That's not what Xool meant. He was referring to the 17" ASD CRT (the one with the Mobius Strip stand). There never was a 17" version of the original blue Studio Display.
However, the 15" Blue Studio Display is what immediately came to my mind when seeing that box, but I agree it's way too big. Besides, what Expo vendor is going to keep a five year old box lying around for use at a major trade show?
It could be the new iMac G5 box, but if it is, let me be the first to say the design sucks. (Yes, based on that tiny grainy image.)
Take a look at this product photo of the old 15" flat panel. From the side, the display + base looks just like what's on that box.
IT'S A COMPUTER NOT A DISPLAY, I HAVE PROOF! there's an apple logo on the side of the box. the side of the box for the displays don't have an apple logo, they have a portrait view of the display, on both sides. my brother's PB box had an apple logo on both sides. SO, the displays don't have apple logos, but their computers do, and this does, so this is a computer. IT'S REAL!!! i'm sorry, but this is real!
-Brian
Brian, Brian, Brian... God help you son. All of us here know that you need as much as you can get.
I think everyone here agrees that this is not an Apple display. Can I get an Amen?!?
It's "something" inside of a Powerbook box. AFAIC, I hope that it isn't the new iMac. I would hope that Apple would have higher standards than that, but of course I would support their decision either way.
Has anyone bothered to point out that this thing doesn't say "iMac" on the front of it, like every iMac of the past has? Certainly if Apple's new iMac was going to look just like their Displays, they would do something to the front of it to differentiate them. Or how about those speakers Think Secret said would be built into the new iMac? Obviously not on the front.
I know that if I got my hands on an unreleased Apple product, I would take my photos from the least descriptive angle possible to assure that no one can actually tell it apart from a typical LCD display
I wish I had a digital camera. I'd put my lava lamp in my Apple Cinema Display box - that'd really confuse all y'all
Yeah you're right. The Paris photo is just an old 15" Studio Display box. Oh well.
It's truly remarkable how savvy some Mac users are. I love these forums. New pics show up, and they're quick to recognize old boxes and such things. Pretty amazing.
Someone else mentioned that Steve talked about each part being true to itself - a hard drive being just a hard drive, a motherboard being just a.... you get the idea. Anyways, looking at that blurry photo (which may actually be an old cinema display box, who can tell), I figured it out - the new imac will have the combo/superdrive and hard drive mounted horizontally in the base, perhaps with the power supply as well, and then the motherboard will go behind the LCD. The display doesn't seem too bulky then, and it avoids mounting optical drives in a hard-to-reach place. A thicker neck would accomodate power and sata cables, along with ports replicated on the base of the unit. Does that make sense, or do I need another beer?
Yeah! That does sound right! Duh! I still don't think there is and Apple logo on them at the stores, otherwise we would of seen 10,000 threads about the secret new Apple TV.
Anyway, I had to register JUST to reply to this post.
Quote:
Originally posted by genehack
I am a professional photographer,photoshop is my daily bread,and one thing
is pretty shure:
those "leaked"iMac shots are not photoshopped.What we see here,even if it looks simple,would be pretty hard to fake.Every reflection from one material to the other-perspective,colorspace and even the dirt in the corners of the elevator are in the right colorspace- adds theoretically up to an ultracomplex workflow chainlock.
conclusion-if its a fake it is IN the content of the picture
(This is NOT a personal attack, it's just a general poke-o'-fun at everyone who is going on about Photoshopped vs. rendered fakes vs. aliens delivering Apple boxes to Paris....)
Kay, I hope this is a joke, right? You're kidding, right? Pretty hard to fake? I mean, you've got to be kidding. Well anyway, you're in luck! I can reveal here exclusively how it was probably done!. Huzzah!
First, you take a product that you would like to "be" the new iMac. Then you get an Apple box. Then you go into an elevator. You put the product into the box. Then you take a picture. (optional: Then you open the picture in Photoshop (which it most definitely was) and you edit some thingies to make it more convincing.)
Holy ***k*** *h**! I didn't need Maya or Cinema4D or need to render reflections or modify colorspace or perspective! I just put some crap in a box and took a picture.
What did you think genehack's conclusion "if its a fake it is IN the content of the picture" meant? Did you really have to register just to point the same thing again several pages later?
I slip into the tail-end of this forum just to respond to a tangential discussion that's been weaved in and out of the length of the threads.
Many have declared themselves betrayed by a new (hypothetical--or not) standard, industrial, PC design for the most recent of Apple's most eye-catching, ground-breaking products (the tangerine ibook was also picked up by coolhunters the world over). We Mac lovers identify ourselves with intangible characteristics of the company and its product line--the underdog/outsider role, the real-life ergonomics instead of corporate cookie-cutter, almost artsy creativity, etc. I'm sure that most of you could elaborate on this far better than I have.
