Apple released the iMac 24 years ago and it's better than ever

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited August 15
Every part of the iMac has been improved over its 24 years, but Apple got everything right from the start -- and so it's the only computer begun in 1998 that you can still buy in 2022.




If there's a single Mac that is the most beloved, then it could be the Macintosh SE/30, and it could be the Macintosh IIfx, but it's probably the 2006 Mac Pro. There's no question, though, over how the iMac is the most beloved, and most successful series of Macs that Apple ever made.

It's not even close. That 2006 Mac Pro was the first of a series, but its successors tended to come very slowly, and have other problems alongside a high price tag.

There were also other series of Macs before the iMac, but if anyone remembers the Centris or Quadra ranges, they don't celebrate their anniversaries.

Whereas the iMac is now approaching its quarter century and there is a reason that the very first version of it is the machine that saved Apple. The iMac has never been cheap in any sense, but it's always been remarkable good value with its all-in-one design.

The key is its design and how Apple -- seemingly alone in the computer industry -- saw that design is so much more than what something looks like. Bill Gates's reaction to the colorful original iMac unknowingly defined just how most of the industry saw design.

"The one thing Apple's providing now is leadership in colors," he said. "It won't take long for us to catch up with that, I don't think."

It was a shallow dismissal that displayed the computer industry's arrogant blindness to what people wanted. The iMac was a manifestation of the idea that the industry was building computers, but Apple was building computers for people to use.

Building up to an all-in-one as we know it

Although Apple would make a big deal out of the iMac being an all-in-one computer, the original Mac was, too. And that SE/30.

Both of those are classic designs that were well-received at the time. The Power Macintosh G3 All in One computer, released not all that long before that iMac, was neither.

The 'Molar' Mac. (Source: happymacs)
The 'Molar' Mac. (Source: happymacs)


Immediately described as molar, for how it looked like a tooth that had been pulled out, it was at least vaguely smooth. The Macintosh Performa 5200 from 1995, didn't even have that.

It was as if Apple was hanging on to its aims with the original Mac, yet trying to also shoe-horn in extra features like TV sets and optical drives. If these mid-1990s machines were anything to go by, it was a combination that could never work.

Until it did, with the iMac.

Building up to a launch

Although it was August 15, 1998, when the iMac went on sale, we were first shown it much earlier on May 6 of that year.

Steve Jobs launching the very first iMac back in 1998
Steve Jobs launching the very first iMac back in 1998


"Today, I'm incredibly pleased to introduce iMac, our consumer product," said Steve Jobs at Macworld 1988. "iMac comes from the marriage of the excitement of the Internet with the simplicity of Macintosh."

"Even though this is a full-blooded Macintosh," he said, "we are targeting this for the #1 use consumers tell us they want a computer for, which is to get on the Internet, simply and fast."

All in one means all in one





Apple only quite rarely shows competing products in its presentations, and then it is always to illustrate something, and frankly to mock it. In this case, Jobs talked about PCs and how they were slow, had no networking, and only came with "crummy displays."

"And," he added, "these things are ug-ly."

Apple obviously carefully picked its examples to make a point, but it picked them well. Comparing PCs and their nest of cables, Jobs said that with the iMac, "the back of this thing looks better than the front of the other guys'."

Selling the iMac

You can have a great product, but it's no use if no one gets to hear of it. Today, Apple can't lift a finger without it becoming news, but back in the 1990s, few expected the company to even survive so nothing it did would automatically get attention.

Except that it did have Steve Jobs who, if nothing else, was very strong on presenting a case for why Apple was the best -- or as he'd want you to think -- only option.

And for the well-designed iMac, Apple also made well-designed TV adverts. Jeff Goldblum presented the ads, each of which were the opposite of hyped up.

Instead, the ads were simple, straightforward, and funny. It's very hard to do funny, and it's even harder to do it when hawking a product -- just ask Microsoft -- but Apple did it.





The first iMac was priced at $1,299. For that, you got a G3 233-MHz processor, a 15-inch display and it was all wrapped up in a very distinctive box. It was curvy, it was colorful, it was arguably a bit gaudy and bulbous, but it was like no other computer released up to then.

It was also the first major collaboration between Jobs and the newly promoted senior vice president of industrial design, Jony Ive.

"This one is incredibly sweet," said Jobs in a CNN interview. "This $1,299 product is faster than the fastest Pentium II you can buy. The market's never had a consumer computer this powerful and cool-looking."

