Have you seen how big the heat sinks on the Ultra chips in the Mac Studio and Pro are? Highly unlikely they’d try to jam that into an iMac chassis.
And what iMac chassis would that be? We aren’t talking about the 24” and we haven’t seen the 32” yet.
A M2 Ultra won’t be jammed into any iMac. An M3 will. And it’s likely this which has held up the offering.
Heat sinks don’t only go straight up or even have one shape if you remember. After seeing a ton of stress tests, it seems overkill as the thing never throttles no matter how much you throw at it for however long - and does so without using the fans hardly at all.
To state the obvious:
1. A big iMac has lots of space for heat dissipation - especially for a 3nm SOC. And then there are fans. A 32” diagonal footprint is a lot bigger than the 7.7” Studio.
2. A big iMac, iMac Pro, iMac Studio or whatever does not have to be as paper thin as the little one. MacBooks aren’t the same thickness. iMacs don’t have to be either. And to be performant, they shouldn’t be.
Small minded people get funny about things. And people who get threatened by something become suddenly small-minded. Especially those lacking engineering knowledge or a grasp of history. Just because the Studio is designed a certain way doesn’t mean that’s the only way to do it. Apple did fine with an iMac that not only had to manage a hot, fast Intel chip, but also a fast discrete GPU. They’ll design the new iMac to be even better thermally with a far more efficient 3nm SOC package.
The only way it doesn’t happen is if Apple simply doesn’t want to. There is no engineering/thermal barrier anymore than their was for the MacBook Pro before apple made it thicker to accommodate M Max chips.
The one elephant in the room that none of you have discussed is how much would a 30” or 32” iMac cost?
We know that an Apple Studio Display at 27” and 5K resolution costs $1600.
Well at 30” it can’t stay at 5K, if it wants to retain the “Retina” moniker at 218ppi. It’s likely to be bumped up to $2000 for a 5.5K display (very conservative estimate if Apple were to release such a display). Add an M2 or M3 in there and it suddenly jumps to $3000 starting price (again very conservative estimate).
If they decide to go with a 32” iMac then 6K is the way to go (all because of that pesky “Retina” label at 218ppi). What would a starting price be for such a machine? $4000, $5000???
$3000 for an M3 $3500 for an M3 Pro $4000 for an M3 Max
Yes, very expensive, but it's going to be up there if this 30" monitor is something like 5600 x 3100 resolution. One hopes it would be a 120 Hz miniLED with 50,000 back lights and 13,000 dimmable zones. They really at least should put the computing bits (the SoC and logic board) into an interchangeable module so that customers can upgrade to M4 or M5 generation boards, at least done by Apple service centers. A monitor like this is a big investment and people will be keeping it for a long time.
That $1800 iMac 5K was basically a $1300 monitor with a $500 computer inside. A M2 Pro or M3 Pro Mac mini is $1300. A 30" 220 DPI monitor is going to be $2000. Isn't going to be affordable for most people. Would hope they sell the display as an external monitor when TB5 comes around.
Have you seen how big the heat sinks on the Ultra chips in the Mac Studio and Pro are? Highly unlikely they’d try to jam that into an iMac chassis.
And what iMac chassis would that be? We aren’t talking about the 24” and we haven’t seen the 32” yet.
A M2 Ultra won’t be jammed into any iMac. An M3 will. And it’s likely this which has held up the offering.
Heat sinks don’t only go straight up or even have one shape if you remember. After seeing a ton of stress tests, it seems overkill as the thing never throttles no matter how much you throw at it for however long - and does so without using the fans hardly at all.
To state the obvious:
1. A big iMac has lots of space for heat dissipation - especially for a 3nm SOC. And then there are fans. A 32” diagonal footprint is a lot bigger than the 7.7” Studio.
2. A big iMac, iMac Pro, iMac Studio or whatever does not have to be as paper thin as the little one. MacBooks aren’t the same thickness. iMacs don’t have to be either. And to be performant, they shouldn’t be.
Small minded people get funny about things. And people who get threatened by something become suddenly small-minded. Especially those lacking engineering knowledge or a grasp of history. Just because the Studio is designed a certain way doesn’t mean that’s the only way to do it. Apple did fine with an iMac that not only had to manage a hot, fast Intel chip, but also a fast discrete GPU. They’ll design the new iMac to be even better thermally with a far more efficient 3nm SOC package.
