The chin may be somewhat of a necessity to curb any vibration from the speakers from interfering with the image on the display. May not bee so much of an issue with LCD displays but the speakers on my eMac interfere with the display when turned up.
i likes it a LOT. in fact if it wasnt for the chin i would have one of the new iMac(intels). i'm certain that the next iteration will be a chin-less iMac, and i dont want to kick myself for not waiting a little longer.
I mean im on a 4 yr old powerBook G4 and it's definately time to upgrade.
it would be interesting if Apple offers the iMacs and iBooks (which is what i reckon they will continue to be called) in black or white. sure ud expect the black to smudge, etc...but i think if there's anyone who can find a way to solve that issue, Apple can. black would make a great 30th anniversary LE mac.
Also, i think it's high time Apple bring back the power button on the keyboard. i dont like having to feel around for a power button on the new iMac and having on the face would make it a little....blah. power button on Apple keyboard is like having the Apple menu in the upper left of the desktop. it's just Apple.
But yeah thats a great mockup and i'd bye it for sure.
Without the 'chin' they'd have to either make it thicker or put the power supply in an external brick. The stand also needs to be taller otherwise the eye level of the monitor is a bit low.
I *like* the USB ports on the back so I don't see them. The iMac swivels around easily enough on it's slippy plastic base on my desk. I don't see the need for the turntable under it.
Or maybe they could just be silly and not include them.
I was never impressed with any of the iMacs, I wish they'd just make a mid-range PC with no monitor and a decent, UPGRADABLE video card, 4 PCI slots, and a 4 gig RAM limit. I'd probably pay the same price.
I really don't understand this fascination with form. I'd rather have my G5 4 inches taller and have room for more than 2 hard drives (yup, still bitchin about it.. will do so till I get rid of this thing).
Oh, and I like the mac mini's idea of not having to throw away a perfectly useless (as far as MY work is concerned) keyboard and mouse every time I buy a new mac--lemme buy without it and give me $20 off, please!
Without the 'chin' they'd have to either make it thicker or put the power supply in an external brick. The stand also needs to be taller otherwise the eye level of the monitor is a bit low.
Actually I thought about that but if you compare the imac to a cinema display. The cinema display is already lower. The design I did above is at a very similar eye level to the cinema displays. Whether or not that is a good thing, I think that would be a presonal preference.
Regarding speakers, the speakers in the imac are quite small, I think they would actually fit in that bezel. (maybe)
I do think they would have to go with a powerbrick.
I like the chin too, I see no reason for Apple to do away with it. From a design standpoint I think it helps to remind people that there's a computer in there
Isn't the iMac's tagline "where did the computer go"? The less people are reminded that it's a computer the better. The chin is ugly and distracting and waters down the obviousness of the widescreen display. What's the point of a 16x10 LCD panel when its housed in a 4x3 bezel?
Besides, the chin is only there to house the down firing speakers. Get some new tech for sound and we can get something clean like the the OP's mockup.
I think it would be difficult to remove the chin unless Apple used an external power brick, didn't include speakers, or some other component. If you look at the disassembly photos, there isn't much free room. The iMac would have to be a lot thicker.
Besides, the chin is only there to house the down firing speakers. Get some new tech for sound and we can get something clean like the the OP's mockup.
And the power supply, light sensor, power light, RAM, fan...
There's quite a bit down there. Sure, they could make it laptop thin and move the power brick external but then it'd also be laptop slow too.
Isn't the iMac's tagline "where did the computer go"? The less people are reminded that it's a computer the better. The chin is ugly and distracting and waters down the obviousness of the widescreen display. What's the point of a 16x10 LCD panel when its housed in a 4x3 bezel?
Besides, the chin is only there to house the down firing speakers. Get some new tech for sound and we can get something clean like the the OP's mockup.
No. There's nothing inherently good about making the computer all screen and nothing else. It doesn't help the design at all, and of course, if you look more closely, there's a lot more in the chin than just speakers.
The point of a 16:10 screen is to more closely mimic the human field of view and new widescreen digital media. It can be framed in a number of pleasing ways, including a different but complimentary ratio.
You might ask yourself why are photos or paintings framed, often with very thick frames? How does this help the presentation? One, it creates a more substantial presence. Two, it also helps the eye isolate the image from the background -- making for more comfortable viewing, and less distracting viewing.
