The thin bezels around a notebook have to do with portability considerations, in the case of the Cinema displays, they have to do with the potential to use displays in dual configurations. Neither are serious considerations for the iMac, and neither have anything to do with creating easy viewing. In fact, a slightly thinker bezel grounds the display and visually seperates it from potentially cluttered work environments. Size, shape, proportion, and color matter far more than simple thinness. The 'chin' is exactly like a simple modern matte photographic presentation; the bottom centered logo just like a signature; the color is right for the job as well (a black or medium grey would also work.)
Or Maybe, just MAYBE, they didn't have enough space on the inside so they put in the chin.
Look at the G4 imac's screen. Pwnt.
And yes, there IS a reason to make the computer look like "just a screen". It's the same reason the G5 imac is a better design than the g4: more stuff, less space.
If you ask me, there's no point in having it only 2 inches thick.. what were you going to put behind your computer, anyway? especially with that big L shaped stand which gets in the way of everything.. maybe you'll mount it on your desk with one of those monitor arms (vesa compatible!).. even then you don't need that extra inch of depth, as it's just occupying about 150 cubic inches of space that's suspended over your desk and hidden behind your computer.. imagine taping an encyclopedia to the back of your imac.. who would care? who would notice?
anyways, back to the point: the design of the g5/intel imac is not impressive to me.. huge mobo behind a screen with a power supply.. woopidy do, I could do the same thing with some duct tape, a paper clip, some string cheese, and a can opener.
Right now it looks like a jerry-rigged computer with inexpensive parts in a big box. If they had all those new spiffy features in the box shown at the begining of this thread, THAT would impress me. I'd never buy it, but I'd be impressed.
The only thing impressive about it is that it's the first imac that isn't a total bitch and a half to take apart.. and by the way, that wasn't for YOUR benefit, that's to save on production costs.
Think about it: what is it that you're going to be upgrading, anyway? Regardless, kudos to Apple for doing a function over form on this one. Thin computer case with a screen on the side.. wowzer.
Matsu, your wonderful posts about frames and aspect ratios are some of the most beautiful examples of rationalization I've ever seen. Gotta hand it to you, champ.
The original iMac G5 needed the chin to hold its powersupply and speakers, and that was the result of the rather beautiful internal layout.
The 2nd gen screwed it all up to improve air flow.
The intel has plenty of room at the top of the case that is unused. The chin is really only there for the speakers. If Apple changed their speaker technology they could get rid of the chin quite easily. NEC have an application of the NXT flat panel speakers that use the LCD panel as the spearker surface ( it could be an awful product, but it would solve the speaker problem ).
And thats for the 17" models. I havent seen any 20" disections, but Im sure they are swimming in space.
My belief is that as part of the intel transition Apple intentionally kept the cosmetic changes to a minimum so that users would not really see a big change. I think it will be a year before we see any major form factor changes.
Apple isn't interested in a rotating display. That ship has docked, sailed, and sank. When we get into 20"+ screens, there's no longer a practical need to rotate screens 99.999% of the time. The whole point of that technology was to fit whole pages vertically on a limited screen size. When you can put up a double page spread on a 20", you won't rotate it, let alone 23"+. The engineering and technical costs associated also make it less practical for cost considerations.
Then explain why when Tiger was released those with compatible displays and graphics cards found a new screen rotation feature in the displays control panel? Taking monitor rotation into consideration during the design process does not FORCE users to rotate their monitors, they don't even have to advertise the feature! Even if only one percent of users use it, that one percent will be very happy with it, so why not? I assume the only reason they did not was due to limitations of current technology, but in the future I'm sure we'll see an "all screen" iMac.
Quote:
There's nothing inherently sacrosanct about symmetry either.
I think the Greeks might have something to say about that Also, you keep using the example of a picture frame, and I don't think I've ever seen a geometrically asymmetrical picture frame in my life.
Quote:
But the current shape is quite ingenious, and has a character and utility all its own.
I agree with you, I love the current iMac design, I'm just having some fun speculating on how it could be made better
Matsu, your wonderful posts about frames and aspect ratios are some of the most beautiful examples of rationalization I've ever seen. Gotta hand it to you, champ.
Here here, he is fantastic at it, makes it a total blast to argue with him
For both my Photography and Ads and Design classes in high school, we had to mount our work on whiteboards to hang them up around the school.
We would lose points if we did not leave significantly more space on the bottom border than on the top or sides, which should themselves be equal to one another. Why?
