[Dorian Gray]

Hello all,

I have a funny feeling — a very funny feeling — that we'll see a new iMac on Tuesday. What can we expect?

Do you think Apple will go for the Intel Z68 Express chipset and an SSD cache? Screen size? Not much chance of a price drop, I suppose?

A friend is interested in getting one of these so I've been paying more attention to the iMac than usual. Nice computer even as it stands today!

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Hello all, I have a funny feeling — a very funny feeling — that we'll see a new iMac on Tuesday. What can we expect? Do you think Apple will go for the Intel Z68 Express chipset and an SSD cache? Screen size? Not much chance of a price drop, I suppose? A friend is interested in getting one of these so I've been paying more attention to the iMac than usual. Nice computer even as it stands today!

All I want is the return of a 24" model.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses All I want is the return of a 24" model.

Think we're more likely to see the 21.5-inch model axed.

Seriously, it wouldn't surprise me if they herd more customers into the 27-inch model, perhaps by cutting back the number of 21.5-inch models and lowering the price of the cheapest 27-incher.

[psmith2.0]

I don't agree with any of you crazy so-and-so's.

The 21.5" is perfect, the 27" is borderline Too Damn Much.

I do think we're going to see an iMac update in May, sure enough. And sooner rather than later.

[Robo]

I love the 27", but the 21.5" is the *perfect* size for most people. I think they should keep both, and drop prices $200 across the board.

I think we'll either see a spec bump in May or a new design at WWDC in June.

[Matsu]

Needs to have:
thunderbolt, USB3

Want to have:
matte screen option, wide gamut display, 10 bit precision.

Just because:
Bluray.

I'm keeping an eye out for this. Our program has a couple of labs decked out with current 27" iMacs and Adobe CS5. These seem to run on par with slightly older Mac Pro labs (not sure what vintage). I look forward to a system with SSD caching...

I'm going to need a machine that will deal with 8GB+ cards full of (likely) 20MP plus RAW files - import, actions, batch process, edit, etc... Thunderbolt is the absolute minimum requirement here... I have a strong feeling that USB3 will turn out to be the more convenient option, and since it's going primarily (almost exclusively) to photo work, the best possible screen will be very well received.

Bluray is awesome, it should be there. In shunning it, Apple is keeping company with the likes of Bose...

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Matsu Just because: Bluray. [...] Bluray is awesome, it should be there. In shunning it, Apple is keeping company with the likes of Bose...

Stop bringing it up! It's like an open wound. It needs time to heal.

I've resigned myself to the fact that any $1,699 prosumer Apple desktop I someday buy won't support Blu-ray. Which is ridiculous. But, stage five: acceptance

At least the 27" iMac supports video-in, so you could use it as a PS3 screen, and get Blu-ray that way? Maybe?

If you were, you know, able and willing to use PlayStation Network products right now.

[Eugene]

Matsu, we won't be seeing USB 3.0 on Intel's PCH until Ivy Bridge toward the end of the year. There's always the faint possibility that Apple includes USB 3.0 via Renesas chips, but don't hold your breath.

ThunderBolt, yes.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Robo Stop bringing it up! It's like an open wound. It needs time to heal. I've resigned myself to the fact that any $1,699 prosumer Apple desktop I someday buy won't support Blu-ray. Which is ridiculous. But, stage five: acceptance

On the one hand, Blu-Ray isn't exactly taking off (the way VHS and DVD did, anyway). On the other, neither is buying or renting movies and TV shows from iTunes. Pricing is still terrible.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by chucker On the one hand, Blu-Ray isn't exactly taking off (the way VHS and DVD did, anyway).

That's debatable — it beat DVD to many key sales milestones; maybe today people are just less interested in buying tons of films on any format due to the recession, Netflix, and increased availability of broadband for piracy? — but this isn't the thread for that. What I will say is that Blu-ray is a much more established format now than DVD-Video was when Apple added it to the iMac DV in 1999.

It's pretty clear Apple just doesn't want to support it due to, well, iTunes.

Originally Posted by chucker On the other, neither is buying or renting movies and TV shows from iTunes. Pricing is still terrible.

