Is Walt writing this on a NETtop? Of course you can buy a PC for $300 nowadays, but why not go further. You can go to craigslist and buy a used laptop that will do email and web for $150. Why doesn't the PC industry just stop making new PCs, and just resell the ones already made for cheaper and cheaper.
Mac is innovating btw, did you see those heat sinks, good luck finding those in your EEEbox.
Copper pipe heat sinks have been used by PC gamers for over a decade. Its hardly innovating. People are buying netbooks as their second or even third system, it would be rare for someone to use these as their primary system.
Revolutionary - please. And why hasn't Jony Ive understood yet that a desktop screen needs a vertical adjustment - not just an angle swing. For god's sake - GET IT RIGHT!
Oh, well, he and Steve do that, the glass screens, no BR just to annoy you personally. You should see them, sitting there at Steve's house, slapping their thighs, right now.
He's reviewing this for customers, not investors, making lower prices definitely a desirable industry trend. Customers seem to agree, as Apple sells much fewer percentage of desktops as most other companies, which points to a weakness in their desktop line compared to their laptop one.
Over 3 million Macs sold and record revenue and envious profit margins. If Mossberg is attempting to bring some sort of devils advocate angle to Mac sales it's not working. Apple's clientele has always been those who prefer premium product versus "Bargain Basement". Apple's delivering pricing and featuresets that have attracted more Mac users than ever. The numbers aren't there to support Mossberg's assertion that the trend is "Bargain Basement". HP, Dell and Lenovo would LOVE to be in Apple's position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel001
I quite like Mossberg, but he comes out with this 'evolutionary, not revolutionary' all the time. Does he expect Apple and others reinvent the computer market every time they update their line?
Mossberg's job as a tech writer is to tell us what would have made the iMacs revolutionary. He keeps yammering on about Evolutionary/Revolutionary but never clarifies any further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas
Revolution is a one time event, after that it's evolution. For example microchip was a revolution and after that it evolved year after year.
iMac G4 was revolutionary and these iMac are evolutionary. There is nothing wrong about it.
I agree with this. I think the Multitouch mouse is revolutionary and could change input devices. It's a nice hybrid product.
I am in the Apple store5th Avenue using the 27"iMac with its Magic MOuse. The screen has way too much glare. As I've stated many times- the larger the screen the more glare- especially when viewing at such a short distance. The Mouse- meh? too small for my big hands
Off to see the MacBook now- the best in show.
Teck. ... In my case, a 3 year old 24" iMac, any glare seems to come from the enclosure, rather than the screen. For instance, with a window to my left and another one left and slightly behind me, I can catch reflection/glare in the "chin" portion and in the 1" border around my iMac, but as I swivel machine, causing reflection/glare to appear in screen ... it disappears ... gets washed out by AI website colors. To be fair, the weather today is typical "Vancouver" weather (either raining or about to rain) so I'll have to pay closer attention ... should the sun ever come out again.
Oh, well, he and Steve do that, the glass screens, no BR just to annoy you personally. You should see them, sitting there at Steve's house, slapping their thighs, right now.
Part of the switch to Intel meant that new Macs would no longer be major news - and that's a good thing. Notice how new Macs are generally not deserving of special events anymore, unless the hardware is really compelling (e.g. unibody laptops). x86 has allowed Apple produce an innovation cycle they can count on. Keynotes are now reserved for software innovations and true hardware surprises.
Part of the switch to Intel meant that new Macs would no longer be major news - and that's a good thing. Notice how new Macs are generally not deserving of special events anymore, unless the hardware is really compelling (e.g. unibody laptops). x86 has allowed Apple produce an innovation cycle they can count on. Keynotes are now reserved for software innovations and true hardware surprises.
Ok, so personally I don't understand the deal with Walt's comments. I mean, obviously the MacBook is nothing to go crazy about- no infared remote, no battery indicator light, no firewire. If you wanted a MacBook, and were waiting for the new ones, you'll likely find an old one somewhere else. You're not going to say "Oh, I'm glad I waited!". Yet that seemed to be more positive from Walt, with regard to the battery... I mean, whatever. My MacBook now gets about 5 hours and that's fine. I wouldn't sacrifice the FireWire for a little better battery... I'd say that Apple should charge about $850 for the new Macbook. Students aren't "Pros," but they'll need a remote control for presentations in class... so it doesn't make sense.
