Marketshare increasing, profits increasing, customer satisfaction the highest in the industry, everyone and their dog trying their hardest to copy Apple products and business model .... yea, I'd say Apple is right. Stop bitchin' and just buy the stock/ products and enjoy the ride.
With a 4% worldwide market share for computers, no desktop computer with a desktop CPU, no licensing of Mac OS X, I wouldn't say that things are so great for Apple under Steve Jobs' leadership.
Steve Jobs demanded backdated stock option bonuses worth more than a billion dollars, but can Steve Jobs really increase the market share of Mac computers by allowing more models or licensing Mac OS X to computer desktop manufacturers like HP and Dell?
If Apple cannot or won't build a desktop computer with a desktop CPU, it should license Mac OS X to companies who can build computers that people want to buy. The iMac is an overpriced, all-in-one computer with a mobile, slower, cooler CPU and graphic card because the iMac is too thin.
Apple should llisten to what customers want to buy and build it. Or license Mac OS X if Apple cannot build what customers want. The "Apple knows best" attitude should be chastised.
Apple should llisten to what customers want to buy and build it.
I think they have been listening to customers and building what they want, which is why they have been doing so well lately. It's a bit absurd to think they must build everything that any customer might want. They also have to consider whether they can make money off it, so even though it may seem that a bunch of people on this and other similar sites want some feature, that might only add up to a few hundred units sold, which is obviously not worth it for them.
As far as licensing Mac OS X, forget about it, it's never going to happen.
Oh, and Apple, any chance the iMac could look exactly like the Cinema Display?
Apple should llisten to what customers want to buy and build it.
As Apple continue to gain market share, they will have the sales volumes to achieve economies of scale with an increasingly diverse range of products. I would say that we would eventually see a desktop in between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro, but desktops are increasingly being replaced by laptops and I expect that trend will continue.
With a 4% worldwide market share for computers, no desktop computer with a desktop CPU, no licensing of Mac OS X, I wouldn't say that things are so great for Apple under Steve Jobs' leadership.
Steve Jobs demanded backdated stock option bonuses worth more than a billion dollars, but can Steve Jobs really increase the market share of Mac computers by allowing more models or licensing Mac OS X to computer desktop manufacturers like HP and Dell?
If Apple cannot or won't build a desktop computer with a desktop CPU, it should license Mac OS X to companies who can build computers that people want to buy. The iMac is an overpriced, all-in-one computer with a mobile, slower, cooler CPU and graphic card because the iMac is too thin.
Apple should llisten to what customers want to buy and build it. Or license Mac OS X if Apple cannot build what customers want. The "Apple knows best" attitude should be chastised.
Who said Apple was after marketshare? They could introduce a netbook, that would increase marketshare, but there is little profit in it and could cannibalize their higher margin models. Apple could introduce a mid range desktop, but again there is little profit to be made in that market as margins are razor thin. Apple could license OSX out, but again, they would make very little on it and those third party macs would cannibalize Apples Mac offerings. Apple isn't going after market share in low margin segments of the computer market. Apple isn't interested in a race to the bottom at the expense of build quility, premium materials, and user satisfaction. Apples business strategy is (relatively) low volume, high margin as opposed to a company like HP or Asus that is high volume, low margins. Apples record profits (in a recession, selling premium products) suggests that whatever they are doing is working just fine.
With a 4% worldwide market share for computers, no desktop computer with a desktop CPU, no licensing of Mac OS X, I wouldn't say that things are so great for Apple under Steve Jobs' leadership.
Steve Jobs demanded backdated stock option bonuses worth more than a billion dollars, but can Steve Jobs really increase the market share of Mac computers by allowing more models or licensing Mac OS X to computer desktop manufacturers like HP and Dell?
If Apple cannot or won't build a desktop computer with a desktop CPU, it should license Mac OS X to companies who can build computers that people want to buy. The iMac is an overpriced, all-in-one computer with a mobile, slower, cooler CPU and graphic card because the iMac is too thin.
Apple should llisten to what customers want to buy and build it. Or license Mac OS X if Apple cannot build what customers want. The "Apple knows best" attitude should be chastised.
i'd buy it since i upgrade my home built once every few years and even then it's pretty much a new PC. but for $1200 i want a discrete GPU, even if it's a mobile GPU
Apple should llisten to what customers want to buy and build it. Or license Mac OS X if Apple cannot build what customers want. The "Apple knows best" attitude should be chastised.