The thin bezels around a notebook have to do with portability considerations, in the case of the Cinema displays, they have to do with the potential to use displays in dual configurations. Neither are serious considerations for the iMac, and neither have anything to do with creating easy viewing. In fact, a slightly thinker bezel grounds the display and visually seperates it from potentially cluttered work environments. Size, shape, proportion, and color matter far more than simple thinness. The 'chin' is exactly like a simple modern matte photographic presentation; the bottom centered logo just like a signature; the color is right for the job as well (a black or medium grey would also work.)
The point, afterall, is not to completely camoflauge the computer, but to present and interface it in a way that focuses the eye on the screen, reduces visual distraction and presents the brand signature in something at once unique and natural. iMac succeeds in that...
No. There's nothing inherently good about making the computer all screen and nothing else. It doesn't help the design at all, and of course, if you look more closely, there's a lot more in the chin than just speakers.
What are you talking about, of COURSE there are inherent advantages to having a computer that is all screen. The most obvious of course is the space issue. Many people need to have a very minimal computer, for example, due to space constraints, in those cases less "computer" you have to have on your desk, the better. The problem is that you can make every component of the computer smaller without too much sacrifice, assuming the technology is available, except for the screen because a smaller screen effects the user. The solution of course is to have a very large screen to computer ratio, giving you the most "computing space" for the amount of "computer space." This will also allow users who would have wanted a model with a smaller screen because the 21 inch iMacs look far too large for their kitchen, desk, bedroom, etc. to consider getting a model with a larger screen, enhancing their computing experience!
Quote:
The point of a 16:10 screen is to more closely mimic the human field of view and new widescreen digital media. It can be framed in a number of pleasing ways, including a different but complimentary ratio.
Yes the 16:10 screen ratio is very nice, and yes you can frame it in a variety of different manners, but I disagree about using a different aspect ratio to frame it. The issue I see with it is asymmetry, symmetry is a good thing from a design perspective, I bet Stevie would kill for it. Also it also allows the user to rotate the display without making it look silly. Just try putting an iMac on it's side, it'll look ridiculous.
Quote:
You might ask yourself why are photos or paintings framed, often with very thick frames? How does this help the presentation? One, it creates a more substantial presence. Two, it also helps the eye isolate the image from the background -- making for more comfortable viewing, and less distracting viewing.
The goal of a painting and a computer are two entirely different things! A person might be doing a variety of things when they encounter a painting, walking through a house, browsing a gallery or museum, or even sitting in their local cafe, and in most cases they are not in these places for the purpose of looking at that painting, so an attractive frame draws your attention to the piece as a whole, as you may not have noticed the picture at first. With a computer it's different, when you go to use a computer you don't want to be distracted by what is around you, the user has to pay attention to what is being displayed, not what is around the display. This is not to say that a display or all-in-one computer like the iMac shouldn't be attractive, but minimalism suits the task far better, and it's just Apple's style! Although, I concede, a nice thick frame around can be very useful to separate the screen from the surrounding area, but as I said before, symmetry is important, the computer should not be separated into what appears to be a computer half and a monitor half.
Whatever happened to all the notions of a detachable display? And a "digital hub" that a wireless display could revolve around? I guess when the sunflower iMac was abandoned people stopped thinking about it?
That's what I hope the next iMac form factor is like. It's going to be a while until the next form comes. Next MWSF at the very least, right?
By then Apple will have shipped a super tablet and all will be right with the world.
What are you talking about, of COURSE there are inherent advantages to having a computer that is all screen. The most obvious of course is the space issue. Many people need to have a very minimal computer, for example, due to space constraints, in those cases less "computer" you have to have on your desk, the better.
A thin symetrical bezel does nothing for the iMac's footprint, and so doesn't help it take up any less real-estate on your desk. So no inherent advantages in this case, sorry, at least not any ones worth the trade off. See below.
Quote:
The problem is that you can make every component of the computer smaller without too much sacrifice, assuming the technology is available, except for the screen because a smaller screen effects the user. The solution of course is to have a very large screen to computer ratio, giving you the most "computing space" for the amount of "computer space." This will also allow users who would have wanted a model with a smaller screen because the 21 inch iMacs look far too large for their kitchen, desk, bedroom, etc. to consider getting a model with a larger screen, enhancing their computing experience!