"We have been working hard on fashion, which is very important in the consumer market," added Jobs.





Interestingly, Jobs used that same CNN interview to reveal a much longer-term goal. "Apple will be working on strengthening its brand name," he said, and specifically compared Apple to the likes of Nike, Disney, and Sony.



Never standing still

If you have a hit, you don't do anything to damage it. Unless you're Apple, in which case you famously take the approach that you need to destroy your products before your competition can.

At first, there was little sign of that with the iMac as the only significant change was in 1999 when the iMac was released in multiple colors.

But then in 2002, everything changed -- except the bits that didn't. The new 2002 iMac was still an all-in-one with an especially neat design, but otherwise it didn't resemble the original iMac at all.

The colors were gone, it was solely offered in white, and the bulbous CRT casing vanished. In its place, Apple produced a half-dome-like structure, which housed all of the computer's components.

On top of the dome was a strong silver bar that connected to a flat-screen display. You couldn't see it without wanting to adjust the screen, to touch and to move it.

It was an iMac with real personality -- and then Apple killed that one off, too.

In 2004, we got what today seems like the very definition of an iMac. The whole computer is one single, slim display, with a distinctive chin at the bottom.

The iMac G5, from 2004


Eighteen years later, we still have that same design. Although that single, slim display is now incredibly slim, so slim that Apple had to fit a headphone jack into it sideways.

And the most recent designs have thinner and thinner bezels around the side of the display.

But otherwise, the iMac today is visibly the same beast as it was back in 2004. Internally, invisibly, though, it has changed hugely.

In 2006, there was the first Intel-based iMac. Then in 2007, we got the first iMacs that were made from aluminum.

The alumninum iMac, from 2007


If the 2004 chin design is clearly part of the iMac lineage, and then the aluminum version is even more familiar, it was 2012's revision that made the modern iMac.

That was when Phil Schiller showed off the new design on stage and carefully rotated it from side to side to maximise the surprise of just how impossibly thin it was -- at the edges. He rather hid that the back of this thin screen had a bulbous growth in the middle, but even with that, it was still remarkably slim.

iMac Pro and the future

Apple stuck with that same chassis design for longer than any other iMac version. Seemingly now ignoring its aim of competing in fashion, Apple had a design that worked superbly, that few rivals were attempting to mimic, and it left it alone.

Aside from spec bumps and internal revisions, the iMac felt like it was done. Still brilliant value, still highly desireable, it seemed it wasn't going to change, it seemed there wouldn't be anything dramatic changing.

Until there was.

In 2017, Apple launched the 27-inch iMac Pro, vastly faster and hugely more attractive to power users -- yet still it looked the same. Apple gave it a darker color and continued selling it alongside the regular iMac.

And at the time, buyers ran to embrace it. Especially disenchanted Mac Pro users who at the time were being told a new model of their favorite machine was coming in the next couple of years.

In retrospect, it now seems as if Apple made the iMac Pro as a stop-gap while it worked on the next Mac Pro. That seems especially likely since having made this amazingly powerful machine, it then stopped making it.

Apple didn't significantly update the iMac Pro between 2017 and 2021, when it then discontinued the model.

At the same time, Apple wasn't exactly doing a lot for the regular iMac updates.

Until it did.

Apple Silicon arrives in the iMac

In 2020, Apple began its transition away from Intel processors to its own Apple Silicon, starting with the M1. The first M1 Macs were the MacBook Air, the MacBook Pro, the Mac mini -- and not the iMac.

Perhaps because Apple was concentrating on the massive internal changes, it didn't make any alternation to the exterior of any of those first M1 machines. It's possible, too, that Apple wanted to stress how these were still Macs, despite the radical change under the hood.

Whatever the reason, that retention of the old design stopped with the 2021 release of the 24-inch iMac with Apple Silicon.

If you just glanced at the new M1 version, you'd recognize immediately that it was an iMac. Apart from new pastel colors, and the curious omission of the Apple logo from the front chin of the machine, these new iMacs are clearly part of the lineage.

Yet it's also a cleaner, neater, design, where the screen gets thinner bezels.

Form follows function

"Form follows function" is an architecture and engineering phrase that means you design something to work first, and whatever it looks like is whatever it looks like.

Apple does this too, most especially with the iMac, but the company has a different idea of what the function of the computer is. Where every competitor looks to faster components and higher specifications, Apple does that too but knows the function is to be usable.