The only way it doesn’t happen is if Apple simply doesn’t want to. There is no engineering/thermal barrier anymore than their was for the MacBook Pro before apple made it thicker to accommodate M Max chips.
The one elephant in the room that none of you have discussed is how much would a 30” or 32” iMac cost?
We know that an Apple Studio Display at 27” and 5K resolution costs $1600.
Well at 30” it can’t stay at 5K, if it wants to retain the “Retina” moniker at 218ppi. It’s likely to be bumped up to $2000 for a 5.5K display (very conservative estimate if Apple were to release such a display). Add an M2 or M3 in there and it suddenly jumps to $3000 starting price (again very conservative estimate).
If they decide to go with a 32” iMac then 6K is the way to go (all because of that pesky “Retina” label at 218ppi). What would a starting price be for such a machine? $4000, $5000???
$3000 for an M3 $3500 for an M3 Pro $4000 for an M3 Max
Yes, very expensive, but it's going to be up there if this 30" monitor is something like 5600 x 3100 resolution. One hopes it would be a 120 Hz miniLED with 50,000 back lights and 13,000 dimmable zones. They really at least should put the computing bits (the SoC and logic board) into an interchangeable module so that customers can upgrade to M4 or M5 generation boards, at least done by Apple service centers. A monitor like this is a big investment and people will be keeping it for a long time.
That $1800 iMac 5K was basically a $1300 monitor with a $500 computer inside. A M2 Pro or M3 Pro Mac mini is $1300. A 30" 220 DPI monitor is going to be $2000. Isn't going to be affordable for most people. Would hope they sell the display as an external monitor when TB5 comes around.
The 32" Dell 6K is $3,200 (with an LG IPS Black panel). So a Studio Display 6K with the same or similar panel would come in right around there, exactly double the base price of the current 5K Studio Display. So, yes, you're probably looking at a $4,500 starting point for a true iMac 6K. I can't really see any other way.
It's hard to imagine Apple building that. Far from being "small-minded," many of us here thought there would be a large Apple-silicon iMac, using many of the same arguments 9sec is still clinging to, but that was before the Mac Studio, the Studio Display 5K, and now the Mac mini with M2 Pro. I know I did, along with others. But there's a difference between speculation about future hardware and flat-out denial in the face of new information. The idea that somehow the M2 prevented a larger iMac from being built is bunk. Apple chose to go in a different direction. You saying this hypothetical iMac should ideally be modular tells us all we need to know about why.
The Mac mini and Mac Studio with external display added just isn’t for me. After enjoying the iMac 5k for 7 years, it’s too lame to go back to a traditional PC setup. The iMac was a beast too.
Going 3nm, I’m betting they can use the Ultra in the 32” chassis and a 6k screen.
The only real drawback is going to be price gouging from Apple. After pushing the Studio as a wannabe iMac replacement, apple found a way to seriously overcharge. In 2030, you could load up the iMac 27” with significantly impressive power and it was a good deal. The Mac Studio, while a nice and capable machine is a horrible deal in comparison.
That makes me think the big iMac will be labeled “Pro” and carry the Max and Ultra chips. This will allow Apple to charge about what the Stidio plus display costs and that would really suck.
The other option would be to limit it to pro and max and sell it for a good amount cheaper, but that would be artificially limiting the performance. No thanks.
Hopefully it’s not too far out. By this time next year is as long as it should be. Plenty of people are losing enthusiasm as it is. No one asked for the big iMac to go away - literally the worst thing about the Apple Silicon transition. And the Mac Studio is not at all a suitable replacement. Let’s get that big iMac 6k rolling. And with m3 Ultra please. If the old iMac could accommodate the hot Intel chip and separate GPU without issue, the new one can accommodate a single 3nm SOC that runs FAR cooler and barely ever needs to use its fans as is.
No, it's not gonna be a Pro iMac. There's no room in Apple's lineup for yet another Pro Desktop when they already have Mac Studio and Mac Pro. It simply doesn't make any sense, especially since the Mac Studio is selling so well. Why anyone would want an iMac Pro over a Mac Studio is beyond me unless you just care about how it looks. The average consumer buying a Mac Studio doesn't give a rats ass about how it looks on their desk compared to what could have been with an iMac Pro.
You seriously need to get over this iMac Pro thing that you seem to keep pushing over and over again...I'd be extremely surprised to see it happen. It's like Apple releasing a 15" MacBook Air Pro.