Repeating this mantra doesn't make it any more true. The iMac is plenty small enough for all those environments already.
Quote:
Yes the 16:10 screen ratio is very nice, and yes you can frame it in a variety of different manners, but I disagree about using a different aspect ratio to frame it. The issue I see with it is asymmetry, symmetry is a good thing from a design perspective, I bet Stevie would kill for it. Also it also allows the user to rotate the display without making it look silly. Just try putting an iMac on it's side, it'll look ridiculous.
Apple isn't interested in a rotating display. That ship has docked, sailed, and sank. When we get into 20"+ screens, there's no longer a practical need to rotate screens 99.999% of the time. The whole point of that technology was to fit whole pages vertically on a limited screen size. When you can put up a double page spread on a 20", you won't rotate it, let alone 23"+. The engineering and technical costs associated also make it less practical for cost considerations.
There's nothing inherently sacrosanct about symmetry either. See below.
Quote:
The goal of a painting and a computer are two entirely different things! A person might be doing a variety of things when they encounter a painting, walking through a house, browsing a gallery or museum, or even sitting in their local cafe, and in most cases they are not in these places for the purpose of looking at that painting, so an attractive frame draws your attention to the piece as a whole, as you may not have noticed the picture at first. With a computer it's different, when you go to use a computer you don't want to be distracted by what is around you, the user has to pay attention to what is being displayed, not what is around the display. This is not to say that a display or all-in-one computer like the iMac shouldn't be attractive, but minimalism suits the task far better, and it's just Apple's style! Although, I concede, a nice thick frame around can be very useful to separate the screen from the surrounding area, but as I said before, symmetry is important, the computer should not be separated into what appears to be a computer half and a monitor half.
The goal of design is to facilitate the use of space. While you seem to appreciate the notion in so far as cramming more stuff into a finite space, this is only one possible way to facilitate the use of space, and it is NOT always the most efficient way to do so. Design can be used get attention, but also to minimize interference, to create comfort, to restrict unwanted interactions. Take the iMac's asymetry. When place placed properly, its asymetry hardly matters. It is afterall symetrical side to side, and doesn't look unbalanced when placed that way. Rather it looks grounded -- it has a face (screen) on a bust, suspended on a pedastle. It is actually a very sublte and sculptural bit of industrial design, and also functional. It prevents you from rotating it for use in an unintended way -- where it would definitely be unbalanced, and result in ridiculous camera, port, and optical placements...
Though it be madness, there is method in it, and that's all I hope to impress on the critics of the design... Apple may very well create a completely symetrical (X and y axis) design in the future. But the current shape is quite ingenious, and has a character and utility all its own.
No. There's nothing inherently good about making the computer all screen and nothing else. It doesn't help the design at all, and of course, if you look more closely, there's a lot more in the chin than just speakers.
The point of a 16:10 screen is to more closely mimic the human field of view and new widescreen digital media. It can be framed in a number of pleasing ways, including a different but complimentary ratio.
You might ask yourself why are photos or paintings framed, often with very thick frames? How does this help the presentation? One, it creates a more substantial presence. Two, it also helps the eye isolate the image from the background -- making for more comfortable viewing, and less distracting viewing.
The thin bezels around a notebook have to do with portability considerations, in the case of the Cinema displays, they have to do with the potential to use displays in dual configurations. Neither are serious considerations for the iMac, and neither have anything to do with creating easy viewing. In fact, a slightly thinker bezel grounds the display and visually seperates it from potentially cluttered work environments. Size, shape, proportion, and color matter far more than simple thinness. The 'chin' is exactly like a simple modern matte photographic presentation; the bottom centered logo just like a signature; the color is right for the job as well (a black or medium grey would also work.)
The point, afterall, is not to completely camoflauge the computer, but to present and interface it in a way that focuses the eye on the screen, reduces visual distraction and presents the brand signature in something at once unique and natural. iMac succeeds in that...
amen... where were you all this time? The curent imac is flawless and so will be the 23"
Comments
Originally posted by dansgil
Aluminum with a thin bezel would be really nice.
-DG
Can already be had 8) , sort of...
http://www.mactallic.com/
The chin really confuses people that are not familiar with Macs. My brother always ask me why there is a lot of plastic below the screen...
