Flash tops out right now at 32GB or so, and the smallest hard drive in an iMac is 160GB.
Not to mention the problems with wear and tear from daily use and pricing issues.
This talk isn't just isolated with desktop computers. I've read to many comments across many forums of people expecting--and wanting--NAND in the video iPod. To think that Apple would more than halve the capacity while doubling the cost is just insane.
I'm hoping there will be touch screen capabilities. I think its possible with iphone going that way. Even if it is just in a limited sense, it will be a quantum leap in static design.
Touch screen is intriguing and probably underestimated.
We think of using the touch screen as we do our mouse now - and that would not function very well. Your hands would get tired, it's slower than grabbing the mouse, etc. We HAVE to think of it this way because the OS is designed for mouse input.
The iPhone changes that - you can do things a mouse can't do. It's not a major thing though.
So lets reinvent an iMac just quickly.
Version 1: Looks kind of like a 24 inch laptop - with a screen integrated with a keyboard, at a slight angle. Then we put on a new OS with resolution independence so you can use that iPhone zoom function to zoom WAY out and see all your documents (like expose) or zoom way in to get into the minutae.
Then we set users on it. They play. They lose some documents etc on the infinitely sizeable screen. So we need some new interface paradigms to stop that. They find some movements very cumbersome. They also use the system in some ways we didn't expect AT ALL.
Version 2: The size of the screen changes, the angles it can be turned to, positioning of keyboard. The OS is redesigned. Then we set the users on it... and learn a whole lot more.
Oh, we don't just have users playing with their music, browsing the web, & writing word documents... they're watching TV, making movies, slideshows, pushing things to iPods & AppleTVs, networking with other machines, etc.
edit: version 2 is deliberately vaguer since I don't know what was learned in version 1. Imagine what version 3 would be, or version 4! (you'd want to be on the 4th iteration before looking at genuine paradigm shifting products).
Anyway, if Apple is building touch screen and redefining the interaction... it could delay things a bit for hardware and software. And the 1st generation won't be perfect - and could sink, swim, or fly Apple (though Apple wouldn't be betting all their horses on it... would it?)
Nobody is replacing the hard drives in iMacs with flash drives.
That's ridiculous, and these silly rumours must stop before expectations get out of hand.
iMacs are Apple's gateway to the Digital Lifestyle. High-resolution photos, High Definition home movies and buying lots and lots of movies and music from the iTMS means that iMac hard drives need more space than ever.
Flash tops out right now at 32GB or so, and the smallest hard drive in an iMac is 160GB.
Not to mention the problems with wear and tear from daily use and pricing issues.
Flash may have its uses in narrower markets and portable computers, but iMac hard drives aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
Looprumors can be wrong as often as they like, they tried to suggest that iMac would be updated at NAB too, but those quacks certainly didn't explain why that would happen when there was nothing about it to update yet, and didn't explain how iMac even fits in with the Nab show. There wasn't even one on display there that I remember.
Now that Santa Rosa-based systems should be trickling out any time now, if not already, I think it's more likely that any possible near term update to the iMac would be announced a couple weeks before or a couple weeks after WWDC rather than bother developers with an update that doesn't apply to them.
Looprumors can be wrong as often as they like, they tried to suggest that iMac would be updated at NAB too, but those quacks certainly didn't explain why that would happen when there was nothing about it to update yet, and didn't explain how iMac even fits in with the Nab show. There wasn't even one on display there that I remember.
Now that Santa Rosa-based systems should be trickling out any time now, if not already, I think it's more likely that any possible near term update to the iMac would be announced a couple weeks before or a couple weeks after WWDC rather than bother developers with an update that doesn't apply to them.
So, what are we being left with here? Just the 20" and 24" model? Of course it is not the first time that the flat panel iMac line has "only" two display sizes. But if this is proved true, it may potentially be a problem for many people, unless the new prices take care of that.
So, what are we being left with here? Just the 20" and 24" model? Of course it is not the first time that the flat panel iMac line has "only" two display sizes. But if this is proved true, it may potentially be a problem for many people, unless the new prices take care of that.
If it's only the 17-inch that uses dithering then maybe that's why they are getting rid of it. The 20" display quality isn't that great though and it looked to me like it was sparkly too.
Nonetheless, if they drop the price on the 20" and the design is really nice, I could see it being a popular move. If they don't reduce the price, they are going to have to fill that big gap bewteen it and the Mini with something.