As it was right back at the start of the iMac, the design is really about making a computer for people to use. Whatever it's being used for, it feels as if there is just the user and the screen, there is nothing else getting in the way.

That's perhaps the same ethos that led to the original Mac in 1984. But it's certainly the one that has kept the iMac a hit for almost a quarter of a century.

Read on AppleInsider
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 28
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 2,828member
    If there's a single Mac that is the most beloved, then it could be the Macintosh SE/30, and it could be the Macintosh IIfx, but it's probably the 2006 Mac Pro
    I’d replace the IIfx with the IIci and the 2006 Mac Pro with the 2010.

    one thing I like about the Mac studio is that it seems to have the spirit of the IIci


    meterestnzwatto_cobraforgot username
  • Reply 2 of 28
    Many have no idea how close Apple was to going under when the iMac was released. There was virtually no chance it would survive in the face of the onslaught by industry-standard Windows, which had finally been able to copy the Mac’s ease of use after more than a decade of trying. Today, Apple is arguably the most powerful company to ever exist. Truly unbelievable, and all thanks to one man: Steve Jobs. 
    edited August 15 9secondkox2racerhomie3coolfactorwatto_cobraradarthekatwaveparticleforgot username
  • Reply 3 of 28
    JP234JP234 Posts: 502member
    The first day I knew that Apple would survive was the day the iMac was released, with its unabashed enduser-driven design. That, plus the return of Steve Jobs to the helm gave me the confidence to invest in Apple stock, then seek a job at Apple. 14 years later, I retired as a purchasing manager, with 3,200+ shares of Apple stock, having reinvested all the dividends. I still own them, and they're my second largest holding (after Microsoft, which I bought when Windows 3 was released). The only reason I'm not living on a Hawaiian island mansion is the myriad other things I missed or got wrong (selling Adobe 25 years ago was a big one), but those two have made the difference between living hand to mouth in retirement, and enjoying all the opportunities available to me because of Steve Jobs' and Bill Gates' genius and obsession to bring technology into our homes.
    edited August 15 Vermelhowatto_cobraradarthekat
  • Reply 4 of 28
    blastdoor said:
    If there's a single Mac that is the most beloved, then it could be the Macintosh SE/30, and it could be the Macintosh IIfx, but it's probably the 2006 Mac Pro
    I’d replace the IIfx with the IIci and the 2006 Mac Pro with the 2010.

    one thing I like about the Mac studio is that it seems to have the spirit of the IIci



    Sure, minus the things that made the IIci a great computer, like the slots, the upgradeable RAM and hard drive, and the ability to completely disassemble the entire computer without tools.

    Huh.  Guess the IIci was a better design in every way.
    radarthekatRogue01
  • Reply 5 of 28
    Dead_Pool said:
    Many have no idea how close Apple was to going under when the iMac was released. There was virtually no chance it would survive in the face of the onslaught by industry-standard Windows, which had finally been able to copy the Mac’s ease of use after more than a decade of trying. Today, Apple is arguably the most powerful company to ever exist. Truly unbelievable, and all thanks to one man: Steve Jobs. 
    All of that is complete bunk.

    Apple was in no danger of going under.  Apple was consistently profitable, had a huge chunk of cash in the bank, and was making far better computers than everybody else.

    Where Apple was struggling was with the development of the next generation operating system.  The NeXT purchase made sense for picking up a good UNIX-based OS, but sadly came with Steve Jobs, the man who was very justifiably fired from Apple in the early '80s.  Had Amelio been slightly more competent the first thing he'd have done after buying NeXT would have been to fire Jobs again, or at least contain him to the marketing department, with no influence on computer design.

