That's your conclusion? You look at a cheap looking tray-loading optical drive and conclude that Apple's slot-loading option is a rip off?
Nope. If you take the comment in CONTEXT, as opposed to tearing down any statement into tiny little bite-size pieces that obviously don't hold up in isolation, you'll see that I was responding to TS's claim that $30 is the MAXIMUM one should expect to pay for an optical drive. His words, not mine.
So, either that was bullshit and there is a case to be made for the price range of $60-100 observed by the original poster, or Apple's device is priced outside the realm of reality. One can't have it both ways, it's one or the other.
I actually chose to pay the higher price for the Apple drive because it was easier to have it arrive with my computer than it was to go out and buy one separately and because it makes it impossible for Apple to use third-party hardware as an excuse when something doesn't work. That doesn't change the fact that the price is ridiculous, or that there is inconsistency on this forum regarding third-party upgrades and/or add-ons. On one hand people claim that the prices of Apple's extras are perfectly reasonable and justified, then, when the context suits, claim that cheap third-party substitutes are all one would ever need. Which is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So we've gone from "Apple should include an optical drive" to "Apple charges too much for their optical drive." Let's remember that it's an option. You don't have to pay Apple's whopping $79 for one that matches your Apple equipment or has a warranty that is easy to use or potentially will last much longer if you are frequent user. What TS is correct. If you have some odd need where you need to pull it out once a year then there is little reason not to go with the cheapest option.
Stated that way an argument could be made for using a cheap device, but you have to admit that you and others here have not applied that same reasoning to other cases of me or others feeling that Apple charges too much for extras. Nor was there a "light use" case qualified in the post to which TS replied. If anything, refusing to buy a current iMac because it doesn't have an optical drive would tend to imply that it would be used quite often.
While I do still feel that Apple is opportunist and greedy in its approach to upgrade/add-on pricing, the point of my post wasn't so much that as to challenge TS's inconsistency on the subject. And even that wasn't intended so much as a cry of "Hypocrite!" as it was just "Oh come on, I don't believe you really mean that."
[...] But you're trying to read too much into his comment. It would have been better worded as "You can get one for as little as $30" but he was responding to a comment that was claiming that $60 was the bare minimum, which simply isn't the case, so his response could be read as him saying that the maximum they'd have to consider paying would be $30.
I'd accept that. That's not what he wrote, though, and after the way you beat the hell outta me for failing to completely qualify and defend what I intended as an innocuous, off-the-cuff remark, I expect you to hold TS to the same standard!
But seriously, I'm mostly just arguing for the fun of it. I get the point and actually agree with TS, even if I was the sucker who paid too much. I just wish we would all apply the same common sense when discussing Apple designs that eliminate those alternatives and offer ONLY premium-priced solutions.
If they are so hard to make then perhaps it would be better for Apple to design them to be easier to make and you know, less thin. No one cares about the thinness of a desktop computer.
How about some useful things that the thinness doesn't allow, like:
1) SD slot where is it accessible, like on the side?
2) An accessible USB3 slot on the side for temporary media or an external DVD/Bluray drive as they so happily removed it from the device.
3) A VESA mount on the back for those that need it.
4) User accessible hard drive slot, along with the RAM access, afterall, hard drives do fail....
Everybody cares about the thinness of a desktop computer, they just don't know it.
The effect of seeing all that computer power happening behind a ridiculously beautiful piece of glass held up by a 5mm thin frame of aluminum is processed by your unconscious as amazing, whether you know it or not. Your logic is just getting in the way, same for others who don't get it. Many more will find themselves saying "I want this" without knowing why.
Ive designs things and he (and Mansfield etc.?) takes tremendous production risks, like the friction-stir welding, new kinds of screen lamination, and USA assembly, to move us emotionally, without our knowing it.. In another context, he said, "I think subconsciously people are remarkably discerning. I think they can sense care."
He might have said they can also sense a lot of other kinds of artfulness that the thin iMac represents, like lightness, grace, minimalism, Zen design—stuff too embarrassing for the designer to mention directly.The weight savings is also a very big deal. Whether you know it or not, whether you pick it up or not, your tactile senses are evaluating the thing sitting on the table or desk as either friendly or unfriendly, depending on its mass.