You seem to be more than a little misinformed and history-deficient. Yes, Apple already has a Mac mini. Yes they have a Studio. And yes, even a Mac Pro. They even have *gasp!* a small version of the iMac. Being that the small iMac exists, there is obviously still a major market for such sleekness. Historically, apple has had small and large iMacs - and even an iMac Pro. I know. Must be shocking news.
A few reasons why a big iMac with major horsepower is plausible:
1. Precedent. They e already been doing this since 2015. Then, they really upped the ante with iMac Pro, which was at the time a stopgap as we waited for max pro. In 2020, Apple updated the iMac 5k with specs thst spanked the iMac Pro.
1a. ALL Apple customers care about how their computer looks sitting at their desk. You’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise. And if your the exception, hey, have at it.
2. The advent of Apple silicon actually creates more of a case for all-in-one computers/embedded systems since their is no need to crack open the case for upgrades and apples SOCs run cooler than the competition.
3. Your argument that a Mac studio exists so the iMac shouldn’t is negligible. That’s like saying max mini exists so max studio shouldn’t. Or max pro exist so max studio shouldn’t. When the new iMac comes out, it may be the Mac studio that disappears if any so.
4. A generic pc tower plus monitor setup is never going to replace a sleek all in one. A single piece of hardware doing everything is where it’s at. Imagine a Pro Display XDR with the computer inside. An iMac is more beneficial than the old pc setup the Studio beings. It looks better/sleeker, has a smaller footprint, more efficient cable management, and does everything a Mac Stidio does without the mess. It’s win-win all over the place. Literally the only thing max studio does better is open the door for apple to price-gouge. The iMac is better for the environment as well with less materials needed to form the enclosure and cable plastic.
5. It doesn’t have to be called “Pro” and I personally hop it isn’t. It should be normative that a big iMac has major horsepower. M3 with its more efficient setup makes it a no-brainer to have Max and Ultra chips available.
In the end, Apple silicon seems destinies to be coupled with a top tier iMac. Apple silicon is itself a non-upgradeable all in one piece of tech. An iMac is a non-upgradeable all in one computer. Actually, when you think about it, the Mac studio is not upgradeable snd the studio display is not upgradeable, so it seems like a waste. A 32” iMac with m3 ultra is the perfect fit.
I understand you bought the Mac studio and the 27” display equivalent to the old iMac. but tech marches on. Be happy with and enjoy your purchase. Don’t get made at those of us who waited and were rewarded with the return of an icon. When that time comes, you can always have had the benefit of the very capable Mac studio and then sell it and get the iMac you really want. And if you don’t want that glorious 32” sleek, performant iMac, cool. Enjoy your Stidio and 27” display.
I never said the iMac doesn't need to exist. I said the iMac Pro doesn't need to exist. These are 2 different products. Learn to read and comprehend. There is no room for another Pro product in Apple's lineup and an iMac Pro (PRO not regular iMac) doesn't need to exist now that Mac Studio exists and sells very very well. The market has already shifted away from a Pro version of the iMac yet you seem to keep harping that Apple needs to release a new iMac Pro. iMac Pro is a bad deal in the end. You have to repurchase a display every time you want to upgrade and you're not getting an updated display like you've suggested in the past. Apple just uses the same displays over and over again in the iMac and it did the same for the iMac Pro. iMac Pro would also have thermal limitations unlike Mac Studio which can basically run at 100% CPU/GPU indefinitely without even kicking the fans up. You can check many the reviews of the Mac Studio on the YouTubes to see this if you don't believe it. This wouldn't be possible in an iMac Pro enclosure.
Will there be a larger iMac? Maybe, but it doesn't seem to be a priority at all for Apple or else they would have released it with the current new 24" iMac design. There shouldn't have been anything holding Apple back from doing it back then.
As a whole the market has shifted away from desktops on the consumer end and more towards laptops so my guess is Apple doesn't really see the need for a larger iMac. I do wonder how well the iMac sells anyways.
Have you seen how big the heat sinks on the Ultra chips in the Mac Studio and Pro are? Highly unlikely they’d try to jam that into an iMac chassis.
And what iMac chassis would that be? We aren’t talking about the 24” and we haven’t seen the 32” yet.
A M2 Ultra won’t be jammed into any iMac. An M3 will. And it’s likely this which has held up the offering.