Moving to the new iMacs. Those ARE in my opinion revolutionary. They have more screen real estate, HD display, finally have Target Screen Mode, desktop graphics processors (a first for the iMac), and have 2 TB hard drives. Those are all HUGE changes, especilly the processor! I don't understand! I have never wanted an iMac... I've just wanted a MacBook Pro... but now I would love to buy BOTH, and have the iMac as a display for the MacBook Pro, and then when not plugged in, just use it for playing movies and stuff. Perfect plan! Revolutionary in my opinion!
The mouse is cool, but functions the exact same as the previous one did, just with no ball. The only difference in functionality is the 2 finger swipe, which is unneccesary and hard to control. The only thing that I might buy the mouse for is if it has better accuracy. Currently, with my MacBook, there's not been an accurate enough mouse for graphic editing. Even the mouse on my computer at work has better accuracty- on a PC.
Too bad that Apple isn't following the pricing "Trend", because consumers are. Loyal Apple customers who know the value still cringe when they see capable PCs for half the price. No, they're not a Mac, but in today's economy, price matters! ...especially if Apple wants their growth trend to continue to accelerate.
The day Apple starts following the "Trend" is the day they start having losses, reduce R&D spending, and eventually stop "evolving" or "revolutionizing" to become just another PC manufacturer.
They have already increased their products' value a lot over the past couple of years. They have gotten better and cheaper. They don't have to keep cutting margin forever, and it's not just for profit reasons. Their products are better in almost every sense (OS, security, ease of use, durability, design, environment, efficiency and so on). We have grown to depend so much on our computers, iPhones etc., it is obviously desirable that we have the best possible experience during the countless hours we spend using them. Whathever else do people prefer to spend their "frail economy" money on? Expensive food, designer clothes?
No, they are buying more Macs during the recession. They are realizing where value is and making the best purchases, not the cheapest ones. For me, the value of my new iMac starts much ahead of the 1,199 I paid for it. It's all about priorities...
He's reviewing this for customers, not investors, making lower prices definitely a desirable industry trend. Customers seem to agree, as Apple sells much fewer percentage of desktops as most other companies, which points to a weakness in their desktop line compared to their laptop one.
There is an old saying among accountants and lawyers ... "Figures lie and liars figure, and the numbers will say whatever I want them to say!"
Where you see: "Apple sells much fewer percentage of desktops as most other companies" and portray that as "a weakness in their desktop line compared to their laptop one.". .... I see the same stats and see that as Apple having a superior lap top line. When you consider that Apple had a 17% increase in Mac sales last quarter (3.05 million macs sold) and the rest of the industry not reporting similar profits, not to mention Apple having better customer satisfaction surveys. Well .... with apologies to Winston Churchill, .... some chicken .... some neck. (look it up)
My MacBook now gets about 5 hours and that's fine. I wouldn't sacrifice the FireWire for a little better battery... I'd say that Apple should charge about $850 for the new Macbook. Students aren't "Pros," but they'll need a remote control for presentations in class... so it doesn't make sense.
Students will use their iPhones or iPod Touches for presentations, and will hardly ever need Firewire.
The new iMac and macbook have the most technologically-advanced displays in the world. Also, they have the most innovative new architectures inside of them. Including Mac OS X.6.2!!! This is APPLE we are talking about here, the makers of the iPhone and macbook.
Anybody who does NOT think the new iterations are the most revolutionary technology ever, are frankly, retarded.
If you are in a constant state of revolution, you are by definition just going in circles
If you are on essentially the right path do you really need to change course and cause a revolution? Wouldnt it be a ton smarter to refine what you are already doing well? (hint:evolution)
These latest two products are perhaps two of the most revolutionary products ever released onto the public. He needs to go back to journalism school.
I,m a fan of all things Mac ... but let's not be so quick to overuse the word "revolutionary." I think the biggest "hurdle" for Apple is their ability to keep raising the bar. They have introduced several revolutionary products in their history, perhaps more than any other company. Now we all expect them to do it with every release. ... That's just not realistic, how often can they "re-invent the wheel"? Mossberg should realize this and be less dramatic in his writing.