The problem is this: the sunflower/titty design of the imac 2 showed up in more TV commercials and movies than it did households. Its groundbreaking design appealed to those who feel or wish to feel groundbreaking themselves. You look at the machine and say, jeez, that thing's gotta sell like hotcakes, and then scratch your head when it doesn't.
The majority of the masses, however, do not wish to stick out. The majority of the masses don't donate to the Republican party or demonstrate against Bush. The middle class, arguably the most powerful group of humans in history, is known most for its complacency.
The Macintosh was generated by its own utility (and by the Steves), a convenience that Middle Class disposable earnings couldn't resist. The same goes with the ipod. It's trendy and groundbreaking, yes, but in a downplayed, all-white way. The best thing about the screen isn't the full-color digital photos, but a logical, easy (for the lazy masses) B/W interface.
If we don't want the new design to be more middle-of-the-road, and perhaps therefore more successful, doesn't that make us fetishists of our own marginality? Should Apple, a public company, be more interested in being known for its unsuccessful ingenuity or for actually taking a bite out of someone's 95% market-share? Some would argue that to achieve the latter a bit of the former is necessary. Probably true. But Apple has, like its billions in cash, a whole lot of saved-up cachet.
The ipod appeals to the Mac geek as well as the limp bizkit fan. That's success. The post-Win Revolution Mac has traditionally appealed only to those who pay attention to the details, while MS has traditionally been for the sheep-minded masses. But what if Mac could "turn the corner" and appeal to both for once? I certainly wouldn't feel any poorer for it.
Comments
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
That's not what Xool meant. He was referring to the 17" ASD CRT (the one with the Mobius Strip stand). There never was a 17" version of the original blue Studio Display.
However, the 15" Blue Studio Display is what immediately came to my mind when seeing that box, but I agree it's way too big. Besides, what Expo vendor is going to keep a five year old box lying around for use at a major trade show?
It could be the new iMac G5 box, but if it is, let me be the first to say the design sucks. (Yes, based on that tiny grainy image.)
Take a look at this product photo of the old 15" flat panel. From the side, the display + base looks just like what's on that box.
Compare:
Display Info
Paris Photo
(Note: I'm linking to the G4 version, not the blue and white G3 version.)
Why an old display is at the show is a good question. But I'm pretty certain that box is not a new iMac.
Originally posted by brianbobcat
IT'S A COMPUTER NOT A DISPLAY, I HAVE PROOF! there's an apple logo on the side of the box. the side of the box for the displays don't have an apple logo, they have a portrait view of the display, on both sides. my brother's PB box had an apple logo on both sides. SO, the displays don't have apple logos, but their computers do, and this does, so this is a computer. IT'S REAL!!! i'm sorry, but this is real!
-Brian
Brian, Brian, Brian... God help you son. All of us here know that you need as much as you can get.
I think everyone here agrees that this is not an Apple display. Can I get an Amen?!?
It's "something" inside of a Powerbook box. AFAIC, I hope that it isn't the new iMac. I would hope that Apple would have higher standards than that, but of course I would support their decision either way.
Four days and counting...
MM
Originally posted by Xool
Take a look at this product photo of the old 15" flat panel. From the side, the display + base looks just like what's on that box.
Compare:
Display Info
Paris Photo
(Note: I'm linking to the G4 version, not the blue and white G3 version.)
Why an old display is at the show is a good question. But I'm pretty certain that box is not a new iMac.
Yeah you're right. The Paris photo is just an old 15" Studio Display box. Oh well.
I know that if I got my hands on an unreleased Apple product, I would take my photos from the least descriptive angle possible to assure that no one can actually tell it apart from a typical LCD display
I wish I had a digital camera. I'd put my lava lamp in my Apple Cinema Display box - that'd really confuse all y'all
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Yeah you're right. The Paris photo is just an old 15" Studio Display box. Oh well.
It's truly remarkable how savvy some Mac users are.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Yeah you're right. The Paris photo is just an old 15" Studio Display box. Oh well.
A 1998/99 15" studio display box on the floor of Apple Expo 2004?
A 1998/99 15" studio display box thats takes up 1/2 of one side of a wooden pallet?
Okay if you buy it, I buy it... I'm not saying it's the G5 iMac but it being the box from 98/99? I dunno... just doesn't make sense.