Then there's paxman's point about getting the structure so diappeared that the screen can lie flat. Lenovo just announced a huge touchscreen panel as a multiplayer gaming table at CES.
Is it so hard to put the iMac internals into a cube whose side is the size of a MacMini?
Perhaps their decisions for no Mac cube are considerations other than difficultly. Let's remember that the last time they made such a device it was a market flop.
It would be nice looking, small, easy to produce, and provide far better cooling than the iMac. This odd special producing method for the ultra-thin new design is quite absurd, specially if you consider the new iMacs are quite thick in their center...
Allen's Rule dictates that an object with less surface area in comparison to its internal volume will retain heat better than an object with more surface area in comparison to it's internal volume.[/QUOTE]
if at least all the iMac was ultra-thin, there would be a reason for this special technique.
The curve of the metal backing adds structural rigidity than it simply being a simple flat panel. Plus, you need a space for all the internals. There is a 3.5" HDD in the back of the 27" iMac. There is no way to get that (or most other components) in a total thickness of 5mm. They don't have a license for TARDIS technology... yet.
I actually chose to pay the higher price for the Apple drive because it was easier to have it arrive with my computer than it was to go out and buy one separately and because it makes it impossible for Apple to use third-party hardware as an excuse when something doesn't work. That doesn't change the fact that the price is ridiculous, or that there is inconsistency on this forum regarding third-party upgrades and/or add-ons. On one hand people claim that the prices of Apple's extras are perfectly reasonable and justified, then, when the context suits, claim that cheap third-party substitutes are all one would ever need. Which is it?
So you bought something from Apple for convenience and reliability of the service agreement and now you are complaining about the very thing you took of advantage of from buying from Apple. W T F?!?! You could have bought from Newegg or Wal-Mart whomever you wish. It's not likely you needed that ODD as soon as you got your Mac.
The answer is simple. If you don't see a value in what a company then you don't buy it. You are making this out to sound as if you were forced to buy their SuperDrive when you clearly choose to by your own free will.
Let me quote someone here. "...take the comment in CONTEXT, as opposed to tearing down any statement into tiny little bite-size pieces that obviously don't hold up in isolation..."
Sure there are benefits. You're only looking at common benefits for the user. Think of benefits from Apple's perspective. It's much lighter and has a smaller volume box. This saves plenty on shipping and allows for more to be shipped. It uses less material which saves on aluminium costs.
With the box considerably lighter than before it's easier for more customers to setup the machine. It's possible that the nearly 50% reduction in weight could be the difference as to whether a sale can be made. For all we know Apple Store employees have reported people buying the 21.5" (or no iMac) because they couldn't set it up themselves due to the weight.
And some of us DO buy on green issues - less materials, less shipping packaging, less fossil fuels used to get them to America = I'm happier about purchasing
Everybody cares about the thinness of a desktop computer, they just don't know it.
The effect of seeing all that computer power happening behind a ridiculously beautiful piece of glass held up by a 5mm thin frame of aluminum is processed by your unconscious as amazing, whether you know it or not. Your logic is just getting in the way, same for others who don't get it. Many more will find themselves saying "I want this" without knowing why.
Ive designs things and he (and Mansfield etc.?) takes tremendous production risks, like the friction-stir welding, new kinds of screen lamination, and USA assembly, to move us emotionally, without our knowing it.. In another context, he said, "I think subconsciously people are remarkably discerning. I think they can sense care."
He might have said they can also sense a lot of other kinds of artfulness that the thin iMac represents, like lightness, grace, minimalism, Zen design—stuff too embarrassing for the designer to mention directly.The weight savings is also a very big deal. Whether you know it or not, whether you pick it up or not, your tactile senses are evaluating the thing sitting on the table or desk as either friendly or unfriendly, depending on its mass.
Then there's paxman's point about getting the structure so diappeared that the screen can lie flat. Lenovo just announced a huge touchscreen panel as a multiplayer gaming table at CES.
There is a reason why one of these are doing very well in the market and the other isn't. Can you spot the difference?
I guess... But it seems like a lot of extra work for little reward. But why can't the new iMac be hung if one uses a specialized bracket like that. It's hardly flush against the wall.
I keep my iMac about 8" above my desk with a Humanscale arm. That arm was the whole reason I ditched the laptop and went iMac; it placed the computer at a useable height for me; the factory stand is just too short. I would be quite surprised if the VESA mount adapter doesn't work anymore, but anything is possible.