The problem with the term 'evolutionary' is that it is not quantified. Evolution does not take place in evenly spaced steps, and IMO the new iMac is a big step forward. The fact that Apple has used (probably been compelled to use by Intel's update cycle) desktop CPUs is significant. They have had to design a new cooling system to accommodate it, and and so will presumably stick with the desktop version for future iterations. The consequent saving can be used on other components, and we can see that in the quality of the screen. Although they are not branding it as such, the top of the range is pretty much an iMac Pro, fantastic for prosumers, and no doubt it will find its way into many professional situations as well.
I think this update has redefined the iMac line, and I reckon it's going to be a big success.
Anybody who does NOT think the new iterations are the most revolutionary technology ever, are frankly, retarded.
I am definitely retarded, then. And you must be, what, 14 years old? When you say 'most revolutionary technology' - what exactly do you mean? I think the unibody aluminum design represented a revolution in laptop casing design and production, but it didn't make the first MBP featuring that design revolutionary in itself.
I totally agree with Walt on this one. Apple needs to reduce the prices.
Too bad that Apple isn't following the pricing "Trend", because consumers are. Loyal Apple customers who know the value still cringe when they see capable PCs for half the price. No, they're not a Mac, but in today's economy, price matters! ...especially if Apple wants their growth trend to continue to accelerate.
Judging by what's going on in the marketplace, record profits, record growth, best quarter ever time and time again ... I'd have to say that the buying public does not exactly "share your opinion", not that there's anything wrong with that.
Going by the correct definition, of course all of these product introductions are 'evolutionary', including the Magic Mouse. The original mouse created by Xerox PARC was revolutionary, all mice that follow are evolutions and improvements on the original. Regardless, these are fine product upgrades and very welcome. I'm sensing a purchase in the very near future...
I like Mossberg, but I take exception of his contention that the new iMacs are evolutionary and not revolutionary.
Nope he is pretty much correct in his choice of words for the hardware. Snow Leopard might be seen as more revolutionary if it is successful in moving software to wider adoption of parallel processing.
Quote:
If, as many of the early reviews bear out, i.e., the new iMacs could well cause a resurgence of desktop sales and displace the current trend to the mobile platform, that in itself could be considered 'revolutionary'.
Replacing a crap computer with a highly salable one is not revolutionary at all. It is more like finally waking up to the fact that sales are in the tank because you have an overpriced crap machine.
The new iMacs are an incredibly good value now, especially with the I series CPUs. The only thing missing is a Nvidia GPU.
Quote:
In addition, the suggestion of using them as an external display for DisplayPort devices and the new iMac display's IPS screen technology for HDTV-style viewing via a wall mount, could, in fact, help endorse Mossberg's declaration to the contrary.
Would you mind rewriting that in clear English?
All we are really getting here is a far better value than normal from Apple. I call that adjusting to market forces. Whatever it actually is these new iMacs are a great value.
Quote:
But, perhaps Mossberg is more of a god than I believe him to be. Only time will tell.
What is the matter with you? He is only a well educated person trying to offer up balanced reporting. Frankly he is surprisingly good and credible at his attempts.
Quote:
As for following the industry trend toward bargain-basement prices, thank goodness. Obviously, he has missed the same competitors' trend towards bargain basement offerings and services.
Again I don't know what you are saying here. In any event the price on the iMacs is extremely competitive. The Mac Book isn't that bad either.
But think about this a bit, these are prices right before the Christmas shopping season. If (it is a big if) Apple has trouble moving Mac Books they have all sorts of room to adjust prices. Or more importantly for certain segments of the consummer market they can have a sale.
Besides all of that, with respect to the Mac Book, are people comparing computers of equal quality? This is very important because I don't see a huge gap in prices when similar hardware is compared. Yeah Apple is a little bit more expensive most of the time but not grossly so.
Quote:
I should also like to add, that Mossberg should perhaps follow his own edict and begin to provide more value for his services. Otherwise, his appearance here could be more revolutionary than evolutionary.
In his industry your value is determined by the number of readers that search out your materials. Since this guy seems to be well respected I suspect his employer puts a high value on him. What is notable here is that many in this thread would be living on bread and water if they tried to make a living in the public eye like Mossberg does.
I,m a fan of all things Mac ... but let's not be so quick to overuse the word "revolutionary." I think the biggest "hurdle" for Apple is their ability to keep raising the bar. They have introduced several revolutionary products in their history, perhaps more than any other company. Now we all expect them to do it with every release. ... That's just not realistic, how often can they "re-invent the wheel"? Mossberg should realize this and be less dramatic in his writing.