    Oh, and Microsoft didn't approach Macintosh ease of use for another decade and a half.  The ONLY release they've ever had that came close was Windows 7, what they had in the '90s was absolute garbage.  I know there were people at the time saying things like "Windows 95 = Macintosh 87" but the reality was very different, Win95 was still ultimately a shell on top of DOS.
    danox
  • Reply 6 of 28
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,689member
    Great article, William! I’ve owned every one . . . except the latest. Want one, but won’t trade in my big screen for a smaller one. (You of all people will understand that!) when do you think they’ll offer two screen sizes again?
    edited August 15 davebarnes9secondkox2Vermelhowatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 28
    zeus423zeus423 Posts: 172member
    Great article, William! I’ve owned every one . . . except the latest. Want one, but can’t trade in my big screen for a smaller one. (You of all people will understand that!) when do you think they’ll offer two screen sizes again?
    Agreed. No way I can go down to 24”, and with a family I can’t justify spending $1500 on a monitor. I need a 27” iMac. 
    Hedware9secondkox2Vermelhowatto_cobrascstrrf
  • Reply 8 of 28
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,689member
    JP234 said:
    The first day I knew that Apple would survive was the day the iMac was released, with its unabashed enduser-driven design. That, plus the return of Steve Jobs to the helm gave me the confidence to invest in Apple stock, then seek a job at Apple. 14 years later, I retired as a purchasing manager, with 3,200+ shares of Apple stock, having reinvested all the dividends. I still own them, and they're my second largest holding (after Microsoft, which I bought when Windows 3 was released). The only reason I'm not living on a Hawaiian island mansion is the myriad other things I missed or got wrong (selling Adobe 25 years ago was a big one), but those two have made the difference between living hand to mouth in retirement, and enjoying all the opportunities available to me because of Steve Jobs' and Bill Gates' genius and obsession to bring technology into our homes.

    I did much the same as an outsider. Made a $10k investment as a teacher at the start of my career when I really couldn’t afford it. But just loved the way Apple made computers fun and useful for non-geeks. Bought a few more blocks early on after that. Resisted my wife’s many urgings to sell—“It can’t keep going up forever!” Have 1800+ shares, my largest single stock too. Only sold once. $50k worth 15 years ago to remodel our kitchen. Am retired and very comfortable thanks to buy-and-hold strategy. Apple has definitely made my life better. 
    edited August 15 JP234racerhomie3watto_cobraradarthekatdanox
  • Reply 9 of 28
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,057member
    I got my Biondi Blue iMac the day it was released. It was delivered to where I worked. I think I got a government discount (10%) which is why it was delivered there. That was followed by the lampshade iMac, an easily repairable thick iMac then the 2015 iMac I still use. 
    9secondkox2watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 28
    I want a 27” iMac to replace my 27” iMac. I am not interested in the over priced suggested substitute. 

    Sometimes it is clearly evident that the higher-ups in Apple have their heads in the clouds or up somewhere else.
    9secondkox2zeus423Vermelhoelijahg
  • Reply 11 of 28
    I’ve owned every one . . . except the latest. Want one, but won’t trade in my big screen for a smaller one. 
    That is us.
    Putting money into a computer fund every month waitng for a new 27-inch iMac.
    9secondkox2zeus423Vermelhowatto_cobraelijahg
  • Reply 12 of 28
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 1,468member
    darkvader said:
    Dead_Pool said:
    Many have no idea how close Apple was to going under when the iMac was released. There was virtually no chance it would survive in the face of the onslaught by industry-standard Windows, which had finally been able to copy the Mac’s ease of use after more than a decade of trying. Today, Apple is arguably the most powerful company to ever exist. Truly unbelievable, and all thanks to one man: Steve Jobs. 
    All of that is complete bunk.

    Apple was in no danger of going under.  Apple was consistently profitable, had a huge chunk of cash in the bank, and was making far better computers than everybody else.

    Where Apple was struggling was with the development of the next generation operating system.  The NeXT purchase made sense for picking up a good UNIX-based OS, but sadly came with Steve Jobs, the man who was very justifiably fired from Apple in the early '80s.  Had Amelio been slightly more competent the first thing he'd have done after buying NeXT would have been to fire Jobs again, or at least contain him to the marketing department, with no influence on computer design.

    Oh, and Microsoft didn't approach Macintosh ease of use for another decade and a half.  The ONLY release they've ever had that came close was Windows 7, what they had in the '90s was absolute garbage.  I know there were people at the time saying things like "Windows 95 = Macintosh 87" but the reality was very different, Win95 was still ultimately a shell on top of DOS.
    I think he was right. Apples sales were flagging, the hardware was stale, and the software was stuck in the old days. 

    The iMac revolutionized apples sales and paved the way for a new lease on life. Everyone, even windows people, wanted one. Then they took that ethos and applied it to everything. And it helped. When OS X came out, it was the coup de Gras. And when the aluminum PowerBooks arrived, the Mac was a healthy business. The iMac did indeed start it though. It was the catalyst. 