Incidentally, the reduced weight of the new model makes it much easier to use with an arm. The old unit weight was right at the threshold for being able to be supported with a full-motion arm.
And some of us DO buy on green issues - less materials, less shipping packaging, less fossil fuels used to get them to America = I'm happier about purchasing
Today a client just asked something I haven't heard for several years ... "Could you put all those pictures on a CD disk for me to watch on TV?".
I was stopped in my tracks ... I put HD on YouTube for people all the time and I did used to make DVDs in the pre HD days. I never went Blu-ray as I found internet delivery was great ... I realized this person wouldn't even understand the difference between SD and HD or that their TV being a 60" wide screen would not exactly make CD look good lol. What to do ???
You'd just dump some JPEGs onto a CD with an ISO9660 filesystem. You can make an ISO image with hdiutil or use something like Toast. The player should be able to load them at full display resolution. Maybe use a CDRW to check it works so you don't waste discs.
That savings is not passed to the consumer, but to the bottom line, as the consumer must go out and buy one in addition, as a $60-$100 add on.
Either the bottom line or the display tech. Given that they didn't bundle an SSD nor a higher resolution panel and just bumped the RAM up 4GB, it really should have been the same price in the worst case.
To put the price up $100 and have this supply problem is not going to do the iMac any favours at all. The executive shakeup might have had something to do with this too.
That's why I feel this isn't really analogous to eliminating the floppy drive -- the circumstances just aren't the same -- and Apple pulled the trigger on it, for desktops, at least, a few years too early.
You just have to look at modern game distribution. It's all going online now - Origin, Steam, UPlay, GoG, Direct2Drive/Gamefly, the Mac App Store, Windows 8 Store. Modern game downloads are around 10GB and you get the odd one here and there that is 20GB+. Hitman Absolution is about 24GB I think, Max Payne 3 is 30GB. They take a while to download but a decent connection will do it in 6-8 hours or less.
The hardware is becoming less important so companies need to control the content distribution - the main reason being product resale. This really affected PC gaming because it was so easy to buy a disc, copy it and sell it on. Think of any game store selling used games, if they sell a game 4 times in its lifetime, the developer is making 1/4 the profits they want to.
Apple has paid $6.5b to developers on the App Store - that gives them $2.8b reasons for taking out the optical drive. Although the Mac App Store has 1/4 the audience of iOS devices, the prices are much higher so the money will still be in the hundreds of millions.
Then there's paxman's point about getting the structure so diappeared that the screen can lie flat.
Except that it can't lie flat because it's a bowl. That's why some argue that a better design might be to make a machine that's a consistent depth all the way across rather than thin at the edges and fat in the middle. This would then have the spin-off benefit of creating an edge space for ports on the side where they're easier to get at rather than on the back where they're less visible but also less accessible, and would actually impede laying it flat.
Of course, since the current version is NOT a touch-capable device all of that is irrelevant at the moment. Perhaps if/when they are, the design will change.
Just the fact that Apple stores have, maybe, one or two of the new iMacs on display tells me they haven't gotten their supply chain issues resolved yet.
Not at all. Their stores are in holiday mode and during that time they never have more than one of each base model iMac on display in all but the biggest stores. The iMac table is used for their 'express zone' as it generally has a cash drawer built into it. They move those demos to the wall and remove the Mac mini, Mac Pro and displays. It's been that way for years
Except that it can't lie flat because it's a bowl. That's why some argue that a better design might be to make a machine that's a consistent depth all the way across rather than thin at the edges and fat in the middle. This would then have the spin-off benefit of creating an edge space for ports on the side where they're easier to get at rather than on the back where they're less visible but also less accessible, and would actually impede laying it flat.
1) If the sole reason for making it worse is so someone can have it exactly flat against a wall then I say that is a poor reason.
2) If one really wants that they can make a back casing for it that makes it flush and routes the ports to the side, bottom, front, or where ever.
1) SD slot where is it accessible, like on the side?
2) An accessible USB3 slot on the side for temporary media or an external DVD/Bluray drive as they so happily removed it from the device.
3) A VESA mount on the back for those that need it.
4) User accessible hard drive slot, along with the RAM access, afterall, hard drives do fail....