Thank heavens Apple does listen to its customers.
Better yet, thank heavens you are not one of them!
With a 4% worldwide market share for computers, no desktop computer with a desktop CPU, no licensing of Mac OS X, I wouldn't say that things are so great for Apple under Steve Jobs' leadership.
Steve Jobs demanded backdated stock option bonuses worth more than a billion dollars, but can Steve Jobs really increase the market share of Mac computers by allowing more models or licensing Mac OS X to computer desktop manufacturers like HP and Dell?
If Apple cannot or won't build a desktop computer with a desktop CPU, it should license Mac OS X to companies who can build computers that people want to buy. The iMac is an overpriced, all-in-one computer with a mobile, slower, cooler CPU and graphic card because the iMac is too thin.
Apple should llisten to what customers want to buy and build it. Or license Mac OS X if Apple cannot build what customers want. The "Apple knows best" attitude should be chastised.
Did you even READ all of the positive things in my post, things that have ALL happened under the guidance of Steve Jobs, none of which you refer to in your reply, which causes me pain , because reading comprehension is a big problem nowadays. Keep up the effort, tho'.
If you're only interested in getting rid of the wires, wouldn't an iMac all in one be the best choice?
i have a working LCD and don't want to spend $1200 for a desktop. a mini is the same parts as the iMac. maybe a slower CPU and smaller hard drive but i don't care.
if it's between a MBP and an iMac, i'll take a refurb MBP any day. the refurbs are priced OK and only thing i don't like the ancient GPU's in them
My biggest beef with the current crop of iMacs is the limited storage space. Laptop spec harddrives just aren't big enough to hold everything anymore. I've got a monstrous photo catalog along with a goodly sized video/audio collection in iTunes that takes up most of a 500gb drive. That doesn't leave room for much of anything else on the drive. In addition, my whole family uses our mac. I want to have a reliable backup just in case something goes 'poof'. Of course, I can hang an external enclosure off the back, but then I've got all sorts of usb/firewire cords and a separate power supply to manage. The resulting mess really defeats the whole idea of the thin and clean enclosure the iMac has moved to.
I can see the appeal of the iMac, but it's general utility is lost on me since it's can't effectively deal with my storage needs. The mac pro is waaay to much money. The mini has even less storage capability. Basically, Apple doesn't make a machine for me at this point. If the iMac gets desktop sized drives at some point, I'll be all over it. Of course, this doesn't speak to the fact that there's two 30" CD's on my desk that it can't drive. Ah well.
Actually, the iMac *can* drive *one* of my displays. If I buy the 100.00 mini display-port adapter that's been such a huge hit with everyone that's bought one. </sarcasm>
My biggest beef with the current crop of iMacs is the limited storage space. Laptop spec harddrives just aren't big enough to hold everything anymore. I've got a monstrous photo catalog along with a goodly sized video/audio collection in iTunes that takes up most of a 500gb drive. That doesn't leave room for much of anything else on the drive. In addition, my whole family uses our mac. I want to have a reliable backup just in case something goes 'poof'. Of course, I can hang an external enclosure off the back, but then I've got all sorts of usb/firewire cords and a separate power supply to manage. The resulting mess really defeats the whole idea of the thin and clean enclosure the iMac has moved to.
I can see the appeal of the iMac, but it's general utility is lost on me since it's can't effectively deal with my storage needs. The mac pro is waaay to much money. The mini has even less storage capability. Basically, Apple doesn't make a machine for me at this point. If the iMac gets desktop sized drives at some point, I'll be all over it. Of course, this doesn't speak to the fact that there's two 30" CD's on my desk that it can't drive. Ah well.
Actually, the iMac *can* drive *one* of my displays. If I buy the 100.00 mini display-port adapter that's been such a huge hit with everyone that's bought one. </sarcasm>
Hard drives are one of the few desktop components that iMac uses, but of course you can only have one.
From the Apple Store:
Quote:
All iMac models include standard 3.5-inch Serial ATA hard drives. These drives run at 7200 revolutions per minute (rpm). Your hard drive will come already formatted with the Mac OS Extended file format for efficient storage of your data.
Right now they offer up to 1 TB, but that number will likely go to 1.5 or 2 TB with an imac refresh. Sounds like 1 TB would probably meet your storage needs anyway (well aside grom the back up needs, of course Apple wants you to get a time capsule for that\).
I'm convinced Apple will dispose of their desktop line soon.