    I wouldn’t say the iMac is better than ever today though. It’s looks are the same as before but with a polarizing color scheme (bezels), and odd choice of port placement. It’s also a bit too small. 

    Thine article heading about it being better than ever can be saved for the big one when it’s available and then we will see. The three most amazing iMacs for their time so far are the original, the articulating arm version, and the OG iMac 5k. All were simply amazing at their time. The new one is ok. 
    elijahg
  • Reply 13 of 28
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 1,468member
    Hedware said:
    I want a 27” iMac to replace my 27” iMac. I am not interested in the over priced suggested substitute. 

    Sometimes it is clearly evident that the higher-ups in Apple have their heads in the clouds or up somewhere else.
    This. X 2000. 

    Except 27”is old now. We want 32”
    edited August 15 zeus423VermelhoErikCscstrrfelijahgdanox
  • Reply 14 of 28
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 1,938member
    darkvader said:
    Dead_Pool said:
    Many have no idea how close Apple was to going under when the iMac was released. There was virtually no chance it would survive in the face of the onslaught by industry-standard Windows, which had finally been able to copy the Mac’s ease of use after more than a decade of trying. Today, Apple is arguably the most powerful company to ever exist. Truly unbelievable, and all thanks to one man: Steve Jobs. 
    All of that is complete bunk.

    Apple was in no danger of going under.  Apple was consistently profitable, had a huge chunk of cash in the bank, and was making far better computers than everybody else.

    Where Apple was struggling was with the development of the next generation operating system.  The NeXT purchase made sense for picking up a good UNIX-based OS, but sadly came with Steve Jobs, the man who was very justifiably fired from Apple in the early '80s.  Had Amelio been slightly more competent the first thing he'd have done after buying NeXT would have been to fire Jobs again, or at least contain him to the marketing department, with no influence on computer design.

    Oh, and Microsoft didn't approach Macintosh ease of use for another decade and a half.  The ONLY release they've ever had that came close was Windows 7, what they had in the '90s was absolute garbage.  I know there were people at the time saying things like "Windows 95 = Macintosh 87" but the reality was very different, Win95 was still ultimately a shell on top of DOS.

    Sounds like you've got a bone to pick with Jobs! He was and always will be the secret sauce of Apple. Tim continues to carry his torch proudly, and rightfully so. The next CEO will see dramatic changes to Apple's force in the market place. We'll lose the focus on simplicity.

    I fail to see why you're so anti-Jobs. It was his leadership and vision that brought Apple to where it is today. There were some painful missteps during the past 20 years, but in the end, Apple came out better for it. We, as users, are better for it.
    9secondkox2watto_cobramuthuk_vanalingamradarthekat
  • Reply 15 of 28
    ajmasajmas Posts: 589member
    One thing I feel was missed from the new iMacs is the Apple logo on the front. It would have given so much reason for the bezel. 

    At the same time, I do feel Apple could have used this as an opportunity to reintroduce the rainbow Apple logo, though using it as a way to distinguish the non-pro lines. Wishful thinking I know. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 28
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,387member
    My favourite was the lamp. I had a 17” one and loved it. Right now I have a 21.5” Intel iMac. It’s fine for a mid teens computer. But I’d like to update it to an M2. 

    You didn’t hit my favourite iMac ad. There Is No Step Three.
    zeus423watto_cobrascstrrftenthousandthingselijahg
  • Reply 17 of 28
    ajmas said:
    One thing I feel was missed from the new iMacs is the Apple logo on the front. It would have given so much reason for the bezel. 

    At the same time, I do feel Apple could have used this as an opportunity to reintroduce the rainbow Apple logo, though using it as a way to distinguish the non-pro lines. Wishful thinking I know. 
    Agreed on the bezel. 

    The next iMac release needs to remove the chin. There’s nothing iconic about it. It’s just a rice of tech bygone years. The studio display is s better looking iMac than the iMac. 

    I kind of like that apple is owning the minimalist look by removing all front facing branding and only keeping it in the reverse side. 

    But with the iMac, the chin just looks bad without the logo. Better to just go all the way and clean it up. 

    I’d say the rainbow logo had its day. It would be kind of ridiculous looking now snd ruin the minimalist design aesthetic. Just having fun, primary colors in the product lineup and digital ad color schemes is more than enough. 
    edited August 15 watto_cobraradarthekat
  • Reply 18 of 28
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,532member
    Where Apple goes with the follow-on to the 27” iMac 5K is still a big mystery. 