Heat sinks don’t only go straight up or even have one shape if you remember. After seeing a ton of stress tests, it seems overkill as the thing never throttles no matter how much you throw at it for however long - and does so without using the fans hardly at all.
To state the obvious:
1. A big iMac has lots of space for heat dissipation - especially for a 3nm SOC. And then there are fans. A 32” diagonal footprint is a lot bigger than the 7.7” Studio.
2. A big iMac, iMac Pro, iMac Studio or whatever does not have to be as paper thin as the little one. MacBooks aren’t the same thickness. iMacs don’t have to be either. And to be performant, they shouldn’t be.
Small minded people get funny about things. And people who get threatened by something become suddenly small-minded. Especially those lacking engineering knowledge or a grasp of history. Just because the Studio is designed a certain way doesn’t mean that’s the only way to do it. Apple did fine with an iMac that not only had to manage a hot, fast Intel chip, but also a fast discrete GPU. They’ll design the new iMac to be even better thermally with a far more efficient 3nm SOC package.
The only way it doesn’t happen is if Apple simply doesn’t want to. There is no engineering/thermal barrier anymore than their was for the MacBook Pro before apple made it thicker to accommodate M Max chips.
The one elephant in the room that none of you have discussed is how much would a 30” or 32” iMac cost?
We know that an Apple Studio Display at 27” and 5K resolution costs $1600.
Well at 30” it can’t stay at 5K, if it wants to retain the “Retina” moniker at 218ppi. It’s likely to be bumped up to $2000 for a 5.5K display (very conservative estimate if Apple were to release such a display). Add an M2 or M3 in there and it suddenly jumps to $3000 starting price (again very conservative estimate).
If they decide to go with a 32” iMac then 6K is the way to go (all because of that pesky “Retina” label at 218ppi). What would a starting price be for such a machine? $4000, $5000???
There is no elephant. This is the same question we had when Apple released a giant (for its time) 27” with an unheard of for its time 5k resolution! The resolution was so high, Apple had to invent a display connector as no standard could support it. This was high tech, next level stuff - and it came with great performance as well.
The iMac 5k was a steal of a deal. It’s actually easier for Apple to offer better deals now than it was then. They don’t have to pay Intel and AMDs overhead.
Besides, they’ve been getting away with selling near-decade old tech for ridiculous prices with the studio display.
Whatever it costs, it’s likely to be a bit less than the studio+display. Even if it costs the same or a little more, it will be worth it.
Literally no one has not thought of pricing. The crazy thing is how quickly people forget how well apple was able to price their wares with novel tech. This hasn’t changed. Just because you’re getting price gouged on the Studio doesn’t mean it has to stay that way.
I get that you're excited bro, but you're losing it
Im quoted and so and I respond. I can’t help it if my answers poke holes in your sandbags. If providing logical answers to farcical scenarios is “excitement,” I’d like to see what thesaurus you’re using.
I didn’t create the thread. No need to be threatened by the relaunch of an iconic product.
I get that you're excited bro, but you're losing it
Im quoted and so and I respond. I can’t help it if my answers poke holes in your sandbags. If providing logical answers to farcical scenarios is “excitement,” I’d like to see what thesaurus you’re using.
I didn’t create the thread. No need to be threatened by the relaunch of an iconic product.
It will be ok man. It really will.
I'm not arguing against you dude, no sandbags here. The bit I've quoted is a ridiculous thing to say though, both semantically and practically.
Have you seen how big the heat sinks on the Ultra chips in the Mac Studio and Pro are? Highly unlikely they’d try to jam that into an iMac chassis.
And what iMac chassis would that be? We aren’t talking about the 24” and we haven’t seen the 32” yet.
A M2 Ultra won’t be jammed into any iMac. An M3 will. And it’s likely this which has held up the offering.
Heat sinks don’t only go straight up or even have one shape if you remember. After seeing a ton of stress tests, it seems overkill as the thing never throttles no matter how much you throw at it for however long - and does so without using the fans hardly at all.
To state the obvious:
1. A big iMac has lots of space for heat dissipation - especially for a 3nm SOC. And then there are fans. A 32” diagonal footprint is a lot bigger than the 7.7” Studio.
2. A big iMac, iMac Pro, iMac Studio or whatever does not have to be as paper thin as the little one. MacBooks aren’t the same thickness. iMacs don’t have to be either. And to be performant, they shouldn’t be.
