[Mugge]

Maybe Apple will kill the Mini and scale the iMac down so that it can be a more thin and elegant machine. Then the Pro can stay on as the flexible high-end alternative. Crazy you say? Sure, but then Apple could upgrade the Apple TV to take over the Mini's media centric duties. Time Capsule / Airport Base could also take on a few more server features. With a little bit of magic iCloud dust it might just work.

[thegeriatric]

Originally Posted by Mugge Maybe Apple will kill the Mini

NOooooooooooooooooooo............................. ...............

[Satchmo]

I've never liked the black border around the iMac's frame. But I suppose it helped add a distinctive look as well as hide some of the edges of the LCD display.
Hopefully we'll go back to the old days of the white iMac's sans border, but clad in aluminum.

[PB PM]

The black is nice IMO. It helps your eyes stay focused on the screen.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by PB PM The black is nice IMO. It helps your eyes stay focused on the screen.

That's my opinion as well, though I might just be used to it. Other than my PB/MBP, I haven't had a non-black bezeled monitor since I think 2005.

[pscates2.0]

I don't really mind either way (I'll use whatever Apple goes with), but I do wonder if it makes the screen seem smaller and "squished in" somehow? Looking at my iMac right now, I just see that 1" "dead space" of black all around and, psychologically, it just seems like that part of the screen isn't working or turned on. The black is what I associate with a turned-off machine, so it's like part of my brain expects something to be there and it's not.

Just feels like there should be something there in that black, "empty" space.

I like how the silver bezel around the MacBook Air calls less attention to itself and doesn't seem to overpower or hug the display. And I think it does add to the perception of "lightness". I always thought so, from day one of the Air's release. And photos don't really do it justice, but every time I use one in a store the screen - even the 11" - just seems larger than it is somehow, not all surrounded by the black.

In my mockup at the bottom of the previous page, to me, the display just seems bigger or more prominent without the black framing. The silver aluminum recedes back and the screen just seems to be the most noticeable thing, with no banding or border around it.

There's probably nothing scientific about this, of course. It's just own to personal preference and what we're used to (although I'll have had this iMac for four years come September).

Maybe I'm just itching for a change

(in fact, I'm pretty much set on the white iPhone come this fall, just to break the routine...plus, I don't see many around here, and when I do it's never used by a guy). I think maybe I need to shake that up a little bit and show dudes it's okay to have the same phone as their girlfriend or mom. If those recent renderings/mockups are correct, that new black one is just a little too black (the metal banding and back plate seems to be a darkened metal instead of the expected aluminum/silver...just too much, too dark and monotoned, IMO).

[pscates2.0]

Hey, now this is interesting!

MacRumors.com: iMac update might be coming sooner rather than later.

Based on some leaked benchmarks whose numbers seemed to match Monday's MacBook Pro releases exactly, and so they're thinking the iMac references were legit as well.

With updated MacBook Pro models reaching the public, Primate Labs highlighted some of the benchmarks yesterday, and the details for the non-Retina 15-inch MacBook Pro match up nearly exactly with what appeared in the entry from last month, all but confirming that it was indeed a legitimate leak. Now with that information in hand, it pays to revisit the iMac benchmark that appeared around the same time, and while the two benchmarks aren't necessarily linked, it could generate hope that an updated iMac may still be right around the corner. The iMac benchmark referred to an "iMac13,2" model running a 3.4 GHz Core i7-3770 quad-core processor with 4 GB of 1600 MHz RAM, and while it is possible that the information could have been faked, Primate Labs previously reported that it believes the entry to be legitimate.

And then this little tidbit, relating to the word the other day about iMacs and Mac Pros coming "later next year". Seems it's the Mac Pro that was set for that timeframe, not the iMac too.

Further fueling speculation of a near-term iMac update is recent confusion in which it was initially reported that Apple representatives had told reporters that new iMac and Mac Pro models would likely be arriving in 2013. But following publication of those reports, Apple press relations staff specifically clarified those remarks to note that only the Mac Pro would be seeing the 2013 update. The assumption related to that clarification is of course that an iMac update is very likely to come sooner than the end of this year.

