Dropping the 17-inch iMac is an incredibly dumb move on Apple's part, IMHO. I know too many people who make very basic use of their computers and consistently pick the smallest, cheapest iMac they can buy whenever it's time for an upgrade. Seems like an awful lot of people will be forced to spend more than they want or buy more computer than they want. That's a bummer in my book. On the other hand, maybe the rumor isn't true!
Dropping the 17-inch iMac is an incredibly dumb move on Apple's part, IMHO. I know too many people who make very basic use of their computers and consistently pick the smallest, cheapest iMac they can buy whenever it's time for an upgrade. Seems like an awful lot of people will be forced to spend more than they want or buy more computer than they want. That's a bummer in my book. On the other hand, maybe the rumor isn't true!
Nah - sooner or later the 17" will be forgotten. And the 20" will be the smallest, cheapest iMac that the people you know who consistently upgrade their iMacs can buy. And they'll be happy knowing they are buying the smallest, cheapest iMac that they can buy, while enjoying the bigger screen.
My only point there was they make a 17" screen capable of a higher resolution. That was more in response to the first part of your quote: "....so will probably opt for displays of 1920x1080 minimum - which rules out anything below 20"
Personally I'm not interested in the 17 inch size either. I'm just saying Apple COULD keep it. Not saying they will.
Ah I see - well yes, it's possible but unlikely. I've not seen any widescreen 17" desktop panels out there that can do that res and I doubt there will be. There's a niche for the laptop market (only 6bit mind you) but not for dektop users at that size.
I thought the latest iMac rumor had the 17" back in the lineup?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansky
Dropping the 17-inch iMac is an incredibly dumb move on Apple's part, IMHO. I know too many people who make very basic use of their computers and consistently pick the smallest, cheapest iMac they can buy whenever it's time for an upgrade. Seems like an awful lot of people will be forced to spend more than they want or buy more computer than they want. That's a bummer in my book. On the other hand, maybe the rumor isn't true!
All Mac laptop displays as well as the 17" iMac use TN displays, and I haven't seen much evidence that the other iMacs use S-IPS either, though the Cinema Displays do.
My understanding is all iMacs were S-IPS, based on what others have said on this board, so yes, I may stand corrected. I'd be very disappointed to discover if they used TN Film.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandros
Anyway, with LG.Philips starting production of 22" substrates, this means that the 22" segment won't be limited to TN, which is nice.
Dropping the 17-inch iMac is an incredibly dumb move on Apple's part, IMHO. I know too many people who make very basic use of their computers and consistently pick the smallest, cheapest iMac they can buy whenever it's time for an upgrade. Seems like an awful lot of people will be forced to spend more than they want or buy more computer than they want. That's a bummer in my book. On the other hand, maybe the rumor isn't true!
Well, consider that most PC bundled screens are 19" 4:3 and more commonly now 20" widescreen, I can see why Apple would want to raise their minimum spec in line with that - not wanting to seem out of date in that respect alone.
Also, panel manufacturers would probably stop producing the 17" panels in favor of producing panels which are more in demand, you can see why dropping the 17" is more likely.
I can't see too many people complaining if the entry level 20" '07 iMac is introduced at todays 17" entry level '06 iMac price...
According to DigiTimes, most PC vendors today are bundling 19-inch and 22-inch widescreen displays.
Assuming this is true, Apple staying with 20 and 24 inch sizes suggests to me that either S.J. is being his usual stubborn self, or their not going to change the form factor just yet.
If consumers want 19" and 22" (and they're cheaper for Apple) then Apple should choose those sizes. Otherwise, there must be some engineering/production reason that Apple stayed with 20" and 24".
Assuming this is true, Apple staying with 20 and 24 inch sizes suggests to me that either S.J. is being his usual stubborn self, or their not going to change the form factor just yet.
If consumers want 19" and 22" (and they're cheaper for Apple) then Apple should choose those sizes. Otherwise, there must be some engineering/production reason that Apple stayed with 20" and 24".
I suspect this is because Apple do not choose TN Film based panels for the iMac because of the relative poor quality viewing angle and colour reproduction compared with S-IPS or *VA panels. I don't think 22" screens have been produced in anything other than TN Film.
Read more about the various panel technologies here:
20" 22" 24" would be a great line up + keeping the 17" for education.
I still think that Apple shouldn't kill the 17".
I fear that if Apple puts out that many size choices, they'll pigeon-hole the performance of a given iMac into a certain screen-size. Previous iterations have done a decent job at this by offering just two options. Offering 17", 20", 22", AND 24"... that would be a nightmare.