So, what are we being left with here? Just the 20" and 24" model? Of course it is not the first time that the flat panel iMac line has "only" two display sizes. But if this is proved true, it may potentially be a problem for many people, unless the new prices take care of that.
There would still be three options.
Just like the MacBook, the bottom configuration (20") would come in two flavors, one of which would be a stripped-down, school-ready edition. The 24" would be the premium choice, like the Black MacBook.
Just like the MacBook, the bottom configuration (20") would come in two flavors, one of which would be a stripped-down, school-ready edition. The 24" would be the premium choice, like the Black MacBook.
I believe he was referring to monitor sizes.
Two sizes had been the norm from July 2002 when the 17" P79 swivel head iMac was introduced up until September 2006 with the 24" iMac.
LCD prices have been dropping steadily. There's a new article at audioholics.com stating that LCD prices have hit an all-time low and may be starting to rise again.
So, it might even be possible that Apple will introduce a larger LCD screen if the costs are low enough. 27" TV/iMac, anyone?
So, what are we being left with here? Just the 20" and 24" model? Of course it is not the first time that the flat panel iMac line has "only" two display sizes. But if this is proved true, it may potentially be a problem for many people, unless the new prices take care of that.
may be 19" coming
19" 1440x900
22" 1680x1050
and
24" 1900x1200
what is the next size 27"? Dell has one monitor 27" 1900x1200
i used 17" 1280x1024 about three years and 19" @ work the same resolution for about 3 months, i like the 19" more than 17". At home using 20" ACD.
scaling up the size is nice though i am in early 30s it is easier to read in 19 than in 17"
advantage
1. more space for cooling and additional RAM slots
what is the next size 27"? Dell has one monitor 27" 1900x1200
i used 17" 1280x1024 about three years and 19" @ work the same resolution for about 3 months, i like the 19" more than 17". At home using 20" ACD.
scaling up the size is nice though i am in early 30s it is easier to read in 19 than in 17"
advantage
1. more space for cooling and additional RAM slots
disadvantage
2. Bigger footprint and shipping costs
That seems to be too close together for Apple.
Apple likes to differenciate more. That's why there was a 17, a 20, and a 24 iMac, and a 17, a 20, an old 23, and then a jump to 20. I can believe Apple will change to a 24, as that is what's being made in quantity now, rather than the older 23" size.
Just like the MacBook, the bottom configuration (20") would come in two flavors, one of which would be a stripped-down, school-ready edition. The 24" would be the premium choice, like the Black MacBook.
Yes, of course. The point is not exactly display size but price. If Apple manages to keep a 20" version priced if not exactly at least close to the existing 17" model, then it is OK. But the 1030 euros price tag of the existing 17" low end model is rather a dream today at 20" in Apple land. Seen from another perspective, this is perhaps one of the reasons Apple is going to drop the 17" model.
I don't even want to speculate on prices, though. Apple can easily build a $1299 (or even $1199) 20-inch iMac if it wants to. But can it crack $999? Only if component prices are low enough (particularly LCDs). And I hope Apple doesn't stick its base model with a Combo drive. This is 2007!
I don't even want to speculate on prices, though. Apple can easily build a $1299 (or even $1199) 20-inch iMac if it wants to. But can it crack $999? Only if component prices are low enough (particularly LCDs). And I hope Apple doesn't stick its base model with a Combo drive. This is 2007!
$1199 for a desktop system with onboard video no way!
Comments
Flash tops out right now at 32GB or so, and the smallest hard drive in an iMac is 160GB.
Not to mention the problems with wear and tear from daily use and pricing issues.
This talk isn't just isolated with desktop computers. I've read to many comments across many forums of people expecting--and wanting--NAND in the video iPod. To think that Apple would more than halve the capacity while doubling the cost is just insane.
I'm hoping there will be touch screen capabilities. I think its possible with iphone going that way. Even if it is just in a limited sense, it will be a quantum leap in static design.
Touch screen is intriguing and probably underestimated.
We think of using the touch screen as we do our mouse now - and that would not function very well. Your hands would get tired, it's slower than grabbing the mouse, etc. We HAVE to think of it this way because the OS is designed for mouse input.
The iPhone changes that - you can do things a mouse can't do. It's not a major thing though.
So lets reinvent an iMac just quickly.