Our teachers told us that it added psychological "weight" to what was being presented. It made the picture look unconsciously more stable and more important looking.
I agree the mock up is a better design. I agree Apple probably did not change the design to emphasize the iMac intel is not different from the iMac G5.
Hopefully at some point in the future Apple will offer a 24" iMac and the entire the iMac line will loose the chin and have a more uniform face.
Quote:
anyways, back to the point: the design of the g5/intel imac is not impressive to me.. huge mobo behind a screen with a power supply.. woopidy do, I could do the same thing with some duct tape, a paper clip, some string cheese, and a can opener.
You must have never seen the clunky alternative all-in-one computers. Sony nor Dell nor Gateway have been able to create an all-in-one as sleek as the iMac.
At the same time Apple needs to save some design improvments for the future. Improvements for the future to spur further sales of the iMac.
Huh?
Save technological improvements, yeah, I can understand, which may not be salable en masse yet.
I can't imagine a designer ever thinking about compromising present work for the future. The competition for design is just too fierce. That doesn't happen.
The interesting thing about Apple is that they've always been hailed for innovatons in computer design but now they seem to be moving towards getting rid of the cpmuter all together and just having the minimal essentials (which is basically what this design of the iMac would be).
I can't imagine a designer ever thinking about compromising present work for the future. The competition for design is just too fierce. That doesn't happen.
Yes, its called business. All companies not only Apple have to continue selling products and growing their markets.
You assume we see Apple's new designs soon after they have thought of them.
I seriously doubt it.
I wouldn't doubt Apple has created its designs years before they are released as an actual product.
The interesting thing about Apple is that they've always been hailed for innovatons in computer design but now they seem to be moving towards getting rid of the cpmuter all together and just having the minimal essentials (which is basically what this design of the iMac would be).
Well Steve Jobs has said Apple designs its computers and software for people who are busy living life and want to be productive without having to deal with their computer.
Yes, its called business. All companies not only Apple have to continue selling products and growing their markets.
You assume we see Apple's new designs soon after they have thought of them.
I seriously doubt it.
I wouldn't doubt Apple has created its designs years before they are released as an actual product.
Wow. I don't think I've ever read anything in this forum quite so ignorant. I suppose it's pretty obvious now that you're not a designer.
Not only did I assume nothing of the sort, I wouldn't doubt it if Apple had design ideas decades before they were actually released.
Except, less than the best design available is poor design. You see, it's called market competition. All companies, not only Apple, have to sell their current line of products at a profit so that they can grow.
You appear to be assuming that good design has a short life-span.
Wow. I don't think I've ever read anything in this forum quite so ignorant. I suppose it's pretty obvious now that you're not a designer.
This conversation has take a turn for the confusing. I guess you took my last post for being condescending but that was not my intent. Unfortunately words cannot always convey the same context as speaking directly to someone.
You said:
Quote:
I can't imagine a designer ever thinking about compromising present work for the future. The competition for design is just too fierce. That doesn't happen.
Which essentially my response is that when a designer comes up with a killer product it will be realeased as a product based on business and marketing needs.
A viable time for that product technology wise or marketing wise may not present itself for a couple of years.
Quote:
Not only did I assume nothing of the sort, I wouldn't doubt it if Apple had design ideas decades before they were actually released.
I don't believe they are that far ahead of the curve.
Quote:
Except, less than the best design available is poor design. You see, it's called market competition. All companies, not only Apple, have to sell their current line of products at a profit so that they can grow.
I'm not sure of your point here or how this disagrees with what I said.
Quote:
You appear to be assuming that good design has a short life-span.
I cannot see where I said anything like this.
My original point was that Apple has better designs that it will release as products in the future to fuel its growth.
If the "chin" is so important to the whole user experience, i wonder why the iMac G4, or any of the cinema displays dont have it.
Sure the 16X10 aspect ratio makes sence since our field of view is more akin to that rather than 4X3. But that doesnt mean they need to have a chin in place.
I dont have a problem with having a 1.5-2" bezel around the iMacs display (all around). but i do find a "chin" with no apparent reason for being there for the user, ugly......functionally and asthetically. it's out of proportions with the rest of the unit for no apparent reason.
If "housing" the power supply and speakers is your reason, i think it would be justified to make the iMac deeper, and present a more attractive face to users, with a uniform bezel around the display.