Yes, good points. I think the original Mac was revolutionary, because it brought graphical user interfaces to the general public. (Despite the fact that it wasn't the first implementation of them.) The iPhone was revolutionary because it completely changed the phone market, but, it only became truly revolutionary after it evolved into its second iteration. Changing to Intel CPUs and even Mac OS X aren't, to my mind, definitively revolutionary; well the former not at all. GCD and OpenCL may prove to be revolutionary. Nor the unibody MBPs, or even the original or subsequent iMacs: all evolutionary.
The error in Mr. Mossberg's prose lies in the confusion of evolutionary and revolutionary as mutually exclusive. The former simply means based on what came before, the latter means something that changes things significantly. Something, like the original Mac, can be both. Of course the new iMacs are evolutionary, and whether they are revolutionary in some way is yet to be seen. Perhaps they won't be, but that doesn't mean they aren't a major step up for that product line.
Comments
Is Walt writing this on a NETtop? Of course you can buy a PC for $300 nowadays, but why not go further. You can go to craigslist and buy a used laptop that will do email and web for $150. Why doesn't the PC industry just stop making new PCs, and just resell the ones already made for cheaper and cheaper.
Mac is innovating btw, did you see those heat sinks, good luck finding those in your EEEbox.
Copper pipe heat sinks have been used by PC gamers for over a decade. Its hardly innovating. People are buying netbooks as their second or even third system, it would be rare for someone to use these as their primary system.
Revolutionary - please. And why hasn't Jony Ive understood yet that a desktop screen needs a vertical adjustment - not just an angle swing. For god's sake - GET IT RIGHT!
Oh, well, he and Steve do that, the glass screens, no BR just to annoy you personally. You should see them, sitting there at Steve's house, slapping their thighs, right now.
He's reviewing this for customers, not investors, making lower prices definitely a desirable industry trend. Customers seem to agree, as Apple sells much fewer percentage of desktops as most other companies, which points to a weakness in their desktop line compared to their laptop one.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/10/19results.html
Over 3 million Macs sold and record revenue and envious profit margins. If Mossberg is attempting to bring some sort of devils advocate angle to Mac sales it's not working. Apple's clientele has always been those who prefer premium product versus "Bargain Basement". Apple's delivering pricing and featuresets that have attracted more Mac users than ever. The numbers aren't there to support Mossberg's assertion that the trend is "Bargain Basement". HP, Dell and Lenovo would LOVE to be in Apple's position.
I quite like Mossberg, but he comes out with this 'evolutionary, not revolutionary' all the time. Does he expect Apple and others reinvent the computer market every time they update their line?
Mossberg's job as a tech writer is to tell us what would have made the iMacs revolutionary. He keeps yammering on about Evolutionary/Revolutionary but never clarifies any further.
Revolution is a one time event, after that it's evolution. For example microchip was a revolution and after that it evolved year after year.
iMac G4 was revolutionary and these iMac are evolutionary. There is nothing wrong about it.
I agree with this. I think the Multitouch mouse is revolutionary and could change input devices. It's a nice hybrid product.
I am in the Apple store5th Avenue using the 27"iMac with its Magic MOuse. The screen has way too much glare. As I've stated many times- the larger the screen the more glare- especially when viewing at such a short distance. The Mouse- meh? too small for my big hands
Off to see the MacBook now- the best in show.
Teck. ... In my case, a 3 year old 24" iMac, any glare seems to come from the enclosure, rather than the screen. For instance, with a window to my left and another one left and slightly behind me, I can catch reflection/glare in the "chin" portion and in the 1" border around my iMac, but as I swivel machine, causing reflection/glare to appear in screen ... it disappears ... gets washed out by AI website colors. To be fair, the weather today is typical "Vancouver" weather (either raining or about to rain) so I'll have to pay closer attention ... should the sun ever come out again.
Oh, well, he and Steve do that, the glass screens, no BR just to annoy you personally. You should see them, sitting there at Steve's house, slapping their thighs, right now.
Now that's funny
Part of the switch to Intel meant that new Macs would no longer be major news - and that's a good thing. Notice how new Macs are generally not deserving of special events anymore, unless the hardware is really compelling (e.g. unibody laptops). x86 has allowed Apple produce an innovation cycle they can count on. Keynotes are now reserved for software innovations and true hardware surprises.