Version 1: Looks kind of like a 24 inch laptop - with a screen integrated with a keyboard, at a slight angle. Then we put on a new OS with resolution independence so you can use that iPhone zoom function to zoom WAY out and see all your documents (like expose) or zoom way in to get into the minutae.
Then we set users on it. They play. They lose some documents etc on the infinitely sizeable screen. So we need some new interface paradigms to stop that. They find some movements very cumbersome. They also use the system in some ways we didn't expect AT ALL.
Version 2: The size of the screen changes, the angles it can be turned to, positioning of keyboard. The OS is redesigned. Then we set the users on it... and learn a whole lot more.
Oh, we don't just have users playing with their music, browsing the web, & writing word documents... they're watching TV, making movies, slideshows, pushing things to iPods & AppleTVs, networking with other machines, etc.
edit: version 2 is deliberately vaguer since I don't know what was learned in version 1. Imagine what version 3 would be, or version 4! (you'd want to be on the 4th iteration before looking at genuine paradigm shifting products).
Anyway, if Apple is building touch screen and redefining the interaction... it could delay things a bit for hardware and software. And the 1st generation won't be perfect - and could sink, swim, or fly Apple (though Apple wouldn't be betting all their horses on it... would it?)
kind of like a tablet but a screen.
Nobody is replacing the hard drives in iMacs with flash drives.
That's ridiculous, and these silly rumours must stop before expectations get out of hand.
iMacs are Apple's gateway to the Digital Lifestyle. High-resolution photos, High Definition home movies and buying lots and lots of movies and music from the iTMS means that iMac hard drives need more space than ever.
Flash tops out right now at 32GB or so, and the smallest hard drive in an iMac is 160GB.
Not to mention the problems with wear and tear from daily use and pricing issues.
Flash may have its uses in narrower markets and portable computers, but iMac hard drives aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
Ah, the voice of reason. Quoted for truth.
New iMacs at WWDC?
Since the other thread has been locked, I post the link to the original rumor here:
New iMacs at WWDC?
Looprumors can be wrong as often as they like, they tried to suggest that iMac would be updated at NAB too, but those quacks certainly didn't explain why that would happen when there was nothing about it to update yet, and didn't explain how iMac even fits in with the Nab show. There wasn't even one on display there that I remember.
Now that Santa Rosa-based systems should be trickling out any time now, if not already, I think it's more likely that any possible near term update to the iMac would be announced a couple weeks before or a couple weeks after WWDC rather than bother developers with an update that doesn't apply to them.
Looprumors can be wrong as often as they like, they tried to suggest that iMac would be updated at NAB too, but those quacks certainly didn't explain why that would happen when there was nothing about it to update yet, and didn't explain how iMac even fits in with the Nab show. There wasn't even one on display there that I remember.
Now that Santa Rosa-based systems should be trickling out any time now, if not already, I think it's more likely that any possible near term update to the iMac would be announced a couple weeks before or a couple weeks after WWDC rather than bother developers with an update that doesn't apply to them.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7154
Looprumors can be wrong as often as they like...
Sure, Looprumors is not exactly what we call a reputable rumor site, so let's see another one:
Death knell tolls for 17-inch iMac
So, what are we being left with here? Just the 20" and 24" model? Of course it is not the first time that the flat panel iMac line has "only" two display sizes. But if this is proved true, it may potentially be a problem for many people, unless the new prices take care of that.
Sure, Looprumors is not exactly what we call a reputable rumor site, so let's see another one:
Death knell tolls for 17-inch iMac
So, what are we being left with here? Just the 20" and 24" model? Of course it is not the first time that the flat panel iMac line has "only" two display sizes. But if this is proved true, it may potentially be a problem for many people, unless the new prices take care of that.
If it's only the 17-inch that uses dithering then maybe that's why they are getting rid of it. The 20" display quality isn't that great though and it looked to me like it was sparkly too.
Nonetheless, if they drop the price on the 20" and the design is really nice, I could see it being a popular move. If they don't reduce the price, they are going to have to fill that big gap bewteen it and the Mini with something.
So, what are we being left with here? Just the 20" and 24" model? Of course it is not the first time that the flat panel iMac line has "only" two display sizes. But if this is proved true, it may potentially be a problem for many people, unless the new prices take care of that.
There would still be three options.
Just like the MacBook, the bottom configuration (20") would come in two flavors, one of which would be a stripped-down, school-ready edition. The 24" would be the premium choice, like the Black MacBook.