Too many wannabe designers here (me included). However, the difference between us is that you are trying to argue that the current design is somehow wrong or less good because of it's shape. I'm saying, instead, that there's plenty good inherent in the current shape. The proposed shapes can also be good, but they are not inherently better. Each has strengths.
If you want to ignore issues of balance, proportion, weight, and simply argue that less computer is better, OK fine, but you're not really trying to think of design at all.
Lots of displays have a thicker base. Lots don't. There are good and bad looking examples of each. Same with thick and thin bezels. Generally we see three kinds of proportion in framing displays.
Uniform -- like the current Cinema displays. This is largely a utilitarian look, and useful for multi screen set-ups.
Wide, where the side bezele are wider than the top or bottom. We see this on a number of widescreen TV products as a convenient way to house L/R speakers and accentuate width.
And finally, we see bottom weighted framing, also on a number of TV's and monitors. It helps lend weight. You'll notice that the better examples seem more polished, basically better presented, like the fine photography example quoted elsewhere in this thread. Samsung has some very handsome designs with these proportions.
To turn your eye away from the iMac's personality is a mistake. It has never been designed as a purely utilitarian object. Functional, yes, but great pains have been taken to make it personable. The first generation used color and compactness to create a sense of accessibility. To help move the machine from the cubicle to the kitchen. The second employed the notion of flexibility/freedom of movement.
This generation implies simplicity more strongly than the other two, but is designed spare, not sterile. Grounding it in a way puts it at home on the desktop, among other things -- it also makes a visual statement that this isn't a powermac. It's an easier, friendlier alternative, not purely utilitarian -- it looks more like an iPod, you can cosy up, you don't need to be a power user, you don't need to pretend to be... Don't overlook that most important consideration of the design. It is the one constant in three radically different iterations of the AIO concept.
I asked my girlie today if she'd like a 20 inch iMac, she said she'd rather have a 17 inch one because the 20 incher is too big, "ugly" she called it. I asked her if she'd consider the 20 inch iMac if it had the smaller border on the bottom and she said she would. Not exactly a non-biased study, but I really think the current size of the 20 inch iMac is a little intimidating to some users. For the record, my girl's current computer is a strawberry iMac right now
I own a 20" iMac G5 and there is nothing wrong with it's "chin" or whatever you're calling it.. I agree with the "chin is necessary thing" IT IS! There is a post that already explains why, quite good I might add & yes the iMac is the computer that it's not there, I forget about it and concentrate with whatever i want to do with it..
It's Flawless...
If they come out with a 23" version I would buy it with no hesitation (given that I have the money, of course)
What is the difference between the 20" cinema display and the 20" iMac? Beats me? What do people want anyways? If your not confortable with the current iMac go and buy an Acer Veriton or a Gateway Profile and post back here with your experience..
By the way I've seen and used the previous iMac G4 and personally I think that the current form factor is way way better, not that the G4 isn't beautifull, but I think they made it much simple and better with the G5..
Comments
Originally posted by Zenga
The curent imac is flawless and so will be the 23"
I bet you'd change your tone if Apple released a new iMac that looked just like his mockup
Originally posted by Matsu
The thin bezels around a notebook have to do with portability considerations, in the case of the Cinema displays, they have to do with the potential to use displays in dual configurations. Neither are serious considerations for the iMac, and neither have anything to do with creating easy viewing. In fact, a slightly thinker bezel grounds the display and visually seperates it from potentially cluttered work environments. Size, shape, proportion, and color matter far more than simple thinness. The 'chin' is exactly like a simple modern matte photographic presentation; the bottom centered logo just like a signature; the color is right for the job as well (a black or medium grey would also work.)
Or Maybe, just MAYBE, they didn't have enough space on the inside so they put in the chin.
Look at the G4 imac's screen. Pwnt.
And yes, there IS a reason to make the computer look like "just a screen". It's the same reason the G5 imac is a better design than the g4: more stuff, less space.
If you ask me, there's no point in having it only 2 inches thick.. what were you going to put behind your computer, anyway? especially with that big L shaped stand which gets in the way of everything.. maybe you'll mount it on your desk with one of those monitor arms (vesa compatible!).. even then you don't need that extra inch of depth, as it's just occupying about 150 cubic inches of space that's suspended over your desk and hidden behind your computer.. imagine taping an encyclopedia to the back of your imac.. who would care? who would notice?
anyways, back to the point: the design of the g5/intel imac is not impressive to me.. huge mobo behind a screen with a power supply.. woopidy do, I could do the same thing with some duct tape, a paper clip, some string cheese, and a can opener.