Agreed. If iOS games have shown us anything, people expect digital-only products to be cheaper — much cheaper. I shouldn't ever be able to buy a physical Blu-ray and have it shipped to my door for less than the price of the iTunes download, but that's not uncommon — even though the Blu-ray has more features, better picture and sound, and quite often comes with an iPod-ready "digital copy" anyway. I'll wait two days for that, especially when I save money (and space on my tiny hard drive ) by doing so.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Robo That's debatable — it beat DVD to many major sales milestones; maybe today people are just less interested in buying films on any format due to the recession, Netflix, and increased availability of broadband for piracy?

The way to compete with piracy is to offer a better product; cf. iTunes Music Store. It didn't kill music piracy (far from it), but it offered quite a viable alternative.

They haven't done this for video. DRM, ridiculous prices, no ability to rip and burn.

Originally Posted by Robo Agreed. If iOS games have shown us anything, people expect digital-only products to be cheaper — much cheaper.

Yes, because people perceive the price to come mostly from packaging, shipping, and so forth, even though that hasn't been true for decades (i.e., in the case of software, it pretty much never has been true at all). It's not fair to software developers like some of us, but what can you do.

[Eugene]

I don't own Blu-ray devices because prices stayed too high, too long.

I don't buy movies off iTunes because the cost/quality ratio is worse than Blu-ray. If they are going to charge as much as a Blu-ray title, it had better be at least very high bitrate, very low-loss in perceptible quality.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by chucker The way to compete with piracy is to offer a better product; cf. iTunes Music Store. It didn't kill music piracy (far from it), but it offered quite a viable alternative. They haven't done this for video. DRM, ridiculous prices, no ability to rip and burn. All the members of the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem consortium (all the major studios save Disney, all the major electronics makers save Apple, cable and cellular companies, &c.) are banding together to make a "universal" buy once, watch anywhere digital video "format," UltraViolet (comes after Blu-ray, geddit?). Of course it'll still be DRMed to all hell, but at least they seem to officially be giving up the dream of trying to get people to buy a movie on Blu-ray and iTunes. "Buy once, watch anywhere, we won't ask you to buy it again for each new device" is actually quite an improvement for the studio luddites. That said, "Disney" and "Apple" would certainly be companies I'd want on board for launching any new format. We'll see if it actually works as advertised (I'm getting horrible flashbacks of PlaysForSure). Originally Posted by chucker Yes, because people perceive the price to come mostly from packaging, shipping, and so forth, even though that hasn't been true for decades (i.e., in the case of software, it pretty much never has been true at all). It's not fair to software developers like some of us, but what can you do. It blows my mind when a major game studio releases a "real," professional, handheld-quality game on the App Store and prices it at like $13 and articles from even the gaming press note its "high" price. I'm like, if this was on a DS it would be $40! But if I were to buy an HD movie from iTunes, I would expect some sort of discount, to "make up for" the lower quality picture and sound, the lack of pretty packaging, and the loss of some or all of the film's special features, even though the main cost of a movie is of course filming and marketing it, not pressing the shiny discs. As it is, it's like Apple looks at the list price of DVDs/Blu-rays and feels that iTunes pricing is attractive enough compared to that, ignoring the reality that nobody ever pays full retail for DVDs/Blu-rays (the list price of the upcoming The Incredibles reissue is technically forty six dollars).