The position of the ports actually works reasonably well blind from the front. It could be better, but you don't necessarily have to look to plug things in-- it is about a finger length up from the bottom edge.
After checking on the VESA adapter... my mind is blown. I have no idea why they would give up that feature. It might only be important for 5% of purchasers, but those people could well be pushed away from Apple.
I guess... But it seems like a lot of extra work for little reward. But why can't the new iMac be hung if one uses a specialized bracket like that. It's hardly flush against the wall.
It gets worse - I can see a day when tablets get bigger and laptops disappear.
Wall sized displays. Google Glasses and who needs a keyboard when you have
So, either that was bullshit and there is a case to be made for the price range of $60-100 observed by the original poster, or Apple's device is priced outside the realm of reality. One can't have it both ways, it's one or the other.
No, it's more "if you're going to be whining about an optical drive at this stage, all you could really care about is getting the cheapest possible option, so instead of blowing things out of proportion by claiming that not only are you FORCED at gunpoint to buy an optical drive separately when you buy an iMac, you are also forced to spend an inordinate or inexcusable amount of money on Apple's drive, why not buy whatever el-cheapo crap you want since, yes, apparently even though you care only about cost, you're still complaining about the high price of one of a thousand options of optical drive, even though you don't understand what that drive represents" than anything else.
Except that it can't lie flat because it's a bowl. That's why some argue that a better design might be to make a machine that's a consistent depth all the way across rather than thin at the edges and fat in the middle. This would then have the spin-off benefit of creating an edge space for ports on the side where they're easier to get at rather than on the back where they're less visible but also less accessible, and would actually impede laying it flat.
Of course, since the current version is NOT a touch-capable device all of that is irrelevant at the moment. Perhaps if/when they are, the design will change.
The reason why it is so thin at the edges is about perception. The machine looks impossibly light and by so doing it becomes more approachable and less imposing. Apple might use the word 'magical'. If the machine ever becomes a 'lay down flat' touch device I am sure it won't be entirely flat, nor able to lie perfectly flat. But I am sure that by the time this happens it will have lost more of the bowl bulge. As for hanging it on the wall - I am sure that doesn't even enter the equation.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That's your conclusion? You look at a cheap looking tray-loading optical drive and conclude that Apple's slot-loading option is a rip off?
Nope. If you take the comment in CONTEXT, as opposed to tearing down any statement into tiny little bite-size pieces that obviously don't hold up in isolation, you'll see that I was responding to TS's claim that $30 is the MAXIMUM one should expect to pay for an optical drive. His words, not mine.
So, either that was bullshit and there is a case to be made for the price range of $60-100 observed by the original poster, or Apple's device is priced outside the realm of reality. One can't have it both ways, it's one or the other.
I actually chose to pay the higher price for the Apple drive because it was easier to have it arrive with my computer than it was to go out and buy one separately and because it makes it impossible for Apple to use third-party hardware as an excuse when something doesn't work. That doesn't change the fact that the price is ridiculous, or that there is inconsistency on this forum regarding third-party upgrades and/or add-ons. On one hand people claim that the prices of Apple's extras are perfectly reasonable and justified, then, when the context suits, claim that cheap third-party substitutes are all one would ever need. Which is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So we've gone from "Apple should include an optical drive" to "Apple charges too much for their optical drive." Let's remember that it's an option. You don't have to pay Apple's whopping $79 for one that matches your Apple equipment or has a warranty that is easy to use or potentially will last much longer if you are frequent user. What TS is correct. If you have some odd need where you need to pull it out once a year then there is little reason not to go with the cheapest option.
Stated that way an argument could be made for using a cheap device, but you have to admit that you and others here have not applied that same reasoning to other cases of me or others feeling that Apple charges too much for extras. Nor was there a "light use" case qualified in the post to which TS replied. If anything, refusing to buy a current iMac because it doesn't have an optical drive would tend to imply that it would be used quite often.
While I do still feel that Apple is opportunist and greedy in its approach to upgrade/add-on pricing, the point of my post wasn't so much that as to challenge TS's inconsistency on the subject. And even that wasn't intended so much as a cry of "Hypocrite!" as it was just "Oh come on, I don't believe you really mean that."
