology in the history of the world.
The current iMac has a chin because, as you say, they need that area to pack in a bunch of circuits. The next iMac, however, will not need a chin because the circuits are smaller. You say they will need to continue the chin because "it's possible to get a little smaller, perhaps, but not much." You might as well be arguing that computers will continue to need warehouses full of vacuum tubes because vacuum tubes will get a little smaller, but not much.
Miniaturization is the driving force behind Moore's law, and is occurring across both electronic and mechanical technologies at an accelerating rate. Currently, technology is shrinking by a factor of around four per linear dimension per decade. This is why the iPhone can exist today, and will be exponentially more powerful in several years. This is also why future iMacs will not require a chin-like depository of anachronistically large circuits. Circuits are smaller, denser, faster and more integrated than they used to be, and are continuing to become smaller, denser, faster and more integrated at an accelerating rate. I am sorry, my friend, but in order to repair the next generation iMac, you will have to get used to chinlessly tinkering with more integrated collections of smaller circuits.
In 1965, Moore predicted that by 1975, a silicon chip would contain as many as 65,000 components. Your counterparts in 1965 called him a sissy boy and a hamster face. But he was right and they were wrong, and today chip components are measured in billions not thousands. As if anyone aside from you questions the accelerating miniaturization that drives Moore's Law, the director of Intel Technology Strategy and chairman of the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors recently confirmed its continuation for at least 15 to 20 years. Beyond that, nascent technologies from molecular to quantum suggest continued if not more dramatic acceleration in power driven by miniaturization of components.
The iPhone, on the other hand, has two circuit boards, both about the area of an iPod shuffle. The only thing it really is made of is a micro-processor, a flash unit, a screen, and a transmitter. Can it run my FileMaker apps? Can I stream online content on it? Can I download the newest Diggnation podcast? Can I boot up Halo or World of Warcraft? No. It's a juiced-up phone, it's not a computer. Sure, it has full-fledged internet. That's the only thing computer-like about it. And even then, that's internet being viewed on a 3" screen with a zooming system that seems iffy to me. The iPhone is just that, a phone. It may be a cool one, but I wouldn't trade my 4-year-old PowerBook for one.
Dude, insult me all you like, but by telling the iPhone that it is not a computer, you are hurting its feelings. It was birthed from the womb nary a week ago, and you are already misrepresenting its species. Not nice.
Yes, your laptop is a computer, your desktop is a computer, and there is even a contingent that believes the universe itself is a computer. But just because each is a different sort of computer doesn't remove that moniker from any one of them (although the universe-as-computer theory is, you know, way out there).
I know I may just be a cat, but in the iPhone's defense, I must say that it meets the definition of computer in every standard lexicon you can lay your paws on. Not only that, it is more obviously a computer than many others that are much more secretive about their computer-ness. There are computers everywhere that you would hardly recognize as such. But the iPhone, with its CPU, storage, UI, full version of Apple's OS, and variety (and potentially infinite number) of applications not limited to any single function, is no computer closet case.
The iPhone challenge was to design a computer with an acceptable phone function rather than a phone with an acceptable computer function (i.e. the competition). The primary hurdle was overcoming the lack of physical optimization in a dedicated device - the phone application had to be strong enough that users would tolerate the loss of a mechanical input for the benefits of open-endedness. Apple was so successful that they have convinced the likes of you, someone who has worked as an Apple repairman, that the iPhone is actually a phone and not a computer. That is a tremendous accomplishment. It reminds me of early computer users who, after using their new computers for word processing, were convinced they were typewriters. Few view their computers as typewriters today, and as the limited number of initial applications on the iPhone expands, few will fail to recognize them as the computers they are down the road.
Congratulations. You have just written the most inaccurate appraisal of computer technology in the history of the world.
The current iMac has a chin because, as you say, they need that area to pack in a bunch of circuits. The next iMac, however, will not need a chin because the circuits are smaller. You say they will need to continue the chin because "it's possible to get a little smaller, perhaps, but not much." You might as well be arguing that computers will continue to need warehouses full of vacuum tubes because vacuum tubes will get a little smaller, but not much.
Miniaturization is the driving force behind Moore's law, and is occurring across both electronic and mechanical technologies at an accelerating rate. Currently, technology is shrinking by a factor of around four per linear dimension per decade. This is why the iPhone can exist today, and will be exponentially more powerful in several years. This is also why future iMacs will not require a chin-like depository of anachronistically large circuits. Circuits are smaller, denser, faster and more integrated than they used to be, and are continuing to become smaller, denser, faster and more integrated at an accelerating rate. I am sorry, my friend, but in order to repair the next generation iMac, you will have to get used to chinlessly tinkering with more integrated collections of smaller circuits.
I understand that circuitry will continue to get smaller, but unless some amazing new technology comes out in the next month or so (or anytime before the next iMac), then the circuits will remain as they are for now. I'm by no means saying the iMac will always have the chin, but the next one will have to. We're not that far yet. So far, the only way to remove the chin will be to underpower the computer with low-end, super-compact parts like the 1/3" thick Intel laptop that came out a few weeks ago, or to make it thicker, and spread the chin out behind the display more. Even then, some things just won't work behind the display.
Dude, insult me all you like, but by telling the iPhone that it is not a computer, you are hurting its feelings. It was birthed from the womb nary a week ago, and you are already misrepresenting its species. Not nice.
Yes, your laptop is a computer, your desktop is a computer, and there is even a contingent that believes the universe itself is a computer. But just because each is a different sort of computer doesn't remove that moniker from any one of them (although the universe-as-computer theory is, you know, way out there).
I know I may just be a cat, but in the iPhone's defense, I must say that it meets the definition of computer in every standard lexicon you can lay your paws on. Not only that, it is more obviously a computer than many others that are much more secretive about their computer-ness. There are computers everywhere that you would hardly recognize as such. But the iPhone, with its CPU, storage, UI, full version of Apple's OS, and variety (and potentially infinite number) of applications not limited to any single function, is no computer closet case.
The iPhone challenge was to design a computer with an acceptable phone function rather than a phone with an acceptable computer function (i.e. the competition). The primary hurdle was overcoming the lack of physical optimization in a dedicated device - the phone application had to be strong enough that users would tolerate the loss of a mechanical input for the benefits of open-endedness. Apple was so successful that they have convinced the likes of you, someone who has worked as an Apple repairman, that the iPhone is actually a phone and not a computer. That is a tremendous accomplishment. It reminds me of early computer users who, after using their new computers for word processing, were convinced they were typewriters. Few view their computers as typewriters today, and as the limited number of initial applications on the iPhone expands, few will fail to recognize them as the computers they are down the road.
By those definitions, anything with a microchip is a computer, and there must be a line. I can browse the internet on my RAZR (assuming I bought the service), but that doesn't make it a full-fledged computer. Nor is the iPhone. I can't do with it what I can do with a laptop, or a desktop computer. It, despite what Apple may say, doesn't run true-blue OS X. It has the full OS X kernel, but the face of it is reduced significantly. It has no Finder, it has a stripped-down Dashboard, it has no volume-folder-file storage architecture, at least not as we know it. If it were possible to install the iPhone OS on a Mac, it would be a pretty useless Mac. And, if you show me someone who considers an iPhone to be a computer of the caliber of a Mac, I'll show you someone who's definition of a computer is far too wide.