Right now it looks like a jerry-rigged computer with inexpensive parts in a big box. If they had all those new spiffy features in the box shown at the begining of this thread, THAT would impress me. I'd never buy it, but I'd be impressed.
The only thing impressive about it is that it's the first imac that isn't a total bitch and a half to take apart.. and by the way, that wasn't for YOUR benefit, that's to save on production costs.
Think about it: what is it that you're going to be upgrading, anyway? Regardless, kudos to Apple for doing a function over form on this one. Thin computer case with a screen on the side.. wowzer.
The 2nd gen screwed it all up to improve air flow.
The intel has plenty of room at the top of the case that is unused. The chin is really only there for the speakers. If Apple changed their speaker technology they could get rid of the chin quite easily. NEC have an application of the NXT flat panel speakers that use the LCD panel as the spearker surface ( it could be an awful product, but it would solve the speaker problem ).
And thats for the 17" models. I havent seen any 20" disections, but Im sure they are swimming in space.
My belief is that as part of the intel transition Apple intentionally kept the cosmetic changes to a minimum so that users would not really see a big change. I think it will be a year before we see any major form factor changes.
Originally posted by Matsu
Apple isn't interested in a rotating display. That ship has docked, sailed, and sank. When we get into 20"+ screens, there's no longer a practical need to rotate screens 99.999% of the time. The whole point of that technology was to fit whole pages vertically on a limited screen size. When you can put up a double page spread on a 20", you won't rotate it, let alone 23"+. The engineering and technical costs associated also make it less practical for cost considerations.
Then explain why when Tiger was released those with compatible displays and graphics cards found a new screen rotation feature in the displays control panel? Taking monitor rotation into consideration during the design process does not FORCE users to rotate their monitors, they don't even have to advertise the feature! Even if only one percent of users use it, that one percent will be very happy with it, so why not? I assume the only reason they did not was due to limitations of current technology, but in the future I'm sure we'll see an "all screen" iMac.
There's nothing inherently sacrosanct about symmetry either.
I think the Greeks might have something to say about that Also, you keep using the example of a picture frame, and I don't think I've ever seen a geometrically asymmetrical picture frame in my life.
But the current shape is quite ingenious, and has a character and utility all its own.
I agree with you, I love the current iMac design, I'm just having some fun speculating on how it could be made better
Originally posted by cubist
Matsu, your wonderful posts about frames and aspect ratios are some of the most beautiful examples of rationalization I've ever seen. Gotta hand it to you, champ.
Here here, he is fantastic at it, makes it a total blast to argue with him
We would lose points if we did not leave significantly more space on the bottom border than on the top or sides, which should themselves be equal to one another. Why?
Our teachers told us that it added psychological "weight" to what was being presented. It made the picture look unconsciously more stable and more important looking.
Key word their is "stable," for the Macintosh.
Hopefully at some point in the future Apple will offer a 24" iMac and the entire the iMac line will loose the chin and have a more uniform face.
anyways, back to the point: the design of the g5/intel imac is not impressive to me.. huge mobo behind a screen with a power supply.. woopidy do, I could do the same thing with some duct tape, a paper clip, some string cheese, and a can opener.
You must have never seen the clunky alternative all-in-one computers. Sony nor Dell nor Gateway have been able to create an all-in-one as sleek as the iMac.
Originally posted by TenoBell
At the same time Apple needs to save some design improvments for the future. Improvements for the future to spur further sales of the iMac.
Huh?
Save technological improvements, yeah, I can understand, which may not be salable en masse yet.
I can't imagine a designer ever thinking about compromising present work for the future. The competition for design is just too fierce. That doesn't happen.
I can't imagine a designer ever thinking about compromising present work for the future. The competition for design is just too fierce. That doesn't happen.
Yes, its called business. All companies not only Apple have to continue selling products and growing their markets.
You assume we see Apple's new designs soon after they have thought of them.
I seriously doubt it.
I wouldn't doubt Apple has created its designs years before they are released as an actual product.
The interesting thing about Apple is that they've always been hailed for innovatons in computer design but now they seem to be moving towards getting rid of the cpmuter all together and just having the minimal essentials (which is basically what this design of the iMac would be).
Well Steve Jobs has said Apple designs its computers and software for people who are busy living life and want to be productive without having to deal with their computer.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Yes, its called business. All companies not only Apple have to continue selling products and growing their markets.