I mean im on a 4 yr old powerBook G4 and it's definately time to upgrade.
it would be interesting if Apple offers the iMacs and iBooks (which is what i reckon they will continue to be called) in black or white. sure ud expect the black to smudge, etc...but i think if there's anyone who can find a way to solve that issue, Apple can. black would make a great 30th anniversary LE mac.
Also, i think it's high time Apple bring back the power button on the keyboard. i dont like having to feel around for a power button on the new iMac and having on the face would make it a little....blah. power button on Apple keyboard is like having the Apple menu in the upper left of the desktop. it's just Apple.
But yeah thats a great mockup and i'd bye it for sure.
Cheers
it could be done (in the weeks to come) with Intel's Sossaman processor.
It's the server version of the Core Duo (up to 2GHz) and it can work in pairs using Intel's E7520 chipset.
It's up to Apple do deliver a quad iMac and I think it would make a nice 30th anniversary Macintosh!
It maybe be a 23" model, but anything with a 1920x1200 resolution would be nice (but expensive).
Supermicro Sossaman Press Release
Rackable Systems Press Release
Intel E7520 chipset info
Originally posted by corradoboy
Can already be had 8) , sort of...
http://www.mactallic.com/
Wow I've never seen that before that mactalic shit looks pretty nice!
I *like* the USB ports on the back so I don't see them. The iMac swivels around easily enough on it's slippy plastic base on my desk. I don't see the need for the turntable under it.
A big chrome back like an iPod would be cool.
Or maybe they could just be silly and not include them.
I was never impressed with any of the iMacs, I wish they'd just make a mid-range PC with no monitor and a decent, UPGRADABLE video card, 4 PCI slots, and a 4 gig RAM limit. I'd probably pay the same price.
I really don't understand this fascination with form. I'd rather have my G5 4 inches taller and have room for more than 2 hard drives (yup, still bitchin about it.. will do so till I get rid of this thing).
Oh, and I like the mac mini's idea of not having to throw away a perfectly useless (as far as MY work is concerned) keyboard and mouse every time I buy a new mac--lemme buy without it and give me $20 off, please!
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Without the 'chin' they'd have to either make it thicker or put the power supply in an external brick. The stand also needs to be taller otherwise the eye level of the monitor is a bit low.
Actually I thought about that but if you compare the imac to a cinema display. The cinema display is already lower. The design I did above is at a very similar eye level to the cinema displays. Whether or not that is a good thing, I think that would be a presonal preference.
Regarding speakers, the speakers in the imac are quite small, I think they would actually fit in that bezel. (maybe)
I do think they would have to go with a powerbrick.
Originally posted by Matsu
I like the chin too, I see no reason for Apple to do away with it. From a design standpoint I think it helps to remind people that there's a computer in there
Isn't the iMac's tagline "where did the computer go"? The less people are reminded that it's a computer the better. The chin is ugly and distracting and waters down the obviousness of the widescreen display. What's the point of a 16x10 LCD panel when its housed in a 4x3 bezel?
Besides, the chin is only there to house the down firing speakers. Get some new tech for sound and we can get something clean like the the OP's mockup.
-DG
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Besides, the chin is only there to house the down firing speakers. Get some new tech for sound and we can get something clean like the the OP's mockup.
And the power supply, light sensor, power light, RAM, fan...
There's quite a bit down there. Sure, they could make it laptop thin and move the power brick external but then it'd also be laptop slow too.
Originally posted by cubist
I like the idea of moving the chin around back. Make the bottom part thicker. Nobody will see it.
Except the people on the other side of my desk. It's bad enough that they have to look at me never mind a large bulge stuck out the back of my Mac.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Except the people on the other side of my desk. It's bad enough that they have to look at me never mind a large bulge stuck out the back of my Mac.
wtf?
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Isn't the iMac's tagline "where did the computer go"? The less people are reminded that it's a computer the better. The chin is ugly and distracting and waters down the obviousness of the widescreen display. What's the point of a 16x10 LCD panel when its housed in a 4x3 bezel?
Besides, the chin is only there to house the down firing speakers. Get some new tech for sound and we can get something clean like the the OP's mockup.
No. There's nothing inherently good about making the computer all screen and nothing else. It doesn't help the design at all, and of course, if you look more closely, there's a lot more in the chin than just speakers.