The iMac was downgraded earlier this year, MacPro was increased in price in a 6 year old case design. If Blu-ray comes to iMac, it will be the slowest possible drive.
As for "thinness", if using the iMac against a wall, 60% of the depth goes on the foot. Making the case thinner only gains millimetres.
I went Hackintosh, because Apple don't produce a machine which runs Logic properly that is smaller than a house. There's a big BIG gap between MacPro and iMac. They lost a customer.
It?s obvious it?s a big deal to them. Jobs has publicly pointed the finger at the licensing as an issue. This has changed since then, but that answer was not the only reasons why Apple would not want to add AACS to Mac OS X. They didn?t even have to add Blu-ray drives to their machines, just add AACS support for Snow Leopard so that 3rd-party drives can be used, yet they have chosen not to do it. So, why haven?t they done it if it is no big deal to Apple?
You should really make up your mind. Earlier you said Apple wouldn't add Blu-Ray because it competed against iTunes downloads. Now you're claiming it's because of licensing issues. So which is it?
Jobs is the master of saying BS that a lot of people mysteriously believe. And that's what his licensing comments were, BS.
The idea that Apple is holding out on features on their computers because they might potentially compete with another of their products is one more reason my next computer WON'T be a Mac. One good thing that the PC world has going for it is that Microsoft can't play gate keeper to the hardware like Apple does.
You should really make up your mind. Earlier you said Apple wouldn't add Blu-Ray because it competed against iTunes downloads. Now you're claiming it's because of licensing issues. So which is it?
Jobs is the master of saying BS that a lot of people mysteriously believe. And that's what his licensing comments were, BS.
The idea that Apple is holding out on features on their computers because they might potentially compete with another of their products is one more reason my next computer WON'T be a Mac. One good thing that the PC world has going for it is that Microsoft can't play gate keeper to the hardware like Apple does.
“[Blu-ray licensing] has changed since then, but that answer was not the only reason why Apple would not want to add AACS to Mac OS X.”
Besides the fact that making things easier does not necessarily mean that things have become easy, the fact remains that there are several reasons why Apple has chosen not to add Blu-ray support.
Quote:
obs is the master of saying BS that a lot of people mysteriously believe. And that's what his licensing comments were, BS.
He’s the CEO of a company, a marketer, why would anyone expect anything he says to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? What he said was the truth, it just wasn’t the whole truth.
Quote:
The idea that Apple is holding out on features on their computers because they might potentially compete with another of their products is one more reason my next computer WON'T be a Mac. One good thing that the PC world has going for it is that Microsoft can't play gate keeper to the hardware like Apple does.
They are withhold features, not just Apple. HP and Dell don’t have HW features I want. MS doesn’t support SW features I want. You find what works best for you and go with it, or you make your own, or go with nothing.
Discrete graphics in laptops to make up for the on-die Intel GPU
Clarkfield in iMac
Radeon 5000 series in iMac
Two FW800 ports, please?
Haven't used Intel GPU's in 10+ months. They are using an nVidia GPU. 52.6 gb/s compared to Radeon 3200HD's 38, Intel GMA 4500HD's 29 and GMA 950's 10.6... I think it works.
Having run Windows Vista on an nVidia Mini and a Radeon 46xx based laptop (MSI Gaming). There's little to wish for, they both run what they run very well.
Having multiple FW ports is OK, but every FW device (hell even the 2.5" Laptop SATA case I have has 2 FW 400 ports) has multiple FW ports because they can be daisy-chained and not loose any speed (to an extent, if you have more than 20 devices maybe you should consider a Mac Pro).
iMac thinner? Right, Ive. The computer is secondary to the case.
I think this is a Steve Jobs focus, that the rest of Apple has agreed to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
Yup, form *rapes* function has been the case for the iMac the past few years.
I look at it as the star-trek effect.
Apple (or is it Steve?) wants to offer the future of computers. The box under the desk is the general way people think of computers... so Apple avoids that. When your average person looks at an iMac they think "where is the computer?!?" A Mac Mini results in the coment "that is the whole computer!?" The iPhone and AppleTV are both computers but don't look like it.
I think steve wants to first move towards "no moving parts", and next to solid state computing... no air between any part.
I think Steve would remove keyboards if he could get away with it... but he can't yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahoney
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks Apple's obsession with thinness is bordering on the pathological. Thinness in a phone is essential. Thinness in a laptop is nice. Thinness in an all-in-one desktop is... not really that important.