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
[...] But you're trying to read too much into his comment. It would have been better worded as "You can get one for as little as $30" but he was responding to a comment that was claiming that $60 was the bare minimum, which simply isn't the case, so his response could be read as him saying that the maximum they'd have to consider paying would be $30.
I'd accept that. That's not what he wrote, though, and after the way you beat the hell outta me for failing to completely qualify and defend what I intended as an innocuous, off-the-cuff remark, I expect you to hold TS to the same standard!
But seriously, I'm mostly just arguing for the fun of it. I get the point and actually agree with TS, even if I was the sucker who paid too much. I just wish we would all apply the same common sense when discussing Apple designs that eliminate those alternatives and offer ONLY premium-priced solutions.
Everybody cares about the thinness of a desktop computer, they just don't know it.
The effect of seeing all that computer power happening behind a ridiculously beautiful piece of glass held up by a 5mm thin frame of aluminum is processed by your unconscious as amazing, whether you know it or not. Your logic is just getting in the way, same for others who don't get it. Many more will find themselves saying "I want this" without knowing why.
Ive designs things and he (and Mansfield etc.?) takes tremendous production risks, like the friction-stir welding, new kinds of screen lamination, and USA assembly, to move us emotionally, without our knowing it.. In another context, he said, "I think subconsciously people are remarkably discerning. I think they can sense care."
He might have said they can also sense a lot of other kinds of artfulness that the thin iMac represents, like lightness, grace, minimalism, Zen design—stuff too embarrassing for the designer to mention directly.The weight savings is also a very big deal. Whether you know it or not, whether you pick it up or not, your tactile senses are evaluating the thing sitting on the table or desk as either friendly or unfriendly, depending on its mass.
Then there's paxman's point about getting the structure so diappeared that the screen can lie flat. Lenovo just announced a huge touchscreen panel as a multiplayer gaming table at CES.
Perhaps their decisions for no Mac cube are considerations other than difficultly. Let's remember that the last time they made such a device it was a market flop.
Allen's Rule dictates that an object with less surface area in comparison to its internal volume will retain heat better than an object with more surface area in comparison to it's internal volume.[/QUOTE]
The curve of the metal backing adds structural rigidity than it simply being a simple flat panel. Plus, you need a space for all the internals. There is a 3.5" HDD in the back of the 27" iMac. There is no way to get that (or most other components) in a total thickness of 5mm. They don't have a license for TARDIS technology... yet.
So you bought something from Apple for convenience and reliability of the service agreement and now you are complaining about the very thing you took of advantage of from buying from Apple. W T F?!?! You could have bought from Newegg or Wal-Mart whomever you wish. It's not likely you needed that ODD as soon as you got your Mac.
The answer is simple. If you don't see a value in what a company then you don't buy it. You are making this out to sound as if you were forced to buy their SuperDrive when you clearly choose to by your own free will.
Let me quote someone here. "...take the comment in CONTEXT, as opposed to tearing down any statement into tiny little bite-size pieces that obviously don't hold up in isolation..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Sure there are benefits. You're only looking at common benefits for the user. Think of benefits from Apple's perspective. It's much lighter and has a smaller volume box. This saves plenty on shipping and allows for more to be shipped. It uses less material which saves on aluminium costs.
With the box considerably lighter than before it's easier for more customers to setup the machine. It's possible that the nearly 50% reduction in weight could be the difference as to whether a sale can be made. For all we know Apple Store employees have reported people buying the 21.5" (or no iMac) because they couldn't set it up themselves due to the weight.
And some of us DO buy on green issues - less materials, less shipping packaging, less fossil fuels used to get them to America = I'm happier about purchasing
There is a reason why one of these are doing very well in the market and the other isn't. Can you spot the difference?
Incidentally, the reduced weight of the new model makes it much easier to use with an arm. The old unit weight was right at the threshold for being able to be supported with a full-motion arm.
Good point. I had completely forgot about that.
They probably just meant to make a photo CD:
http://www.ehow.co.uk/how_5970481_make-cd-plays-dvd-player.html
You'd just dump some JPEGs onto a CD with an ISO9660 filesystem. You can make an ISO image with hdiutil or use something like Toast. The player should be able to load them at full display resolution. Maybe use a CDRW to check it works so you don't waste discs.
Either the bottom line or the display tech. Given that they didn't bundle an SSD nor a higher resolution panel and just bumped the RAM up 4GB, it really should have been the same price in the worst case.