There would still be three options.
Just like the MacBook, the bottom configuration (20") would come in two flavors, one of which would be a stripped-down, school-ready edition. The 24" would be the premium choice, like the Black MacBook.
I believe he was referring to monitor sizes.
Two sizes had been the norm from July 2002 when the 17" P79 swivel head iMac was introduced up until September 2006 with the 24" iMac.
17" has been passé for a while now.
So, it might even be possible that Apple will introduce a larger LCD screen if the costs are low enough. 27" TV/iMac, anyone?
Sure, Looprumors is not exactly what we call a reputable rumor site, so let's see another one:
Death knell tolls for 17-inch iMac
So, what are we being left with here? Just the 20" and 24" model? Of course it is not the first time that the flat panel iMac line has "only" two display sizes. But if this is proved true, it may potentially be a problem for many people, unless the new prices take care of that.
may be 19" coming
19" 1440x900
22" 1680x1050
and
24" 1900x1200
what is the next size 27"? Dell has one monitor 27" 1900x1200
i used 17" 1280x1024 about three years and 19" @ work the same resolution for about 3 months, i like the 19" more than 17". At home using 20" ACD.
scaling up the size is nice though i am in early 30s it is easier to read in 19 than in 17"
advantage
1. more space for cooling and additional RAM slots
disadvantage
2. Bigger footprint and shipping costs
may be 19" coming
19" 1440x900
22" 1680x1050
and
24" 1900x1200
what is the next size 27"? Dell has one monitor 27" 1900x1200
i used 17" 1280x1024 about three years and 19" @ work the same resolution for about 3 months, i like the 19" more than 17". At home using 20" ACD.
scaling up the size is nice though i am in early 30s it is easier to read in 19 than in 17"
advantage
1. more space for cooling and additional RAM slots
disadvantage
2. Bigger footprint and shipping costs
That seems to be too close together for Apple.
Apple likes to differenciate more. That's why there was a 17, a 20, and a 24 iMac, and a 17, a 20, an old 23, and then a jump to 20. I can believe Apple will change to a 24, as that is what's being made in quantity now, rather than the older 23" size.
20" is pushing 19's out.
There would still be three options.
Just like the MacBook, the bottom configuration (20") would come in two flavors, one of which would be a stripped-down, school-ready edition. The 24" would be the premium choice, like the Black MacBook.
Yes, of course. The point is not exactly display size but price. If Apple manages to keep a 20" version priced if not exactly at least close to the existing 17" model, then it is OK. But the 1030 euros price tag of the existing 17" low end model is rather a dream today at 20" in Apple land. Seen from another perspective, this is perhaps one of the reasons Apple is going to drop the 17" model.
I believe he was referring to monitor sizes.
Yes, I was referring to that as a means to offer more varied price options.
20-inch: 2GHz
- 1GB of RAM
- 250GB hard drive
- GMA X3100 graphics
- possibly no Bluetooth or Apple Remote
20-inch: 2.2GHz
- 1GB of RAM
- 400GB hard drive
- 128MB ATI Radeon HD 2600 (256MB option)
24-inch: 2.2GHz
- 2GB of RAM
- 400GB hard drive
- 256MB GeForce 8500 GT (256MB GeForce 8600 GT option)
I don't even want to speculate on prices, though. Apple can easily build a $1299 (or even $1199) 20-inch iMac if it wants to. But can it crack $999? Only if component prices are low enough (particularly LCDs). And I hope Apple doesn't stick its base model with a Combo drive. This is 2007!
If the 20- and 24-inch only story is true, I can already imagine what Apple will be doing:
20-inch: 2GHz
- 1GB of RAM
- 250GB hard drive
- GMA X3100 graphics
- possibly no Bluetooth or Apple Remote
20-inch: 2.2GHz
- 1GB of RAM
- 400GB hard drive
- 128MB ATI Radeon HD 2600 (256MB option)
24-inch: 2.2GHz
- 2GB of RAM
- 400GB hard drive
- 256MB GeForce 8500 GT (256MB GeForce 8600 GT option)
I don't even want to speculate on prices, though. Apple can easily build a $1299 (or even $1199) 20-inch iMac if it wants to. But can it crack $999? Only if component prices are low enough (particularly LCDs). And I hope Apple doesn't stick its base model with a Combo drive. This is 2007!
$1199 for a desktop system with onboard video no way!