I do like supporting a company that's forcing people to see computers in a different light.
Comments
I will never use a laptop for my main computer - absolutely never. Never, never, never.
I hear you. I was the same way until the MPB 17 C2D was introduced in the spring of 2007. Now I cannot imagine life without it.
Objects and opinions do change over time.
Wouldn't a USB hub (pretty cheap, nowadays) placed anywhere you wanted be the answer?
It's a computer lab, a USB hub would just be something else to steal.
Marketshare increasing, profits increasing, customer satisfaction the highest in the industry, everyone and their dog trying their hardest to copy Apple products and business model .... yea, I'd say Apple is right. Stop bitchin' and just buy the stock/ products and enjoy the ride.
With a 4% worldwide market share for computers, no desktop computer with a desktop CPU, no licensing of Mac OS X, I wouldn't say that things are so great for Apple under Steve Jobs' leadership.
Steve Jobs demanded backdated stock option bonuses worth more than a billion dollars, but can Steve Jobs really increase the market share of Mac computers by allowing more models or licensing Mac OS X to computer desktop manufacturers like HP and Dell?
If Apple cannot or won't build a desktop computer with a desktop CPU, it should license Mac OS X to companies who can build computers that people want to buy. The iMac is an overpriced, all-in-one computer with a mobile, slower, cooler CPU and graphic card because the iMac is too thin.
Apple should llisten to what customers want to buy and build it. Or license Mac OS X if Apple cannot build what customers want. The "Apple knows best" attitude should be chastised.
Apple should llisten to what customers want to buy and build it.
I think they have been listening to customers and building what they want, which is why they have been doing so well lately. It's a bit absurd to think they must build everything that any customer might want. They also have to consider whether they can make money off it, so even though it may seem that a bunch of people on this and other similar sites want some feature, that might only add up to a few hundred units sold, which is obviously not worth it for them.
As far as licensing Mac OS X, forget about it, it's never going to happen.
Oh, and Apple, any chance the iMac could look exactly like the Cinema Display?
Apple should llisten to what customers want to buy and build it.
As Apple continue to gain market share, they will have the sales volumes to achieve economies of scale with an increasingly diverse range of products. I would say that we would eventually see a desktop in between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro, but desktops are increasingly being replaced by laptops and I expect that trend will continue.
With a 4% worldwide market share for computers, no desktop computer with a desktop CPU, no licensing of Mac OS X, I wouldn't say that things are so great for Apple under Steve Jobs' leadership.
Steve Jobs demanded backdated stock option bonuses worth more than a billion dollars, but can Steve Jobs really increase the market share of Mac computers by allowing more models or licensing Mac OS X to computer desktop manufacturers like HP and Dell?
If Apple cannot or won't build a desktop computer with a desktop CPU, it should license Mac OS X to companies who can build computers that people want to buy. The iMac is an overpriced, all-in-one computer with a mobile, slower, cooler CPU and graphic card because the iMac is too thin.
Apple should llisten to what customers want to buy and build it. Or license Mac OS X if Apple cannot build what customers want. The "Apple knows best" attitude should be chastised.
Who said Apple was after marketshare? They could introduce a netbook, that would increase marketshare, but there is little profit in it and could cannibalize their higher margin models. Apple could introduce a mid range desktop, but again there is little profit to be made in that market as margins are razor thin. Apple could license OSX out, but again, they would make very little on it and those third party macs would cannibalize Apples Mac offerings. Apple isn't going after market share in low margin segments of the computer market. Apple isn't interested in a race to the bottom at the expense of build quility, premium materials, and user satisfaction. Apples business strategy is (relatively) low volume, high margin as opposed to a company like HP or Asus that is high volume, low margins. Apples record profits (in a recession, selling premium products) suggests that whatever they are doing is working just fine.
With a 4% worldwide market share for computers, no desktop computer with a desktop CPU, no licensing of Mac OS X, I wouldn't say that things are so great for Apple under Steve Jobs' leadership.
Steve Jobs demanded backdated stock option bonuses worth more than a billion dollars, but can Steve Jobs really increase the market share of Mac computers by allowing more models or licensing Mac OS X to computer desktop manufacturers like HP and Dell?
If Apple cannot or won't build a desktop computer with a desktop CPU, it should license Mac OS X to companies who can build computers that people want to buy. The iMac is an overpriced, all-in-one computer with a mobile, slower, cooler CPU and graphic card because the iMac is too thin.