I feel as though the price balance has gotten a little out of skew with the addition of the 24", which leans me towards cutting the 17", but I fear a 20" will be overkill for casual users.
Maybe a compromize? 19", 23", 27"?
19"-widescreen is a very popular basic size right now... and Apple offers a 23" Cinema Display. In fact, they could mime their ACD line with the same sizes... a 19" budget model, 23" lower-end, 27" mid-range, 30+" high-end.
... but I fear a 20" will be overkill for casual users.
Overkill for a casual user is a Mac Pro with 30" screen.
That overkill also includes most creative profesionals.
I don't think the casual user would mind a 20" iMac with a lower price tag.
Most PC's are sold with a 19"-22" screen (okay, I know the 19" resolution is 99% of the time 1280x768 but that's not the point)
Apple has always upped the specs and/or lowered the price of a new model.
I bought my 20"iMac G5 revA for $1,899 (actually more, because the euro sucked those days)
now, 2,5 years later we can buy a better, faster 20" iMac for $1,499
If Apple drops the 17" version, they'll also drop the price of the current 20" model to $1,299, which is the standard starting price of the iMac since its introduction back in 1998
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Apple will be discontinuing that 23" display. Everyone has gone to 24".
Not everyone wants a bigger screen because it has higher rez. A lot of people want the same rez in a bigger screen because they are easier to read. not everyone has great eyes.
I do have great eyes. But still, just because you can see tiny text doesn't mean you want to read it all the time. I'm waiting for the 27" displays to fall in price. They're just about the perfect combination of size and resolution. 30s are nice and big, but the resolution is too high, at least until Leopard's resolution independence can change things. Too bad the 27s are so stinking expensive right now. For that matter, I don't get why 24s are so much more expensive than 20s. 4 extra inches and 320 extra pixel columns don't warrant a tripling of price.
Comments
Dropping the 17-inch iMac is an incredibly dumb move on Apple's part, IMHO. I know too many people who make very basic use of their computers and consistently pick the smallest, cheapest iMac they can buy whenever it's time for an upgrade. Seems like an awful lot of people will be forced to spend more than they want or buy more computer than they want. That's a bummer in my book. On the other hand, maybe the rumor isn't true!
Nah - sooner or later the 17" will be forgotten. And the 20" will be the smallest, cheapest iMac that the people you know who consistently upgrade their iMacs can buy. And they'll be happy knowing they are buying the smallest, cheapest iMac that they can buy, while enjoying the bigger screen.
My only point there was they make a 17" screen capable of a higher resolution. That was more in response to the first part of your quote: "....so will probably opt for displays of 1920x1080 minimum - which rules out anything below 20"
Personally I'm not interested in the 17 inch size either. I'm just saying Apple COULD keep it. Not saying they will.
Ah I see - well yes, it's possible but unlikely. I've not seen any widescreen 17" desktop panels out there that can do that res and I doubt there will be. There's a niche for the laptop market (only 6bit mind you) but not for dektop users at that size.
Dropping the 17-inch iMac is an incredibly dumb move on Apple's part, IMHO. I know too many people who make very basic use of their computers and consistently pick the smallest, cheapest iMac they can buy whenever it's time for an upgrade. Seems like an awful lot of people will be forced to spend more than they want or buy more computer than they want. That's a bummer in my book. On the other hand, maybe the rumor isn't true!
Maybe we'll see a 22-inch iMac in the line-up too.
20" 22" 24" would be a great line up + keeping the 17" for education.
I still think that Apple shouldn't kill the 17".
Let's wait..
why not add in a 27 or 30" while they are at it?
Hmmm, at least they would be able to do away with the chin on a 30" model!
All Mac laptop displays as well as the 17" iMac use TN displays, and I haven't seen much evidence that the other iMacs use S-IPS either, though the Cinema Displays do.
My understanding is all iMacs were S-IPS, based on what others have said on this board, so yes, I may stand corrected. I'd be very disappointed to discover if they used TN Film.
Anyway, with LG.Philips starting production of 22" substrates, this means that the 22" segment won't be limited to TN, which is nice.
/Adrian
Cool
Dropping the 17-inch iMac is an incredibly dumb move on Apple's part, IMHO. I know too many people who make very basic use of their computers and consistently pick the smallest, cheapest iMac they can buy whenever it's time for an upgrade. Seems like an awful lot of people will be forced to spend more than they want or buy more computer than they want. That's a bummer in my book. On the other hand, maybe the rumor isn't true!
Well, consider that most PC bundled screens are 19" 4:3 and more commonly now 20" widescreen, I can see why Apple would want to raise their minimum spec in line with that - not wanting to seem out of date in that respect alone.