The point of a 16:10 screen is to more closely mimic the human field of view and new widescreen digital media. It can be framed in a number of pleasing ways, including a different but complimentary ratio.
You might ask yourself why are photos or paintings framed, often with very thick frames? How does this help the presentation? One, it creates a more substantial presence. Two, it also helps the eye isolate the image from the background -- making for more comfortable viewing, and less distracting viewing.
The thin bezels around a notebook have to do with portability considerations, in the case of the Cinema displays, they have to do with the potential to use displays in dual configurations. Neither are serious considerations for the iMac, and neither have anything to do with creating easy viewing. In fact, a slightly thinker bezel grounds the display and visually seperates it from potentially cluttered work environments. Size, shape, proportion, and color matter far more than simple thinness. The 'chin' is exactly like a simple modern matte photographic presentation; the bottom centered logo just like a signature; the color is right for the job as well (a black or medium grey would also work.)
The point, afterall, is not to completely camoflauge the computer, but to present and interface it in a way that focuses the eye on the screen, reduces visual distraction and presents the brand signature in something at once unique and natural. iMac succeeds in that...
Originally posted by Matsu
No. There's nothing inherently good about making the computer all screen and nothing else. It doesn't help the design at all, and of course, if you look more closely, there's a lot more in the chin than just speakers.
What are you talking about, of COURSE there are inherent advantages to having a computer that is all screen. The most obvious of course is the space issue. Many people need to have a very minimal computer, for example, due to space constraints, in those cases less "computer" you have to have on your desk, the better. The problem is that you can make every component of the computer smaller without too much sacrifice, assuming the technology is available, except for the screen because a smaller screen effects the user. The solution of course is to have a very large screen to computer ratio, giving you the most "computing space" for the amount of "computer space." This will also allow users who would have wanted a model with a smaller screen because the 21 inch iMacs look far too large for their kitchen, desk, bedroom, etc. to consider getting a model with a larger screen, enhancing their computing experience!
The point of a 16:10 screen is to more closely mimic the human field of view and new widescreen digital media. It can be framed in a number of pleasing ways, including a different but complimentary ratio.
Yes the 16:10 screen ratio is very nice, and yes you can frame it in a variety of different manners, but I disagree about using a different aspect ratio to frame it. The issue I see with it is asymmetry, symmetry is a good thing from a design perspective, I bet Stevie would kill for it. Also it also allows the user to rotate the display without making it look silly. Just try putting an iMac on it's side, it'll look ridiculous.
You might ask yourself why are photos or paintings framed, often with very thick frames? How does this help the presentation? One, it creates a more substantial presence. Two, it also helps the eye isolate the image from the background -- making for more comfortable viewing, and less distracting viewing.
The goal of a painting and a computer are two entirely different things! A person might be doing a variety of things when they encounter a painting, walking through a house, browsing a gallery or museum, or even sitting in their local cafe, and in most cases they are not in these places for the purpose of looking at that painting, so an attractive frame draws your attention to the piece as a whole, as you may not have noticed the picture at first. With a computer it's different, when you go to use a computer you don't want to be distracted by what is around you, the user has to pay attention to what is being displayed, not what is around the display. This is not to say that a display or all-in-one computer like the iMac shouldn't be attractive, but minimalism suits the task far better, and it's just Apple's style! Although, I concede, a nice thick frame around can be very useful to separate the screen from the surrounding area, but as I said before, symmetry is important, the computer should not be separated into what appears to be a computer half and a monitor half.
That's what I hope the next iMac form factor is like. It's going to be a while until the next form comes. Next MWSF at the very least, right?
By then Apple will have shipped a super tablet and all will be right with the world.
Originally posted by akheron01
What are you talking about, of COURSE there are inherent advantages to having a computer that is all screen. The most obvious of course is the space issue. Many people need to have a very minimal computer, for example, due to space constraints, in those cases less "computer" you have to have on your desk, the better.
A thin symetrical bezel does nothing for the iMac's footprint, and so doesn't help it take up any less real-estate on your desk. So no inherent advantages in this case, sorry, at least not any ones worth the trade off. See below.