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Robo All the members of the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem consortium (all the major studios save Disney, all the major electronics makers save Apple, cable and cellular companies, &c.) are banding together to make a "universal" buy once, watch anywhere digital video "format," UltraViolet (comes after Blu-ray, geddit?). Of course it'll still be DRMed to all hell, but at least they seem to officially be giving up the dream of trying to get people to buy a movie on Blu-ray and iTunes. It'll tank, and it won't even be funny, because everyone loses. Originally Posted by Robo That said, "Disney" and "Apple" would certainly be companies I'd want on board for launching any new format. Yep. To be fair, Apple doesn't tend to cooperate on such things. (Whether that's a bad thing is another matter. Imagine how wrecked the iTunes Store would have been if, say, Real had had any input.) Originally Posted by Robo It blows my mind when a major game studio releases a "real," professional, handheld-quality game on the App Store and prices it at like $13 and articles from even the gaming press note its "high" price. I'm like, if this was on a DS it would be $40! The iOS App Store is generally too cheap, IMHO. Maybe I'm biased because I'm from that industry, though. Originally Posted by Robo But if I were to buy an HD movie from iTunes, I would expect some sort of discount, to "make up for" the lower quality picture and sound, the lack of pretty packaging, and the loss of some or all of the film's special features, even though the main cost of a movie is of course filming and marketing it, not pressing the shiny discs. As it is, it's like Apple looks at the list price of DVDs/Blu-rays and feels that iTunes pricing is attractive enough compared to that, ignoring the reality that nobody ever pays full retail for DVDs/Blu-rays (the list price of the upcoming The Incredibles reissue is technically forty six dollars). A single episode of The Daily Show is $1.99. That's SD (not that HD would add much value to the show, but I'm just sayin'). You can get a 16-episode Multi-Pass for $9.99, so that's a somewhat better deal. Except not really, because you'd have to buy about 11 such "passes" for a single year. How's paying >$100 for a single year of The Daily Show sound? A season of The West Wing in HD is $49.99. There are 7 (I haven't checked all of them, but they appear to cost the same). $350 for a series — not even with any extras, from what I can tell. The list goes on. It's ridiculous.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by chucker It'll tank, and it won't even be funny, because everyone loses. As I edited into my post, I'm getting a horrible PlaysForSure-esque vibe about the whole thing. I want something like that to be good and succeed, but they always seem to fail on both accounts. Originally Posted by chucker The iOS App Store is generally too cheap, IMHO. Maybe I'm biased because I'm from that industry, though. It's definitely a world in which cheapness seems to rule the day, which might be why we're not be seeing many cross-platform DS/iOS releases. Originally Posted by chucker A single episode of The Daily Show is $1.99. That's SD (not that HD would add much value to the show, but I'm just sayin'). You can get a 16-episode Multi-Pass for $9.99, so that's a somewhat better deal. Except not really, because you'd have to buy about 11 such "passes" for a single year. How's paying >$100 for a single year of The Daily Show sound? A season of The West Wing in HD is $49.99. There are 7 (I haven't checked all of them, but they appear to cost the same). $350 for a series — not even with any extras, from what I can tell. The list goes on. It's ridiculous. Oh, TV shows have it even worse than movies. If you're just buying one missed episode, whatever, but it's basically not a viable way to get your TV (especially if you watch, well, daily shows). But the networks don't want it to be; they want you to tune in every night via cable or satellite and then pay an extra $2-3 for a copy of the episodes you really like, or something. With all the NBCUniversal networks now owned by a cable company, that's unlikely to change soon. TV episode rentals are ridiculous, especially since Amazon sells the episodes for the same price Apple rents them for. I've said this before, but I honestly don't understand why the networks don't just stream their shows online for free with ads. Everybody's used to watching TV with ads. USA does this for some of their shows, like the five most recent episodes of Psych or whatever, but not others (like Burn Notice). So you know what my sister (who likes her Burn Notice) does? She googles for an illegal streaming site and streams it from there. It takes two seconds. It's not like she's going to pay $2-3 an episode just because it's not on usanetwork.com. So instead of ad revenue and her attention, USA gets nothing. Nobody's gotten internet TV right yet. I hope Apple does, eventually, but people aren't used to paying per episode the same way they're used to paying per movie or per album or per game. They're used to ads or subscriptions (in most cases, ads and subscriptions). Right now, I think Netflix is closest to Getting It Right.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Robo I've said this before, but I honestly don't understand why the networks don't just stream their shows online for free with ads. Doesn't make as much money, I assume. The Daily Show can be streamed (in above-iTunes quality, no less, I think) on their site. Uses Flash, but otherwise, I can't complain. Originally Posted by Robo So you know what my sister (who likes her Burn Notice) does? She googles for an illegal streaming site and streams it from there. It takes two seconds. It's not like she's going to pay $2-3 an episode just because it's not on usanetwork.com. So instead of ad revenue and her attention, USA gets nothing. Excuse me while I call the BSA, RIAA and MPAA about your sister.