Also, panel manufacturers would probably stop producing the 17" panels in favor of producing panels which are more in demand, you can see why dropping the 17" is more likely.
I can't see too many people complaining if the entry level 20" '07 iMac is introduced at todays 17" entry level '06 iMac price...
According to DigiTimes, most PC vendors today are bundling 19-inch and 22-inch widescreen displays.
Assuming this is true, Apple staying with 20 and 24 inch sizes suggests to me that either S.J. is being his usual stubborn self, or their not going to change the form factor just yet.
If consumers want 19" and 22" (and they're cheaper for Apple) then Apple should choose those sizes. Otherwise, there must be some engineering/production reason that Apple stayed with 20" and 24".
Assuming this is true, Apple staying with 20 and 24 inch sizes suggests to me that either S.J. is being his usual stubborn self, or their not going to change the form factor just yet.
If consumers want 19" and 22" (and they're cheaper for Apple) then Apple should choose those sizes. Otherwise, there must be some engineering/production reason that Apple stayed with 20" and 24".
I suspect this is because Apple do not choose TN Film based panels for the iMac because of the relative poor quality viewing angle and colour reproduction compared with S-IPS or *VA panels. I don't think 22" screens have been produced in anything other than TN Film.
Read more about the various panel technologies here:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/which_screen_1.htm
20" 22" 24" would be a great line up + keeping the 17" for education.
I still think that Apple shouldn't kill the 17".
I fear that if Apple puts out that many size choices, they'll pigeon-hole the performance of a given iMac into a certain screen-size. Previous iterations have done a decent job at this by offering just two options. Offering 17", 20", 22", AND 24"... that would be a nightmare.
I feel as though the price balance has gotten a little out of skew with the addition of the 24", which leans me towards cutting the 17", but I fear a 20" will be overkill for casual users.
Maybe a compromize? 19", 23", 27"?
19"-widescreen is a very popular basic size right now... and Apple offers a 23" Cinema Display. In fact, they could mime their ACD line with the same sizes... a 19" budget model, 23" lower-end, 27" mid-range, 30+" high-end.
*shrugs*
-Clive
I'd certainly consider a 23" iMac if it was the same panel as the Cinema Display and had an option for a DX10 spec GPU
Oh, come on!
This is getting ridiculous.
Why don't we just have 17,19,20,22,23, and 24" iMacs?
That would please everyone!
20" (1680x1050),
23" (1920x1200 i.e. same as 23" cinema (mass buying power))
27" (1920x1200 with 92% NTSC color gamut - enhanced CCFL)
All S-IPS panels of course
Why don't we just have 17,19,20,22,23, and 24" iMacs?
That would please everyone!
Okay!
I vote for:
20" (1680x1050),
23" (1920x1200 i.e. same as 23" cinema (mass buying power))
27" (1920x1200 with 92% NTSC color gamut - enhanced CCFL)
All S-IPS panels of course
Apple will be discontinuing that 23" display. Everyone has gone to 24".
... but I fear a 20" will be overkill for casual users.
Overkill for a casual user is a Mac Pro with 30" screen.
That overkill also includes most creative profesionals.
I don't think the casual user would mind a 20" iMac with a lower price tag.
Most PC's are sold with a 19"-22" screen (okay, I know the 19" resolution is 99% of the time 1280x768 but that's not the point)
Apple has always upped the specs and/or lowered the price of a new model.
I bought my 20"iMac G5 revA for $1,899 (actually more, because the euro sucked those days)
now, 2,5 years later we can buy a better, faster 20" iMac for $1,499
If Apple drops the 17" version, they'll also drop the price of the current 20" model to $1,299, which is the standard starting price of the iMac since its introduction back in 1998
Apple will be discontinuing that 23" display. Everyone has gone to 24".
agreed.
Not everyone wants a bigger screen because it has higher rez. A lot of people want the same rez in a bigger screen because they are easier to read. not everyone has great eyes.
I do have great eyes. But still, just because you can see tiny text doesn't mean you want to read it all the time. I'm waiting for the 27" displays to fall in price. They're just about the perfect combination of size and resolution. 30s are nice and big, but the resolution is too high, at least until Leopard's resolution independence can change things. Too bad the 27s are so stinking expensive right now. For that matter, I don't get why 24s are so much more expensive than 20s. 4 extra inches and 320 extra pixel columns don't warrant a tripling of price.
19" - 1440 x 900
22" - 1680 x 1050
24/27" - 1900 x 1200
Oh, come on!
This is getting ridiculous.
Why don't we just have 17,19,20,22,23, and 24" iMacs?
That would please everyone!
I'd like a 15" for my kitchen....