Then the final two paragraphs, which talk about the availability of the iMac-appropriate Ivy Bridge chips, and what a new iMac may be built around:

It has already been over 400 days since the iMac was last updated, and Ivy Bridge processors appropriate for the iMac have been available since late April. Consequently, it seems likely that the iMac will still be receiving an update in the relatively near future despite not making an appearance at this week's conference. As for what improvements the next-generation iMac will see beyond Ivy Bridge, at least one mainstream news report has claimed that Apple is working on Retina displays for the iMac, although we previously analyzed how daunting of a task it would be to support four times the number of pixels found on the current models, particularly on a 27-inch display. Other sources have claimed that Apple is working on anti-reflective glass for the iMac, rumors that may have gained some support with Apple having touted this week that the Retina MacBook Pro's display produces 75% less glare than non-Retina models.

I think they're assuming/expecting something that isn't going to happen on this next go-around.

My gut tells me, after seeing how the new MacBook Pro got priced with these "next-generation" features, that any updated iMac coming in 2012 (especially within the next month or so, will simply be an update to the existing line (no major design tweaking, no Retina display, no stock SSD, etc.). I think an upcoming iMac update will basically get what the regular 13" and 15" MacBook Pros got Monday...new processors and graphics, USB 3.0 and that's pretty much it.

Respectable, sure. But I don't think we'll see The Update we're waiting on until next year (for cost reasons).

[Matsu]

Bezel should be exactly 18% grey . Actually, black is really nice. I want to hear more about Apple's new low reflection gloss screen from the MBP-Retina. They claimed something like 70% less reflection and 30% better contrast than the traditional glossy screen. That might be a happy medium.

[Robo]

I could see the next iMac being about as thin as pscates' mockup, though I think they'd taper the edges to a point (like the iPad/iPod touch) and keep the glass on the front (though they'd extend it to cover the whole face of the product and offer a white glass option).

I don't think Apple would necessarily shy away from using "mobile" processors in the iMac. If you paid attention to the keynote, it's pretty clear that Apple no longer views CPU performance as the main bottleneck in their machines — I think they talked more about faster flash and faster RAM than they did the Ivy Bridge processors. And looking at Final Cut X running on the new MacBook Pro, it's seems like mobile processors are clearly "powerful enough," even for many professional users. (And professional users are and will likely continue to be a periphery demographic for the iMac, anyway.)

[pscates2.0]

I was thinking that as well. We're kinda reaching that point where this stuff is just Fast®, no matter what. And, yes...they didn't carry on about Intel's new processors as much as they did the faster RAM and SSDs they're using.

The proof of this is using these 1.6GHz MacBook Airs...they don't feel like using a 1.83GHz Mac mini from 4-5 years ago, that's for sure. Other things factor in to all this and you can't just look solely at numbers, speed and GHz.

It's Apple...if they could make some eye-popping, insanely sleek, slim "digital appliance as art" device in the form of a next-generation iMac, don't think for a second that they wouldn't. And if it meant using the same guts as those in this new, next-generation MacBook Air, something tells me a) they'd do it and b) we'd like it (once the geekier among us got over the shock and "insult", and bitched about it for a few days to get it off their chest).

After all, if this new MacBook Pro can run Aperture, Final Cut X, Photoshop and AutoCAD in the ways it was shown and talked about, how would that not work, or be good for, an iMac? Who says it has to come with bigger, hotter (and louder?) desktop-class components if the latest mobile stuff is so good?

It's something to think about. If history has shown us anything, it's that Apple is almost always going to choose "sleek and elegant" over sheer power/spec-whoreism/bragging rights. How many times over the years have they gone with "small and cute" over "no-compromise performance even if it's in a slightly larger, bulkier case"?

Exactly.

Outside of a small sliver of people who obsess on stuff like numbers and benchmarks, I'm guessing 95% of the world wouldn't give a flaming rat's ass what Apple packed in an iMac as long as it did everything the customer expects and wants.