Finally found a photo of the box... (early/initial version anyway)
http://homepage2.nifty.com/56thWAREH...N/MONITOR.html
Dave
Originally posted by DaveGee
Finally found a photo of the box... (early/initial version anyway)
http://homepage2.nifty.com/56thWAREH...N/MONITOR.html
Good find. Although what photo is on the box's flipside?
Meanwhile... those wooden crates with the big black Apple logos reminds me of Indiana Jones.
Originally posted by alexhb
Yeah! That does sound right! Duh! I still don't think there is and Apple logo on them at the stores, otherwise we would of seen 10,000 threads about the secret new Apple TV.
please,
Alex
Do you have to be a prick every time you post?
Am I the only one that finds the fact they have not been pulled to mark them as fake?
Anyway, I had to register JUST to reply to this post.
Originally posted by genehack
I am a professional photographer,photoshop is my daily bread,and one thing
is pretty shure:
those "leaked"iMac shots are not photoshopped.What we see here,even if it looks simple,would be pretty hard to fake.Every reflection from one material to the other-perspective,colorspace and even the dirt in the corners of the elevator are in the right colorspace- adds theoretically up to an ultracomplex workflow chainlock.
conclusion-if its a fake it is IN the content of the picture
(This is NOT a personal attack, it's just a general poke-o'-fun at everyone who is going on about Photoshopped vs. rendered fakes vs. aliens delivering Apple boxes to Paris....)
Kay, I hope this is a joke, right? You're kidding, right? Pretty hard to fake? I mean, you've got to be kidding. Well anyway, you're in luck! I can reveal here exclusively how it was probably done!. Huzzah!
First, you take a product that you would like to "be" the new iMac. Then you get an Apple box. Then you go into an elevator. You put the product into the box. Then you take a picture. (optional: Then you open the picture in Photoshop (which it most definitely was) and you edit some thingies to make it more convincing.)
Holy ***k*** *h**! I didn't need Maya or Cinema4D or need to render reflections or modify colorspace or perspective! I just put some crap in a box and took a picture.
It's a good thing you have meeeee around!
New iMac G5 "spy photos" surface; we're not buying it.
Originally posted by wilco
Do you have to be a prick every time you post?
Please, no personal attacks.
Thanks
This proves it is not real. Period.
Originally posted by JtheLemur
I just put some crap in a box and took a picture.
It's a good thing you have meeeee around!
What did you think genehack's conclusion "if its a fake it is IN the content of the picture" meant? Did you really have to register just to point the same thing again several pages later?
This was cute and interesting, oh, six or seven pages ago. Now it's just kinda weird.
The only thing that bothers me is the neck is at an angle on the expo photo.
Many have declared themselves betrayed by a new (hypothetical--or not) standard, industrial, PC design for the most recent of Apple's most eye-catching, ground-breaking products (the tangerine ibook was also picked up by coolhunters the world over). We Mac lovers identify ourselves with intangible characteristics of the company and its product line--the underdog/outsider role, the real-life ergonomics instead of corporate cookie-cutter, almost artsy creativity, etc. I'm sure that most of you could elaborate on this far better than I have.
The problem is this: the sunflower/titty design of the imac 2 showed up in more TV commercials and movies than it did households. Its groundbreaking design appealed to those who feel or wish to feel groundbreaking themselves. You look at the machine and say, jeez, that thing's gotta sell like hotcakes, and then scratch your head when it doesn't.
The majority of the masses, however, do not wish to stick out. The majority of the masses don't donate to the Republican party or demonstrate against Bush. The middle class, arguably the most powerful group of humans in history, is known most for its complacency.
The Macintosh was generated by its own utility (and by the Steves), a convenience that Middle Class disposable earnings couldn't resist. The same goes with the ipod. It's trendy and groundbreaking, yes, but in a downplayed, all-white way. The best thing about the screen isn't the full-color digital photos, but a logical, easy (for the lazy masses) B/W interface.
If we don't want the new design to be more middle-of-the-road, and perhaps therefore more successful, doesn't that make us fetishists of our own marginality? Should Apple, a public company, be more interested in being known for its unsuccessful ingenuity or for actually taking a bite out of someone's 95% market-share? Some would argue that to achieve the latter a bit of the former is necessary. Probably true. But Apple has, like its billions in cash, a whole lot of saved-up cachet.
The ipod appeals to the Mac geek as well as the limp bizkit fan. That's success. The post-Win Revolution Mac has traditionally appealed only to those who pay attention to the details, while MS has traditionally been for the sheep-minded masses. But what if Mac could "turn the corner" and appeal to both for once? I certainly wouldn't feel any poorer for it.
--J
Photo courtesy The Macobserver