    The 24” M1 iMac was a massive upgrade from the 21” iMac, both in processing and in screen quality, but it’s obviously not quite enough for 27” iMac 5K users who see the smaller screen as a downgrade. 

    The challenge is how does Apple make a similar generational leap from the last generation 27” iMac to its Apple Silicon successor as they did with the smaller iMac without driving the price through the roof  or cannibalizing Mac Studio based systems?

    Would current 27” iMac holdouts be satisfied simply by putting high end Mx chips in the same form factor with the same 5K screen? Some would, but the total impact would be greatly enhanced if Apple could find a way to upgrade the big iMac screen as well. 

    Apple’s off the shelf screen upgrade options for a new larger iMac appear rather limited right now. The 5K panel in the Studio display isn’t really an upgrade and the 6K XDR display panel is a budget buster. 

    My theory is that a worthy replacement for the 27” iMac is being gated by Apple coming up with a suitable new display panel that they can properly slot into a big iMac, say a 5.5K panel in the 30”-32” size, with a cost reduced implementation of some of the features from the XDR panel. I simply cannot imagine Apple sticking the 6K XDR panel into an iMac, but maybe they can tweak up something closer to it for a much lower cost, just like the 24” iMac has something a little less than a full 5K panel. 
    scstrrf
  • Reply 19 of 28
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 1,468member
    dewme said:
    Where Apple goes with the follow-on to the 27” iMac 5K is still a big mystery. 

    The 24” M1 iMac was a massive upgrade from the 21” iMac, both in processing and in screen quality, but it’s obviously not quite enough for 27” iMac 5K users who see the smaller screen as a downgrade. 

    The challenge is how does Apple make a similar generational leap from the last generation 27” iMac to its Apple Silicon successor as they did with the smaller iMac without driving the price through the roof  or cannibalizing Mac Studio based systems?

    Would current 27” iMac holdouts be satisfied simply by putting high end Mx chips in the same form factor with the same 5K screen? Some would, but the total impact would be greatly enhanced if Apple could find a way to upgrade the big iMac screen as well. 

    Apple’s off the shelf screen upgrade options for a new larger iMac appear rather limited right now. The 5K panel in the Studio display isn’t really an upgrade and the 6K XDR display panel is a budget buster. 

    My theory is that a worthy replacement for the 27” iMac is being gated by Apple coming up with a suitable new display panel that they can properly slot into a big iMac, say a 5.5K panel in the 30”-32” size, with a cost reduced implementation of some of the features from the XDR panel. I simply cannot imagine Apple sticking the 6K XDR panel into an iMac, but maybe they can tweak up something closer to it for a much lower cost, just like the 24” iMac has something a little less than a full 5K panel. 
    It’s a simple answer: Apple just needs to CHOOSE to not gouge. 

    That’s what they are doing with Mac Studio. Gouging the heck out of customers. 

    The 2020 iMac had a tremendous screen, a fantastic CPU, even though they had to pay Intel for it, included a keyboard and mouse, had top notch GPU options and could support 128 GB RAM. 

    and you could get it for much less than a Mac studio with keyboard and display. And apple had to pay more to make it. 

    Right now, we are seeing Apple try to change the price game by making you pay more for less. It’s pretty bad. 

    The M series was supposed to be a price benefit as it was done by Apple in-house as a derivative of the already established a series. And it seemed like it was at least even money at launch. But what we didn’t realize was how apple would crush us on pricing once they controlled the cpu/ram/GPU package. And it’s a nightmare. 

    No doubt one of the reasons apple didn’t launch a successor to the big boy iMac yet was the fact that the 2020 iMac was such a good deal. So along comes the studio to blow pricing sky high and separate everyone from the memory of the amazingly well priced iMac. Next year we will finally get the iMac we want, but with the pricing we don’t. 
    elijahg
  • Reply 20 of 28
    The iMac was the Macintosh. The same basic idea. That had slowly died after its peak with the Macintosh Plus and the SE/30. Apple killed it in favor of laptops and component systems. Jobs brought it back.

    It’s had a good run since then, but I think it is probably dead as anything but a “productivity” (quoting the post directly below this one, with which I agree) device. Display technology is too varied: one-display-fits-all just doesn’t fly anymore.
    edited August 16
Sign In or Register to comment.