And if you listen to Cook's comment about the Mac Pro, maybe it'll be the thing getting a true, ground-up makeover for 2013 with balls-out, no compromise performance for those truly needing it...which would kinda leave the iMac in a position to be "fast and powerful, but not demonically so".



If there were new pro-level towers next year with the latest and greatest, the iMac may not have to be in a position to be a pro's alternate or "plan B" machine and Apple could do some things like going with mobile-oriented components which the average user is never going to know or care about in a thousand years.

[Matsu]

I only care that it's fast and reliable and that I can add more cheap RAM and a bigger internal HDD/SSD, when the time is right, that the screen is improved, and the specs are top of class, because I don't want to be cursing at the thing in 4 years time when the latest PS8 effects are chocking the 80MP RAW files I'll be feeding it. * I don't care how they get there, as long as it's "that good"

* This only sounds ridiculous now. Four years ago you needed $8,000 for a 24MP camera. Today you can get a pretty respectable one for $800, and we have 36MP full frame cameras, hell someone has a 40+MP phone! To say nothing of all the people asking for fusion, 1080P24 and all the stuff that's nearly bog standard now that was elite level specification just a few years ago.

[Bonn89]

Personally, I feel like "next-generation" Macs (All flash, no optical, Retina display) will be introduced similar to how Intel Macs where introduced.

The first Intel Macs made available where Intel PowerBooks (the MacBook Pro) and Intel iMacs. They where sold alongside "classic" (G4/G5) Macs until the whole line was Intel-based.

I think the transition to flash-only, Retina display Macs will work in a similar way. With the next iMac refresh, I think we will see an update to the current 21.5" and 27" iMacs, along with the "next-generation iMac":

* Redesigned enclosure
* 21.5", 3840x2160 display, at ~205 PPI
* Similar internals and ports as the next-gen MacBook Pro: Ivy Bridge processors, soldered-on RAM, no optical drive, flash storage ranging from 256GB to 768GB, dual Thunderbolt and USB3 ports.
* Possibly retaining Ethernet and FW800, as space isn't an issue, but it's possible Apple considers them "legacy" ports.

I'm 99% certain this is how the transition to the next-gen iMacs is going to work. Sell the first-draft of their next-gen iMacs at a premium (because, let's face it, Retina displays and SSDs *do* come at a premium), alongside "more than good enough" iMacs based off technology Apple knows is on it's way out, but is still financially feasible.

The Mac mini is already optical-free, so all Apple needs to do is introduce a flash-storage-only option and kill the HDD options once flash prices come down. The Mac Pro, should it survive until next year, will continue to be a Mac Pro - optical drives and big HDDs for those who want/need them.

That only leaves the MacBook Air. Once Apple can produce an 11.6" 2672x1536 display (that's *iPad 3* levels of PPI!), and can compress that new 2880x1800 screen down to 13.3", we'll see Retina MacBook Airs - but these, too, will initially be sold at a premium.

[pscates2.0]

Good post, makes some sense. I suppose Apple could give their flagship desktop the "next-generation" treatment and sell it alongside the upgraded, current-design models. They certainly know they have a loyal (fanatical) following, many with deep pockets and "gotta have the cool new thing NOW!!" tendencies, so...

Hmmm.

You think they'd choose the 21.5" model (or whatever the new smaller one will be) to showcase as their next-gen model? Just to keep the price down a bit, vs. the 27"?

[Robo]

I just hope Apple gets the retina display down to cheaper Macs pretty quickly.

Right now, buying a non-retina Mac feels a little like buying a PowerPC-based Mac in late 2005 or early 2006, an experience I'm not eager to repeat. MG Seigler is exactly right, it's like the rest of Mac line is in "this awkward in-between stage." I want a retina display, I mean what if I want to make apps or sites for retina Macs? How would you make retina apps on a MacBook Air? But at the same time, the MacBook with the retina display is pretty fucking expensive. It's the high-end of the high-end. That's understandable, because the retina screen is undoubtedly a pricey part. But it still makes everything else feels prematurely outdated for not having one — and not outdated in a minor, bought-before-a-speed-bump way, but in a big, buying-an-iMac-G5-in-November-2005 sort of way.