Apple should llisten to what customers want to buy and build it. Or license Mac OS X if Apple cannot build what customers want. The "Apple knows best" attitude should be chastised.
i'd buy it since i upgrade my home built once every few years and even then it's pretty much a new PC. but for $1200 i want a discrete GPU, even if it's a mobile GPU
Apple should llisten to what customers want to buy and build it. Or license Mac OS X if Apple cannot build what customers want. The "Apple knows best" attitude should be chastised.
Thank heavens Apple does listen to its customers.
Better yet, thank heavens you are not one of them!
With a 4% worldwide market share for computers, no desktop computer with a desktop CPU, no licensing of Mac OS X, I wouldn't say that things are so great for Apple under Steve Jobs' leadership.
Steve Jobs demanded backdated stock option bonuses worth more than a billion dollars, but can Steve Jobs really increase the market share of Mac computers by allowing more models or licensing Mac OS X to computer desktop manufacturers like HP and Dell?
If Apple cannot or won't build a desktop computer with a desktop CPU, it should license Mac OS X to companies who can build computers that people want to buy. The iMac is an overpriced, all-in-one computer with a mobile, slower, cooler CPU and graphic card because the iMac is too thin.
Apple should llisten to what customers want to buy and build it. Or license Mac OS X if Apple cannot build what customers want. The "Apple knows best" attitude should be chastised.
Did you even READ all of the positive things in my post, things that have ALL happened under the guidance of Steve Jobs, none of which you refer to in your reply, which causes me pain , because reading comprehension is a big problem nowadays. Keep up the effort, tho'.
If you're only interested in getting rid of the wires, wouldn't an iMac all in one be the best choice?
i have a working LCD and don't want to spend $1200 for a desktop. a mini is the same parts as the iMac. maybe a slower CPU and smaller hard drive but i don't care.
if it's between a MBP and an iMac, i'll take a refurb MBP any day. the refurbs are priced OK and only thing i don't like the ancient GPU's in them
I can see the appeal of the iMac, but it's general utility is lost on me since it's can't effectively deal with my storage needs. The mac pro is waaay to much money. The mini has even less storage capability. Basically, Apple doesn't make a machine for me at this point. If the iMac gets desktop sized drives at some point, I'll be all over it. Of course, this doesn't speak to the fact that there's two 30" CD's on my desk that it can't drive. Ah well.
Actually, the iMac *can* drive *one* of my displays. If I buy the 100.00 mini display-port adapter that's been such a huge hit with everyone that's bought one.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks Apple's obsession with thinness is bordering on the pathological.
haha, well i guess its time to commit me
keep it up Ive!
My biggest beef with the current crop of iMacs is the limited storage space. Laptop spec harddrives just aren't big enough to hold everything anymore. I've got a monstrous photo catalog along with a goodly sized video/audio collection in iTunes that takes up most of a 500gb drive. That doesn't leave room for much of anything else on the drive. In addition, my whole family uses our mac. I want to have a reliable backup just in case something goes 'poof'. Of course, I can hang an external enclosure off the back, but then I've got all sorts of usb/firewire cords and a separate power supply to manage. The resulting mess really defeats the whole idea of the thin and clean enclosure the iMac has moved to.
I can see the appeal of the iMac, but it's general utility is lost on me since it's can't effectively deal with my storage needs. The mac pro is waaay to much money. The mini has even less storage capability. Basically, Apple doesn't make a machine for me at this point. If the iMac gets desktop sized drives at some point, I'll be all over it. Of course, this doesn't speak to the fact that there's two 30" CD's on my desk that it can't drive. Ah well.
Actually, the iMac *can* drive *one* of my displays. If I buy the 100.00 mini display-port adapter that's been such a huge hit with everyone that's bought one.
Hard drives are one of the few desktop components that iMac uses, but of course you can only have one.
From the Apple Store:
All iMac models include standard 3.5-inch Serial ATA hard drives. These drives run at 7200 revolutions per minute (rpm). Your hard drive will come already formatted with the Mac OS Extended file format for efficient storage of your data.
Right now they offer up to 1 TB, but that number will likely go to 1.5 or 2 TB with an imac refresh. Sounds like 1 TB would probably meet your storage needs anyway (well aside grom the back up needs, of course Apple wants you to get a time capsule for that
The iMac was downgraded earlier this year, MacPro was increased in price in a 6 year old case design. If Blu-ray comes to iMac, it will be the slowest possible drive.