Small minded people get funny about things. And people who get threatened by something become suddenly small-minded. Especially those lacking engineering knowledge or a grasp of history. Just because the Studio is designed a certain way doesn’t mean that’s the only way to do it. Apple did fine with an iMac that not only had to manage a hot, fast Intel chip, but also a fast discrete GPU. They’ll design the new iMac to be even better thermally with a far more efficient 3nm SOC package.
The only way it doesn’t happen is if Apple simply doesn’t want to. There is no engineering/thermal barrier anymore than their was for the MacBook Pro before apple made it thicker to accommodate M Max chips.
The one elephant in the room that none of you have discussed is how much would a 30” or 32” iMac cost?
We know that an Apple Studio Display at 27” and 5K resolution costs $1600.
Well at 30” it can’t stay at 5K, if it wants to retain the “Retina” moniker at 218ppi. It’s likely to be bumped up to $2000 for a 5.5K display (very conservative estimate if Apple were to release such a display). Add an M2 or M3 in there and it suddenly jumps to $3000 starting price (again very conservative estimate).
If they decide to go with a 32” iMac then 6K is the way to go (all because of that pesky “Retina” label at 218ppi). What would a starting price be for such a machine? $4000, $5000???
Have you priced a M2 Studio Mac? It ain’t cheap (with a couple minor upgrades), over the years Apple sold a lot of 27 inch iMac’s over the years, bigger iMac’s will make a come back, like Apple curated monitors made a come back after not being made for a few years.
There has been talk of a 30+ inch iMac for far too long for me to take it seriously anymore. So last year I couldn't wait any longer so I updated my 2013 that served me well for years to an Apple refurbed 2020 27" iMac that is almost as fast as the new Apple Silicon and RAM disk drives. All the speed I need for the foreseeable future, Intel legacy support not needed, as it is Intel.
If the 30+" had been there I would have considered the cost to benefit analysis but Apple's failure to bring it to life met with my need to be able to upgrade the Mac OS my 2013 was going to make difficult made this a no brainer. The refurb and a multiple thousands in savings over what a Mac Studio with a 30 inch screen would have cost me.
Sorry Apple, your time table didn't fit my need to remain OS current. Maybe next time.
There has been talk of a 30+ inch iMac for far too long for me to take it seriously anymore. So last year I couldn't wait any longer so I updated my 2013 that served me well for years to an Apple refurbed 2020 27" iMac that is almost as fast as the new Apple Silicon and RAM disk drives. All the speed I need for the foreseeable future, Intel legacy support not needed, as it is Intel.
If the 30+" had been there I would have considered the cost to benefit analysis but Apple's failure to bring it to life met with my need to be able to upgrade the Mac OS my 2013 was going to make difficult made this a no brainer. The refurb and a multiple thousands in savings over what a Mac Studio with a 30 inch screen would have cost me.
Sorry Apple, your time table didn't fit my need to remain OS current. Maybe next time.
That’s the iMac Ive been referencing. The 2020. Great buy. It’s not only sleek and s beautiful machine, but very powerful.
This is an example of what we’ve been saying. Nobody wanted the big iMac to go away snd be replaced for however long with a bigger Mac mini and separate monitor. We want the iMac. It’s the quintessential Mac and deserves to be done with excellence.
Have to wonder about some percentage of the 2022 sales slump. No doubt a huge chunk of it is in two categories:
1) the amount of people that bought into m1 is staggering and so the market is s bit saturated.
2) most max customers are up to speed with apple developments and those who skipped m1 have also sat out on m2 as we wait for the real coup de gras in the m3 generation.
But I suggest there may be a third:
3) no true successor to the big iMac. The small iMac isn’t big or powerful enough and the color scheme has been polarizing, as has the decision to give it a video game console external brick for a power supply that just litters the floor. Nasty. Actually, I take that back. Even the ps4 had an internal power supply. At the least, the infant iMac could have used a MacBook Pro style supply that plugs right into the wall.
Lots of folks did not buy the 2020 iMac update as they awaited the forthcoming shift to apple silicon. Then when the shift happened, they were without the machine they actually wanted and waited for. So they still waited. Some settled for whatever else was available and others still waited.