I'd love it if the retina iMacs could have less of a price premium than the retina MacBook Pro. But a retina 27" would have about fifteen million pixels — that's not going to be a cheap part. It's almost like the switch from CRTs to LCDs all over again.

I think we'll see new iMacs (and Mac minis) soon — probably in the back half of July, alongside Mountain Lion. I'm not sure if we'll see the new design then, or at a later date, when SSDs and retina screens are cheaper. But I kind of hope we see the new design sooner, even if it means the iMac gets a price bump. Buying not-retina Macs right now just feels kind of weird.

[pscates2.0]

I'm on the fence on it all, as I'd love to see a redesigned iMac with all the forward-looking, legacy-jettisoning aspects of the new MacBook Pro, but I sure hate to think that something that's been $1,199 for years and years suddenly jumps up to $1,499 or more (and probably much more, once you start to think about those panels and resolutions). Apple's just now getting past that whole "they're so expensive!" thing...I'd hate for them to start putting their popular, consumer-perfect machines up to the mid/upper-$1,000's.

And I'm unsure of how to figure it all out.

The MacBook Pro's cheapest model has always been $500 or so more than the cheapest iMac. You figure part of that is paying for portability, the smaller, more delicate engineering(?), battery, etc.

So this new MacBook Pro jumps up about $400 in price, but it's hard to pin it all down. I'm getting that $400 figure because the entry-level 15" MacBook Pro is $1,799 and it shares the same processor with the $2,199 Retina model. The differences, of course, are 750GB HDD vs. 256GB SSD and the Retina Display. But then you have the other stuff (both use the same graphics card, but the old-school model has 512MB and the new Retina has 1GB. Yet, the Retina doesn't have onboard FireWire, Ethernet or SuperDrive.

It's a mess.



It's hard to map it all out to try and get an idea how a similar situation would apply to the iMac...mainly because we're talking about a 21.5" or 27" Retina display vs. the 15". So even those the entry-level MacBook Pro always sits above the entry-level iMac by $500-600, would a Retina-equipped iMac (especially a 27" model) blow past the $2,199 price of the MacBook Pro? It would have to, wouldn't it?

I think people are more okay with paying $2,000+ for such a sleek, stylish and cutting-edge notebook (for the portability, design, performance-in-a-small-package, etc. aspects). But it's tough to imagine folks spending $2,200 (or more) for an iMac (and I assume a 27" Retina panel would easily put it into that sort of range, right? The current 27" iMacs are priced at $1,699 and $1,999 with regular hard drives and displays, so if you apply that $400 jump, you're looking at about a $2,399 iMac...but that's not even factoring in the difference between the 15" Retina panel and what a 27" version would be. A 27" Retina iMac could be something like $2,599, couldn't it?

Would enough people pay that for an AIO, non-portable computer (that they can't even pull out at the coffee shop to impress others they way they can with a notebook).



I don't see how Apple can do it, and count on strong, solid sales. There was already a 15" MacBook Pro going for $2,199 before Monday, so it's not completely unheard-of, or that big of a shock to someone already accustomed to buying in that price range.

But you have to do some serious BTO'ing to the $1,999 27" iMac to get it into the mid/upper $2,000's. But, stock, that's just not a price range the iMac has ever existed in. I don't know if people would accept it in large enough numbers (you're always going to have those with money to burn (but, like those who insist on constantly getting into the weeds on specs and numbers, these people are a minority and a small sliver of the overall base).

I don't know.

That's the only way, I believe, Apple could put out a next-generation iMac that is patterned after this new MacBook Pro...they'd have to introduce it as a new, separate thing, priced at a premium, and sold alongside the existing line.