Sounds like your dissin' the Mouse.
Moving to the new iMacs. Those ARE in my opinion revolutionary. They have more screen real estate, HD display, finally have Target Screen Mode, desktop graphics processors (a first for the iMac), and have 2 TB hard drives. Those are all HUGE changes, especilly the processor! I don't understand! I have never wanted an iMac... I've just wanted a MacBook Pro... but now I would love to buy BOTH, and have the iMac as a display for the MacBook Pro, and then when not plugged in, just use it for playing movies and stuff. Perfect plan! Revolutionary in my opinion!
The mouse is cool, but functions the exact same as the previous one did, just with no ball. The only difference in functionality is the 2 finger swipe, which is unneccesary and hard to control. The only thing that I might buy the mouse for is if it has better accuracy. Currently, with my MacBook, there's not been an accurate enough mouse for graphic editing. Even the mouse on my computer at work has better accuracty- on a PC.
Too bad that Apple isn't following the pricing "Trend", because consumers are. Loyal Apple customers who know the value still cringe when they see capable PCs for half the price. No, they're not a Mac, but in today's economy, price matters! ...especially if Apple wants their growth trend to continue to accelerate.
The day Apple starts following the "Trend" is the day they start having losses, reduce R&D spending, and eventually stop "evolving" or "revolutionizing" to become just another PC manufacturer.
They have already increased their products' value a lot over the past couple of years. They have gotten better and cheaper. They don't have to keep cutting margin forever, and it's not just for profit reasons. Their products are better in almost every sense (OS, security, ease of use, durability, design, environment, efficiency and so on). We have grown to depend so much on our computers, iPhones etc., it is obviously desirable that we have the best possible experience during the countless hours we spend using them. Whathever else do people prefer to spend their "frail economy" money on? Expensive food, designer clothes?
No, they are buying more Macs during the recession. They are realizing where value is and making the best purchases, not the cheapest ones. For me, the value of my new iMac starts much ahead of the 1,199 I paid for it. It's all about priorities...
He's reviewing this for customers, not investors, making lower prices definitely a desirable industry trend. Customers seem to agree, as Apple sells much fewer percentage of desktops as most other companies, which points to a weakness in their desktop line compared to their laptop one.
There is an old saying among accountants and lawyers ... "Figures lie and liars figure, and the numbers will say whatever I want them to say!"
Where you see: "Apple sells much fewer percentage of desktops as most other companies" and portray that as "a weakness in their desktop line compared to their laptop one.". .... I see the same stats and see that as Apple having a superior lap top line. When you consider that Apple had a 17% increase in Mac sales last quarter (3.05 million macs sold) and the rest of the industry not reporting similar profits, not to mention Apple having better customer satisfaction surveys. Well .... with apologies to Winston Churchill, .... some chicken .... some neck. (look it up)
My MacBook now gets about 5 hours and that's fine. I wouldn't sacrifice the FireWire for a little better battery... I'd say that Apple should charge about $850 for the new Macbook. Students aren't "Pros," but they'll need a remote control for presentations in class... so it doesn't make sense.
Students will use their iPhones or iPod Touches for presentations, and will hardly ever need Firewire.
Anybody who does NOT think the new iterations are the most revolutionary technology ever, are frankly, retarded.
If you are in a constant state of revolution, you are by definition just going in circles
If you are on essentially the right path do you really need to change course and cause a revolution? Wouldnt it be a ton smarter to refine what you are already doing well? (hint:evolution)
Mossberg the Moron.
These latest two products are perhaps two of the most revolutionary products ever released onto the public. He needs to go back to journalism school.
I,m a fan of all things Mac ... but let's not be so quick to overuse the word "revolutionary." I think the biggest "hurdle" for Apple is their ability to keep raising the bar. They have introduced several revolutionary products in their history, perhaps more than any other company. Now we all expect them to do it with every release. ... That's just not realistic, how often can they "re-invent the wheel"? Mossberg should realize this and be less dramatic in his writing.
I think this update has redefined the iMac line, and I reckon it's going to be a big success.
Anybody who does NOT think the new iterations are the most revolutionary technology ever, are frankly, retarded.
