I wonder sometimes whether an "iMac Pro" is likely in a year or two. These two Retina iMacs (refreshed, with USB-C) stay as the low end, while even better display technology and Thunderbolt 3 appear in new "Pro" iMacs. The lineup would then be:
iPad, iPad Pro, iPad Air
MacBook, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air
iMac, iMac Pro
Mac Pro
Thunderbolt Pro Display
I've actually been thinking for some time that the "i" is on the way out. So the iMac would become either just "Mac", or possibly "Mac Air" (although that's awful to say - Macintosh Air flows nicely, but not sure they'd go back to that branding at this point).
And you've left out "mini"
iPad mini, iPad Air, iPad Pro
Mac mini, (i)Mac( Air), Mac Pro
MacBook, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro
The MacBook poses a problem. They could rebrand it as MacBook mini, but the 11" Air is smaller, unless they ditch the 11" at the next major redesign.
I also expect the "with Retina Display" qaulifier will go away, since they won't be selling a non-Retina device anymore.
As much as I prefer a 24" iMac as well, I think it would effectively kill the 27" model.
21.5" is a tad small...reduce the bevel and give us 22.5" or 23".
This. 21.5 at 16:9 or even 16:10 is a tad too small for vertical. Add to that that many will opt for a larger font size retina scaled image because habitually apple uses smaller standard systemwide font and that reduces the vertical space even more. Really at 16:9 with an added retina scale up at 21.5 is a no no, even without the retina scale up a 16:9 screen at 21.5 is small, 23" inches is the lowest you should go and I 've tried many, many display sizes and aspect ratios. This model is more of a gimmick than an actual computer to get work done sadly.
Oh, and bring on that quad core mac mini server which is oh so sorely missing.
Make it 42”, multitouch, and with a stand that lets me effortlessly swing it from a 5º angle to vertical and I’ll start saving for one.
That seems uncomfortably large for a touchscreen device. You wouldn't view it from very far away if you interact with it via touch, so 42" could be more of a hindrance than anything. It requires a significant amount of available desk space, and you would not be able to visually take in the entire thing. After the bump to 5K (or 4K for the 21.5"), I think the pitch is so tight that you wouldn't see pixels from any distance.
Comments
And you've left out "mini"
iPad mini, iPad Air, iPad Pro
Mac mini, (i)Mac( Air), Mac Pro
MacBook, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro
The MacBook poses a problem. They could rebrand it as MacBook mini, but the 11" Air is smaller, unless they ditch the 11" at the next major redesign.
I also expect the "with Retina Display" qaulifier will go away, since they won't be selling a non-Retina device anymore.
As much as I prefer a 24" iMac as well, I think it would effectively kill the 27" model.
21.5" is a tad small...reduce the bevel and give us 22.5" or 23".
This. 21.5 at 16:9 or even 16:10 is a tad too small for vertical. Add to that that many will opt for a larger font size retina scaled image because habitually apple uses smaller standard systemwide font and that reduces the vertical space even more. Really at 16:9 with an added retina scale up at 21.5 is a no no, even without the retina scale up a 16:9 screen at 21.5 is small, 23" inches is the lowest you should go and I 've tried many, many display sizes and aspect ratios. This model is more of a gimmick than an actual computer to get work done sadly.
Oh, and bring on that quad core mac mini server which is oh so sorely missing.
Target display mode
Thunderbolt 3
USB-C
Intel Skylake Processor
Improved graphics hardware
Make it 42”, multitouch, and with a stand that lets me effortlessly swing it from a 5º angle to vertical and I’ll start saving for one.
Make it 42”, multitouch, and with a stand that lets me effortlessly swing it from a 5º angle to vertical and I’ll start saving for one.
That seems uncomfortably large for a touchscreen device. You wouldn't view it from very far away if you interact with it via touch, so 42" could be more of a hindrance than anything. It requires a significant amount of available desk space, and you would not be able to visually take in the entire thing. After the bump to 5K (or 4K for the 21.5"), I think the pitch is so tight that you wouldn't see pixels from any distance.
No nearer than an iPad. Further, even, since we’re talking desktop.
Yeah, I’m probably on the large end of desire.
Well, what’s the angular focus range of the eye, anyway? Maybe I want to be ensconced in my work.
Don't forget Pencil-enabled
????
No nearer than an iPad. Further, even, since we’re talking desktop.
It would be a bit further. My guess is within eighteen inches.
Well, what’s the angular focus range of the eye, anyway? Maybe I want to be ensconced in my work.
It's not quite as simple as that. You don't really view your display using peripheral vision.