I guess they could. It just bums me a little that I won't get to be in on that because there's no way I could afford whatever such an iMac is going to go for, out of the gate. It'll be well beyond my $1,500 "comfort zone".

So I'm looking at 2013 (or beyond), whether I like it or not. Until a next-generation iMac, similar to Monday's new MacBook, goes for $1,199 again. Guess I better pull up a chair, grab a beverage and make myself comfortable. Thank goodness my current iMac is still knocking it out and doing its job. That certainly helps, and it could be worse I realize...

[Satchmo]

Originally Posted by Robo I just hope Apple gets the retina display down to cheaper Macs pretty quickly.

Indeed. It would certainly be a point of differentiation if Apple's entire line was Retina Display. Lowering the cost would blow everyone else out of the water.
Frankly, it's brilliant of Apple to come up with the term Retina Display. It's now less about a number, but a term that the public have come to know as excellence in screen display. And it's equated with Apple and no one else. Other manufacturers have similar resolutions, but Retina Display has become the benchmark by which others are measured against.

[pscates2.0]

The one real wild card/unknown here (which may work to our favor, whether we realize it or not just yet) is Apple themselves, and the position, large due to Tim Cook from all I've read, that they're in to corner the market on certain components, and/or negotiate good deals/supply by buying a crap-ton of things upfront from suppliers and making these large, front-end purchases (or promises).

So the optimist in me hopes they've worked (or are in the middle of doing so) some of the magic with these panel and SSD outfits and that maybe - maybe - these things will be able to both come down in price quicker than we're thinking, and to spread to the rest of the lineup sooner than we imagine.

I know it's not the same thing, but Apple did come in well under their original stated Intel transition timeline. When motivated or working on the "next big thing", they've got the ability to move things along quicker than we're sometimes led to believe. Maybe by this winter or next spring, we'll see some of those things fall into place, with the rest of the Macs transitioning over to SSDs and Retina Displays (somewhere in all this, the Cinema Display has to be addressed). Surely they'll want to have it waving the "Retina" flag too, ASAP.

Always a transition, isn't there? OS 9 to OS X, PPC to Intel, traditional HDD to SSD, standard displays to Retina, etc. Seems like things are constantly moving changing and you have to be smart and careful about your purchase plans so you're getting the best bang for your buck. A lot of "hurry up and wait" in several cases over the past 10 years.

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 I'm on the fence on it all, as I'd love to see a redesigned iMac with all the forward-looking, legacy-jettisoning aspects of the new MacBook Pro, but I sure hate to think that something that's been $1,199 for years and years suddenly jumps up to $1,499 or more (and probably much more, once you start to think about those panels and resolutions). Apple's just now getting past that whole "they're so expensive!" thing...I'd hate for them to start putting their popular, consumer-perfect machines up to the mid/upper-$1,000's. And I'm unsure of how to figure it all out. [*snip* of relevant text, but I won't reproduce it all - see 'Scates original post above]

What makes it even more complicated for Apple - and as we have discussed before - is that for many people, even the current, base iMac is more computer than they need or actively will ever use. I really like our new iMac, bought last fall, but although it was the base model and I do have at least some medium-intensity uses for it (i.e., Aperture), it is probably more than we really need. For many people, computing power across the board has started to outstrip their needs. Indeed, for basic e-mail, basic browsing, chat, Skype, watching the odd video, and light text composition, an iPad can probabably do do the trick for some people. I know that does not apply to everyone, but I think that you would be surprised how many people don't use their computer for more than that. How would an ultra new iMac position itself in that market reality?

[pscates2.0]

I fully agree.

[Bonn89]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 You think they'd choose the 21.5" model (or whatever the new smaller one will be) to showcase as their next-gen model? Just to keep the price down a bit, vs. the 27"?

Exactly what I was thinking. I imagine it would be a lot less expensive to make a Retina-level 21.5" panel than a Retina-level 27" panel (although the 27-incher is already damn close to "Retina" quality as it is.. so it's not like you'd have to pixel-double it).