As for "thinness", if using the iMac against a wall, 60% of the depth goes on the foot. Making the case thinner only gains millimetres.
I went Hackintosh, because Apple don't produce a machine which runs Logic properly that is smaller than a house. There's a big BIG gap between MacPro and iMac. They lost a customer.
aW
It?s obvious it?s a big deal to them. Jobs has publicly pointed the finger at the licensing as an issue. This has changed since then, but that answer was not the only reasons why Apple would not want to add AACS to Mac OS X. They didn?t even have to add Blu-ray drives to their machines, just add AACS support for Snow Leopard so that 3rd-party drives can be used, yet they have chosen not to do it. So, why haven?t they done it if it is no big deal to Apple?
You should really make up your mind. Earlier you said Apple wouldn't add Blu-Ray because it competed against iTunes downloads. Now you're claiming it's because of licensing issues. So which is it?
Jobs is the master of saying BS that a lot of people mysteriously believe. And that's what his licensing comments were, BS.
The idea that Apple is holding out on features on their computers because they might potentially compete with another of their products is one more reason my next computer WON'T be a Mac. One good thing that the PC world has going for it is that Microsoft can't play gate keeper to the hardware like Apple does.
You should really make up your mind. Earlier you said Apple wouldn't add Blu-Ray because it competed against iTunes downloads. Now you're claiming it's because of licensing issues. So which is it?
Jobs is the master of saying BS that a lot of people mysteriously believe. And that's what his licensing comments were, BS.
The idea that Apple is holding out on features on their computers because they might potentially compete with another of their products is one more reason my next computer WON'T be a Mac. One good thing that the PC world has going for it is that Microsoft can't play gate keeper to the hardware like Apple does.
“[Blu-ray licensing] has changed since then, but that answer was not the only reason why Apple would not want to add AACS to Mac OS X.”
Besides the fact that making things easier does not necessarily mean that things have become easy, the fact remains that there are several reasons why Apple has chosen not to add Blu-ray support.
obs is the master of saying BS that a lot of people mysteriously believe. And that's what his licensing comments were, BS.
He’s the CEO of a company, a marketer, why would anyone expect anything he says to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? What he said was the truth, it just wasn’t the whole truth.
The idea that Apple is holding out on features on their computers because they might potentially compete with another of their products is one more reason my next computer WON'T be a Mac. One good thing that the PC world has going for it is that Microsoft can't play gate keeper to the hardware like Apple does.
They are withhold features, not just Apple. HP and Dell don’t have HW features I want. MS doesn’t support SW features I want. You find what works best for you and go with it, or you make your own, or go with nothing.
Okay, wishlisting:
Blu-ray
Arrandale in laptops
Discrete graphics in laptops to make up for the on-die Intel GPU
Clarkfield in iMac
Radeon 5000 series in iMac
Two FW800 ports, please?
Haven't used Intel GPU's in 10+ months. They are using an nVidia GPU. 52.6 gb/s compared to Radeon 3200HD's 38, Intel GMA 4500HD's 29 and GMA 950's 10.6... I think it works.
Having run Windows Vista on an nVidia Mini and a Radeon 46xx based laptop (MSI Gaming). There's little to wish for, they both run what they run very well.
Having multiple FW ports is OK, but every FW device (hell even the 2.5" Laptop SATA case I have has 2 FW 400 ports) has multiple FW ports because they can be daisy-chained and not loose any speed (to an extent, if you have more than 20 devices maybe you should consider a Mac Pro).
iMac thinner? Right, Ive. The computer is secondary to the case.
I think this is a Steve Jobs focus, that the rest of Apple has agreed to.
Yup, form *rapes* function has been the case for the iMac the past few years.
I look at it as the star-trek effect.
Apple (or is it Steve?) wants to offer the future of computers. The box under the desk is the general way people think of computers... so Apple avoids that. When your average person looks at an iMac they think "where is the computer?!?" A Mac Mini results in the coment "that is the whole computer!?" The iPhone and AppleTV are both computers but don't look like it.
I think steve wants to first move towards "no moving parts", and next to solid state computing... no air between any part.
I think Steve would remove keyboards if he could get away with it... but he can't yet.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks Apple's obsession with thinness is bordering on the pathological. Thinness in a phone is essential. Thinness in a laptop is nice. Thinness in an all-in-one desktop is... not really that important.
I do like supporting a company that's forcing people to see computers in a different light.
And there is a danger of them going too far!