You assume we see Apple's new designs soon after they have thought of them.
I seriously doubt it.
I wouldn't doubt Apple has created its designs years before they are released as an actual product.
Wow. I don't think I've ever read anything in this forum quite so ignorant. I suppose it's pretty obvious now that you're not a designer.
Not only did I assume nothing of the sort, I wouldn't doubt it if Apple had design ideas decades before they were actually released.
Except, less than the best design available is poor design. You see, it's called market competition. All companies, not only Apple, have to sell their current line of products at a profit so that they can grow.
You appear to be assuming that good design has a short life-span.
Wow. I don't think I've ever read anything in this forum quite so ignorant. I suppose it's pretty obvious now that you're not a designer.
This conversation has take a turn for the confusing. I guess you took my last post for being condescending but that was not my intent. Unfortunately words cannot always convey the same context as speaking directly to someone.
You said:
I can't imagine a designer ever thinking about compromising present work for the future. The competition for design is just too fierce. That doesn't happen.
Which essentially my response is that when a designer comes up with a killer product it will be realeased as a product based on business and marketing needs.
A viable time for that product technology wise or marketing wise may not present itself for a couple of years.
Not only did I assume nothing of the sort, I wouldn't doubt it if Apple had design ideas decades before they were actually released.
I don't believe they are that far ahead of the curve.
Except, less than the best design available is poor design. You see, it's called market competition. All companies, not only Apple, have to sell their current line of products at a profit so that they can grow.
I'm not sure of your point here or how this disagrees with what I said.
You appear to be assuming that good design has a short life-span.
I cannot see where I said anything like this.
My original point was that Apple has better designs that it will release as products in the future to fuel its growth.
Originally posted by ecking
Wow I've never seen that before that mactalic shit looks pretty nice!
It does. But they're sold out......
Sure the 16X10 aspect ratio makes sence since our field of view is more akin to that rather than 4X3. But that doesnt mean they need to have a chin in place.
I dont have a problem with having a 1.5-2" bezel around the iMacs display (all around). but i do find a "chin" with no apparent reason for being there for the user, ugly......functionally and asthetically. it's out of proportions with the rest of the unit for no apparent reason.
If "housing" the power supply and speakers is your reason, i think it would be justified to make the iMac deeper, and present a more attractive face to users, with a uniform bezel around the display.
Simple. symetrical. attractive. functional.
If you want to ignore issues of balance, proportion, weight, and simply argue that less computer is better, OK fine, but you're not really trying to think of design at all.
Lots of displays have a thicker base. Lots don't. There are good and bad looking examples of each. Same with thick and thin bezels. Generally we see three kinds of proportion in framing displays.
Uniform -- like the current Cinema displays. This is largely a utilitarian look, and useful for multi screen set-ups.
Wide, where the side bezele are wider than the top or bottom. We see this on a number of widescreen TV products as a convenient way to house L/R speakers and accentuate width.
And finally, we see bottom weighted framing, also on a number of TV's and monitors. It helps lend weight. You'll notice that the better examples seem more polished, basically better presented, like the fine photography example quoted elsewhere in this thread. Samsung has some very handsome designs with these proportions.
To turn your eye away from the iMac's personality is a mistake. It has never been designed as a purely utilitarian object. Functional, yes, but great pains have been taken to make it personable. The first generation used color and compactness to create a sense of accessibility. To help move the machine from the cubicle to the kitchen. The second employed the notion of flexibility/freedom of movement.
This generation implies simplicity more strongly than the other two, but is designed spare, not sterile. Grounding it in a way puts it at home on the desktop, among other things -- it also makes a visual statement that this isn't a powermac. It's an easier, friendlier alternative, not purely utilitarian -- it looks more like an iPod, you can cosy up, you don't need to be a power user, you don't need to pretend to be... Don't overlook that most important consideration of the design. It is the one constant in three radically different iterations of the AIO concept.
It's Flawless...
If they come out with a 23" version I would buy it with no hesitation (given that I have the money, of course)
What is the difference between the 20" cinema display and the 20" iMac? Beats me? What do people want anyways? If your not confortable with the current iMac go and buy an Acer Veriton or a Gateway Profile and post back here with your experience..
By the way I've seen and used the previous iMac G4 and personally I think that the current form factor is way way better, not that the G4 isn't beautifull, but I think they made it much simple and better with the G5..