Actually, looking around, it appears Panasonic already produces a 3840x2160 20-inch IPS panel! Great viewing angles, energy efficiency, thin dimensions... Very interesting!

Another thought that I had was that the next-gen iMac might come in only one "in between" size. A 24-inch, 3840x2160 (so pixel-doubled 1080p) display would still look fantastic, and, like the Next-Generation MacBook Pro, there would be the option to scale the display resolution upwards to the current 27-inch model's resolution, at the sacrifice of "Retina" quality.

[pscates2.0]

It's funny you said that because I almost wrote that yesterday...would Apple, instead of trying to span two sizes pretty far apart (21.5 and 27") simply go with a middle-ground size (24"-ish) and give it the appropriate resolution, knowing that people could tweak it to their liking (more pixels or more space).

Maybe that's something they've got in store? A single size iMac, but with a bit of built-in flexibility for the user to set?

I wouldn't mind that...24" at 16:9 would look nice (and do double-duty as a TV or movie machine in a small setting.

I know Apple wouldn't kill the 27" just to have a smaller size, but they might kill both and choose something in the middle and throw all their attention, design and resources into it? Would certainly streamline and simplify the manufacturing, shipping and storing of it all. There is precedent...for about four years, the iMac came in one size only. I know that hasn't been the case for many years, but would people really care? I think they'd just appreciate a gorgeous display with those qualities and resolution.

[Matsu]

I think that if they can hit 4K levels of resolution then that is enough to declare a "Retina" branding, perhaps even less given the viewing distance.

The Panasonic model in the link is 20", and actually I think that's a little small for a desktop in 2012. Just observing usage patterns, however, it looks like somewhere between 20-27 marks the sweet spot for 16:10 and 16:9 displays. Any more and you're re-configuring desk space and furniture and viewing distances. So maybe 24" is a perfect sweet-spot, but no such "Retina" panel exists yet

Having two sizes gives them a step up model, unless they want to replace that with an attractively priced, powerful, headless machine.

[pscates2.0]

Something thinks next iMac update won't include Retina displays.

No shit.



I'd be shocked because they'd have to do one of two things to do so right now:

- The entire line moves up about $13,000 in price
- Or they release a king daddy whammer-jammer model sitting at around $2,600 that no typical iMac user/fan is going to buy

As the article says, there's no reason - once you take Retina Displays off the table - the iMacs can't be updated at any time...Ivy Bridge, new graphics, USB 3.0, etc. all exist, and are already on Apple gear as of last week.

I like what the article says about possible iMac and Mac mini updates coinciding with the Mountain Lion release in mid-late July. Especially if the updated iMac isn't going to consist of a major redesign and Retina Display addition (it could be like the 13" and 15" MacBook Pro updates last week...same bodies/design, just improved guts). So it wouldn't "overpower" any Mountain Lion release shindig or hype. Or, at the very least, release them a few days before, or after, Mountain Lion?

Anyway...I just don't think we're going to see a true "next-generation" iMac (Retina display, no optical drive, SSD standard, etc.) for some time (probably well into 2013).

[Brave Ulysses]

I don't know... it's not like the screens for the iPad 3 and MacBook Pro retina aren't expensive.

Of course a retina 27" screen sounds ridiculously expensive but so did retina displays for the iPhone, iPad, and MacBook Pro retina prior to releases and I believe the retina iMac display would still be less density than the iPhone and iPad screens.


the iMac has seen a lot of sales growth in the past 2 years. It's hard for me to believe that Apple would allow it to sit idle for so long when its so hot. MacBook Pro and iMac development have gone hand in hand all the way back to the PowerBook, jelly bean iMac days, so I fully expect to see an iMac update sooner than later, and it would not surprise me in the least to see a new high end "next generation" iMac. I'm less intrigued by the possibility of a retina display and solid state storage on that update than I am with what possible input changes Apple may have up its sleeve as they move to be more and more dependent on multi-touch gestures on computers.