The problem is that you can make every component of the computer smaller without too much sacrifice, assuming the technology is available, except for the screen because a smaller screen effects the user. The solution of course is to have a very large screen to computer ratio, giving you the most "computing space" for the amount of "computer space." This will also allow users who would have wanted a model with a smaller screen because the 21 inch iMacs look far too large for their kitchen, desk, bedroom, etc. to consider getting a model with a larger screen, enhancing their computing experience!
Repeating this mantra doesn't make it any more true. The iMac is plenty small enough for all those environments already.
Yes the 16:10 screen ratio is very nice, and yes you can frame it in a variety of different manners, but I disagree about using a different aspect ratio to frame it. The issue I see with it is asymmetry, symmetry is a good thing from a design perspective, I bet Stevie would kill for it. Also it also allows the user to rotate the display without making it look silly. Just try putting an iMac on it's side, it'll look ridiculous.
Apple isn't interested in a rotating display. That ship has docked, sailed, and sank. When we get into 20"+ screens, there's no longer a practical need to rotate screens 99.999% of the time. The whole point of that technology was to fit whole pages vertically on a limited screen size. When you can put up a double page spread on a 20", you won't rotate it, let alone 23"+. The engineering and technical costs associated also make it less practical for cost considerations.
There's nothing inherently sacrosanct about symmetry either. See below.
The goal of a painting and a computer are two entirely different things! A person might be doing a variety of things when they encounter a painting, walking through a house, browsing a gallery or museum, or even sitting in their local cafe, and in most cases they are not in these places for the purpose of looking at that painting, so an attractive frame draws your attention to the piece as a whole, as you may not have noticed the picture at first. With a computer it's different, when you go to use a computer you don't want to be distracted by what is around you, the user has to pay attention to what is being displayed, not what is around the display. This is not to say that a display or all-in-one computer like the iMac shouldn't be attractive, but minimalism suits the task far better, and it's just Apple's style! Although, I concede, a nice thick frame around can be very useful to separate the screen from the surrounding area, but as I said before, symmetry is important, the computer should not be separated into what appears to be a computer half and a monitor half.
The goal of design is to facilitate the use of space. While you seem to appreciate the notion in so far as cramming more stuff into a finite space, this is only one possible way to facilitate the use of space, and it is NOT always the most efficient way to do so. Design can be used get attention, but also to minimize interference, to create comfort, to restrict unwanted interactions. Take the iMac's asymetry. When place placed properly, its asymetry hardly matters. It is afterall symetrical side to side, and doesn't look unbalanced when placed that way. Rather it looks grounded -- it has a face (screen) on a bust, suspended on a pedastle. It is actually a very sublte and sculptural bit of industrial design, and also functional. It prevents you from rotating it for use in an unintended way -- where it would definitely be unbalanced, and result in ridiculous camera, port, and optical placements...
Though it be madness, there is method in it, and that's all I hope to impress on the critics of the design... Apple may very well create a completely symetrical (X and y axis) design in the future. But the current shape is quite ingenious, and has a character and utility all its own.
Originally posted by Matsu
No. There's nothing inherently good about making the computer all screen and nothing else. It doesn't help the design at all, and of course, if you look more closely, there's a lot more in the chin than just speakers.
The point of a 16:10 screen is to more closely mimic the human field of view and new widescreen digital media. It can be framed in a number of pleasing ways, including a different but complimentary ratio.
You might ask yourself why are photos or paintings framed, often with very thick frames? How does this help the presentation? One, it creates a more substantial presence. Two, it also helps the eye isolate the image from the background -- making for more comfortable viewing, and less distracting viewing.
The thin bezels around a notebook have to do with portability considerations, in the case of the Cinema displays, they have to do with the potential to use displays in dual configurations. Neither are serious considerations for the iMac, and neither have anything to do with creating easy viewing. In fact, a slightly thinker bezel grounds the display and visually seperates it from potentially cluttered work environments. Size, shape, proportion, and color matter far more than simple thinness. The 'chin' is exactly like a simple modern matte photographic presentation; the bottom centered logo just like a signature; the color is right for the job as well (a black or medium grey would also work.)
The point, afterall, is not to completely camoflauge the computer, but to present and interface it in a way that focuses the eye on the screen, reduces visual distraction and presents the brand signature in something at once unique and natural. iMac succeeds in that...
amen... where were you all this time? The curent imac is flawless and so will be the 23"
p.s. I want one please!