To put the price up $100 and have this supply problem is not going to do the iMac any favours at all. The executive shakeup might have had something to do with this too.
You just have to look at modern game distribution. It's all going online now - Origin, Steam, UPlay, GoG, Direct2Drive/Gamefly, the Mac App Store, Windows 8 Store. Modern game downloads are around 10GB and you get the odd one here and there that is 20GB+. Hitman Absolution is about 24GB I think, Max Payne 3 is 30GB. They take a while to download but a decent connection will do it in 6-8 hours or less.
The hardware is becoming less important so companies need to control the content distribution - the main reason being product resale. This really affected PC gaming because it was so easy to buy a disc, copy it and sell it on. Think of any game store selling used games, if they sell a game 4 times in its lifetime, the developer is making 1/4 the profits they want to.
Apple has paid $6.5b to developers on the App Store - that gives them $2.8b reasons for taking out the optical drive. Although the Mac App Store has 1/4 the audience of iOS devices, the prices are much higher so the money will still be in the hundreds of millions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Then there's paxman's point about getting the structure so diappeared that the screen can lie flat.
Except that it can't lie flat because it's a bowl. That's why some argue that a better design might be to make a machine that's a consistent depth all the way across rather than thin at the edges and fat in the middle. This would then have the spin-off benefit of creating an edge space for ports on the side where they're easier to get at rather than on the back where they're less visible but also less accessible, and would actually impede laying it flat.
Of course, since the current version is NOT a touch-capable device all of that is irrelevant at the moment. Perhaps if/when they are, the design will change.
Not at all. Their stores are in holiday mode and during that time they never have more than one of each base model iMac on display in all but the biggest stores. The iMac table is used for their 'express zone' as it generally has a cash drawer built into it. They move those demos to the wall and remove the Mac mini, Mac Pro and displays. It's been that way for years
1) If the sole reason for making it worse is so someone can have it exactly flat against a wall then I say that is a poor reason.
2) If one really wants that they can make a back casing for it that makes it flush and routes the ports to the side, bottom, front, or where ever.
The position of the ports actually works reasonably well blind from the front. It could be better, but you don't necessarily have to look to plug things in-- it is about a finger length up from the bottom edge.
After checking on the VESA adapter... my mind is blown. I have no idea why they would give up that feature. It might only be important for 5% of purchasers, but those people could well be pushed away from Apple.
Wall sized displays. Google Glasses and who needs a keyboard when you have
The Power Glove
Originally Posted by v5v
So, either that was bullshit and there is a case to be made for the price range of $60-100 observed by the original poster, or Apple's device is priced outside the realm of reality. One can't have it both ways, it's one or the other.
No, it's more "if you're going to be whining about an optical drive at this stage, all you could really care about is getting the cheapest possible option, so instead of blowing things out of proportion by claiming that not only are you FORCED at gunpoint to buy an optical drive separately when you buy an iMac, you are also forced to spend an inordinate or inexcusable amount of money on Apple's drive, why not buy whatever el-cheapo crap you want since, yes, apparently even though you care only about cost, you're still complaining about the high price of one of a thousand options of optical drive, even though you don't understand what that drive represents" than anything else.
Originally Posted by charlituna
…who needs a keyboard when you have
The Power Glove
It's so bad!
Given that this was someone that said CD for all we know they are still rocking a CRT and a Betamax, not likely to have a new TV etc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya0F83Bmbl4
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
Except that it can't lie flat because it's a bowl. That's why some argue that a better design might be to make a machine that's a consistent depth all the way across rather than thin at the edges and fat in the middle. This would then have the spin-off benefit of creating an edge space for ports on the side where they're easier to get at rather than on the back where they're less visible but also less accessible, and would actually impede laying it flat.
Of course, since the current version is NOT a touch-capable device all of that is irrelevant at the moment. Perhaps if/when they are, the design will change.
The reason why it is so thin at the edges is about perception. The machine looks impossibly light and by so doing it becomes more approachable and less imposing. Apple might use the word 'magical'. If the machine ever becomes a 'lay down flat' touch device I am sure it won't be entirely flat, nor able to lie perfectly flat. But I am sure that by the time this happens it will have lost more of the bowl bulge. As for hanging it on the wall - I am sure that doesn't even enter the equation.