I am definitely retarded, then. And you must be, what, 14 years old? When you say 'most revolutionary technology' - what exactly do you mean? I think the unibody aluminum design represented a revolution in laptop casing design and production, but it didn't make the first MBP featuring that design revolutionary in itself.
I totally agree with Walt on this one. Apple needs to reduce the prices.
Too bad that Apple isn't following the pricing "Trend", because consumers are. Loyal Apple customers who know the value still cringe when they see capable PCs for half the price. No, they're not a Mac, but in today's economy, price matters! ...especially if Apple wants their growth trend to continue to accelerate.
Judging by what's going on in the marketplace, record profits, record growth, best quarter ever time and time again ... I'd have to say that the buying public does not exactly "share your opinion", not that there's anything wrong with that.
I like Mossberg, but I take exception of his contention that the new iMacs are evolutionary and not revolutionary.
Nope he is pretty much correct in his choice of words for the hardware. Snow Leopard might be seen as more revolutionary if it is successful in moving software to wider adoption of parallel processing.
If, as many of the early reviews bear out, i.e., the new iMacs could well cause a resurgence of desktop sales and displace the current trend to the mobile platform, that in itself could be considered 'revolutionary'.
Replacing a crap computer with a highly salable one is not revolutionary at all. It is more like finally waking up to the fact that sales are in the tank because you have an overpriced crap machine.
The new iMacs are an incredibly good value now, especially with the I series CPUs. The only thing missing is a Nvidia GPU.
In addition, the suggestion of using them as an external display for DisplayPort devices and the new iMac display's IPS screen technology for HDTV-style viewing via a wall mount, could, in fact, help endorse Mossberg's declaration to the contrary.
Would you mind rewriting that in clear English?
All we are really getting here is a far better value than normal from Apple. I call that adjusting to market forces. Whatever it actually is these new iMacs are a great value.
But, perhaps Mossberg is more of a god than I believe him to be. Only time will tell.
What is the matter with you? He is only a well educated person trying to offer up balanced reporting. Frankly he is surprisingly good and credible at his attempts.
As for following the industry trend toward bargain-basement prices, thank goodness. Obviously, he has missed the same competitors' trend towards bargain basement offerings and services.
Again I don't know what you are saying here. In any event the price on the iMacs is extremely competitive. The Mac Book isn't that bad either.
But think about this a bit, these are prices right before the Christmas shopping season. If (it is a big if) Apple has trouble moving Mac Books they have all sorts of room to adjust prices. Or more importantly for certain segments of the consummer market they can have a sale.
Besides all of that, with respect to the Mac Book, are people comparing computers of equal quality? This is very important because I don't see a huge gap in prices when similar hardware is compared. Yeah Apple is a little bit more expensive most of the time but not grossly so.
I should also like to add, that Mossberg should perhaps follow his own edict and begin to provide more value for his services. Otherwise, his appearance here could be more revolutionary than evolutionary.
In his industry your value is determined by the number of readers that search out your materials. Since this guy seems to be well respected I suspect his employer puts a high value on him. What is notable here is that many in this thread would be living on bread and water if they tried to make a living in the public eye like Mossberg does.
Dave
I,m a fan of all things Mac ... but let's not be so quick to overuse the word "revolutionary." I think the biggest "hurdle" for Apple is their ability to keep raising the bar. They have introduced several revolutionary products in their history, perhaps more than any other company. Now we all expect them to do it with every release. ... That's just not realistic, how often can they "re-invent the wheel"? Mossberg should realize this and be less dramatic in his writing.
Yes, good points. I think the original Mac was revolutionary, because it brought graphical user interfaces to the general public. (Despite the fact that it wasn't the first implementation of them.) The iPhone was revolutionary because it completely changed the phone market, but, it only became truly revolutionary after it evolved into its second iteration. Changing to Intel CPUs and even Mac OS X aren't, to my mind, definitively revolutionary; well the former not at all. GCD and OpenCL may prove to be revolutionary. Nor the unibody MBPs, or even the original or subsequent iMacs: all evolutionary.
The error in Mr. Mossberg's prose lies in the confusion of evolutionary and revolutionary as mutually exclusive. The former simply means based on what came before, the latter means something that changes things significantly. Something, like the original Mac, can be both. Of course the new iMacs are evolutionary, and whether they are revolutionary in some way is yet to be seen. Perhaps they won't be, but that doesn't mean they aren't a major step up for that product line.