[pscates2.0]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. If Apple does a "next-generation" iMac soon (this summer, or even early fall) I don't think they can do all those things (SSD, Retina, etc.) at the same prices ($1,199, etc.) they are now. So they'll probably do what they did with the new MacBook Pro and offer a "Cadillac" option for those who want to go all out.

And if they didn't do that, giving it these latest processors and graphics, USB 3.0, perhaps HDMI(?) and hard drive/RAM bumps would certainly keep it from sitting idle (those are decent, respectable upgrades by any mark, IMO).

Putting Retina Displays on the iOS devices didn't change their prices, but it did for the MacBook Pro (although you gotta figure a big part of that could be the stock SSD storage, extra RAM, etc.).

I wasn't aware that the iMac has seen increasing sales an popularity. I've just assumed it's been all iOS stuff and the notebooks in recent years. Sometimes it feels like I'm the only person who still loves the iMac.

When you talk about the Multi-Touch stuff on computers, you're not saying that there will be some sort of a touch-screen iMac, are you? I don't think that will fly (the exhaustion factor alone would kill it for most, after a couple of days of novelty and "oh, cool!"

I figure any Multi-Touch stuff on the Mac is going to continue coming in the form it has so far...via mouse and trackpad enhancements.

Why would such a thing (input changes) be tied to a particular computer when it would (should) be spread across the line (and the best way to do that is with the trackpads or mice they already sell, and that most of the systems already come with).

I'd be happy if they put out a software/firmware update to give this silly mouse a bit more Multi-Touch goodness and functionality (I don't want to be one of those goobers with a keyboard, mouse and a trackpad).

Although I have to admit that I do get spoiled after I spend some time on a modern Apple notebook running Lion. Once you get those gestures and finger movements down, it really opens up a whole new, cool way to use the thing. I thought this mouse, being a "blank slate" (and, I assume, able to be enhanced/improved by software updates) would, by now, be more than it is. Pinch-to-zoom and additional swipes/movements would be nice.

I know there are some third-party apps and utilities that do this, but I prefer a home-grown approach when it comes to this stuff, and at this intimate level.

[wtd]

A few factors:

• In terms of the "average user" the current iMacs are overkill. Especially when the average user is primarily consuming content rather than creating it.
• The iPad has shown us (or at least me) that there is a limit to how much screen real estate can actually be useful at once when consuming content. The eye simply cannot take in all of even a 21.5" screen at once at typical viewing distances.
• It's increasingly less onerous to deal with application switching on smaller screens in OS X.
• Retina will be difficult/expensive to implement at current iMac screen sizes.

These leave me wondering: is there a market for a smaller, thinner, less powerful, less expensive iMac?

[PB PM]

I believe the device you are describing is... Wait for it, the iPad.

A low cost iMac isn't needed by low end (average) users, the iPad already does that, seriously.

[Eugene]

* My observation is casual users will use as much screen as you give them (within reason.) 21.5" is well within the upper bound.

* If you can't see an entire 21.5" screen all at once, then you are not at a typical viewing distance... I mean, sheesh, a single human eye has a FoV of ~160 degrees horizontally. Binocular vision expands that to almost 180 degrees horizontally.

[pscates2.0]

I wish there was more talk and news on the iMac front these days. May 2011 was the last time they were updated. For something that was once as recognizable symbol of the company as the iPhone and iPad are today, that's a bummer.

I wonder what's brewing?

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 I wish there was more talk and news on the iMac front these days. May 2011 was the last time they were updated. For something that was once as recognizable symbol of the company as the iPhone and iPad are today, that's a bummer. I wonder what's brewing?

I still remain hopeful that Apple will usher in another revolution in desktop computing via the iMac. It may not be with this next update, but I do believe they are working toward a new goal, and have been putting the pieces in place.

I'd also like to see Apple focus on reducing the cost of the iMac and expanding screen size options, and since Apple is ignoring the Mac Pro, I'd love to see Apple maybe split the iMac line, and make a much more pro emphasized model, which I suspect could end up being an iMac retina display.