So one more year is about the limit I think. The big iMac can’t come soon enough. With the move to 3nm and the larger chassis with thermal room, a ton of customers will gladly buy into a new, impressively sized, impressively powerful iMac. Can’t wait. It’s about time.
And then again, this whole larger than 30” business could be about a new Pro Display XDR. But with the Mac Pro being such a disappointment, it’s doubtful.
You should prepare yourself for the likelihood that if Apple builds a 30" iMac, it’s going to have the same approach to the power supply as the 24" iMac. You can rail against it all you want, but that won’t change anything.
You should prepare yourself for the likelihood that if Apple builds a 30" iMac, it’s going to have the same approach to the power supply as the 24" iMac. You can rail against it all you want, but that won’t change anything.
Yep... if this is in fact built it's just gonna be a 30" version of the 24". You "might" see M3 Pro inside it as an option (or offered as an upper tier model), but other than that and possibly color differences overall it'll be the same iMac in a larger shell. And, just because it may be offered with an M3 Pro doesn't make it an iMac Pro either. Not in the slightest. If Apple happens to call the iMac Pro it's the absolute saddest "Pro" Mac out there lol.
You should prepare yourself for the likelihood that if Apple builds a 30" iMac, it’s going to have the same approach to the power supply as the 24" iMac. You can rail against it all you want, but that won’t change anything.
Yep... if this is in fact built it's just gonna be a 30" version of the 24". You "might" see M3 Pro inside it as an option (or offered as an upper tier model), but other than that and possibly color differences overall it'll be the same iMac in a larger shell. And, just because it may be offered with an M3 Pro doesn't make it an iMac Pro either. Not in the slightest. If Apple happens to call the iMac Pro it's the absolute saddest "Pro" Mac out there lol.
well… time will tell my friends. Pals. Buddies…
If nothing else, it will be interesting to see who was right when it launches.
Comments
$3500 for an M3 Pro
$4000 for an M3 Max
Yes, very expensive, but it's going to be up there if this 30" monitor is something like 5600 x 3100 resolution. One hopes it would be a 120 Hz miniLED with 50,000 back lights and 13,000 dimmable zones. They really at least should put the computing bits (the SoC and logic board) into an interchangeable module so that customers can upgrade to M4 or M5 generation boards, at least done by Apple service centers. A monitor like this is a big investment and people will be keeping it for a long time.
That $1800 iMac 5K was basically a $1300 monitor with a $500 computer inside. A M2 Pro or M3 Pro Mac mini is $1300. A 30" 220 DPI monitor is going to be $2000. Isn't going to be affordable for most people. Would hope they sell the display as an external monitor when TB5 comes around.
It's hard to imagine Apple building that. Far from being "small-minded," many of us here thought there would be a large Apple-silicon iMac, using many of the same arguments 9sec is still clinging to, but that was before the Mac Studio, the Studio Display 5K, and now the Mac mini with M2 Pro. I know I did, along with others. But there's a difference between speculation about future hardware and flat-out denial in the face of new information. The idea that somehow the M2 prevented a larger iMac from being built is bunk. Apple chose to go in a different direction. You saying this hypothetical iMac should ideally be modular tells us all we need to know about why.
Will there be a larger iMac? Maybe, but it doesn't seem to be a priority at all for Apple or else they would have released it with the current new 24" iMac design. There shouldn't have been anything holding Apple back from doing it back then.
As a whole the market has shifted away from desktops on the consumer end and more towards laptops so my guess is Apple doesn't really see the need for a larger iMac. I do wonder how well the iMac sells anyways.
I get that you're excited bro, but you're losing it.
If the 30+" had been there I would have considered the cost to benefit analysis but Apple's failure to bring it to life met with my need to be able to upgrade the Mac OS my 2013 was going to make difficult made this a no brainer. The refurb and a multiple thousands in savings over what a Mac Studio with a 30 inch screen would have cost me.
Sorry Apple, your time table didn't fit my need to remain OS current. Maybe next time.
1) the amount of people that bought into m1 is staggering and so the market is s bit saturated.
3) no true successor to the big iMac. The small iMac isn’t big or powerful enough and the color scheme has been polarizing, as has the decision to give it a video game console external brick for a power supply that just litters the floor. Nasty. Actually, I take that back. Even the ps4 had an internal power supply. At the least, the infant iMac could have used a MacBook Pro style supply that plugs right into the wall.
If nothing else, it will be interesting to see who was right when it launches.