[kscherer]

This thread has more "off-topic" crap than "on-topic". Ha…larious!

Maybe it should be renamed "Why the New iMac Will Have No Bluray Discussion".

Originally Posted by Matsu Needs to have:…USB3…

Why?

_

What new iMacs will get:

1) updated i5/i7 processors so they will actually be faster than the new Macbook Pros, which they currently aren't; i3 will be dumped;
2) revised graphics cards (AMD, not Intel);
3) Thunderbolt;
4) Top-end 27" will gain some new SSD option (a 512GB); 2TB drive will be standard.

What new iMacs will not get:

1) USB 3 - just a 'tweener tech for PC users with no FW 800; especially as Thunderbolt catches on in the near future;
2) Bluray - iTunes does have something to do with it, as Apple sees downloads as the future, as do I; Bluray hurts Apple, does little for consumers;
3) New case design - no need, yet;
4) Price reductions - I am calling this based on the lack of reductions in the laptop line;

_

Just my opinional predictions.

Have a day.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Think we're more likely to see the 21.5-inch model axed. Seriously, it wouldn't surprise me if they herd more customers into the 27-inch model, perhaps by cutting back the number of 21.5-inch models and lowering the price of the cheapest 27-incher.

No way. You would be amazed at how many people consider the 27" simply too big.

It really is too large for the desks in most homes.

I don't agree with any of you crazy so-and-so's. The 21.5" is perfect, the 27" is borderline Too Damn Much.

24" was perfect! I've said that before and it still remains true.

24" with a higher resolution is a perfect balance and well proportioned.

[Matsu]

Why USB3? Convenience. USB will be on every computer for years, too many mice/keyboards/memory keys/printers/card readers/digital cameras, etc for it to ever go away now, and since the USB3 port is entirely backwards compatible, it will just be there, no extra cost. Because it's just there, manufacturers will use it, and it will thrive. This is in no way a knock against thunderbolt, it just means that USB2/3 will continue to be a very convenient plug for the sorts of uses, and it will be better to have it than miss it.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses No way. You would be amazed at how many people consider the 27" simply too big. It really is too large for the desks in most homes.

Yep. It's 100% true. Most of our customers love the 27" in the showroom, but their reality is not quite the same. The 21.5" is by far the better sell, simply because most folks haven't got the space, nor are they ready to replace their television with a computer.

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses 24" was perfect! I've said that before and it still remains true. 24" with a higher resolution is a perfect balance and well proportioned.

Yep, again. My 23" Cinema Display is just the right size for a desktop monitor.

However, the 27" is fantastic for photo/video editors, and we sell a bunch of them. But, like BU and others, I like the 23"/24" size better. The 27" requires an awful lot of mouse tracking.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by Matsu …and it will be better to have it than miss it.

It will certainly be good to have USB2, but I am inclined to believe that USB3 is totally unnecessary for anyone outside of the high-end videography/photography industry, and I think they will be won over by Thunderbolt, which will cater to the same.

Average humans rarely take advantage of USB2, let alone 3.

Believe it or not, the only high-speed devices most people ever plug in are flash drives and/or digital cameras.

[Frank777]

We're a year past the implementation of over-the-air HD in the U.S., and coming up on the Canadian launch in August.

Why doesn't the 27" come with an integrated TV tuner?

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Frank777 We're a year past the implementation of over-the-air HD in the U.S., and coming up on the Canadian launch in August. Why doesn't the 27" come with an integrated TV tuner?

You can add an external one for $99 from a third party which comes with outstanding software

Apple isn't really into things that don't work universally, aren't widely used, are prone to mixed results/quality, and that compete with services they offer.

Apple would much rather you rent TV shows on iTunes in HD than have you watch HD programming OTA. They also probably have no interest in dealing with people complaining about reception.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by Frank777 We're a year past the implementation of over-the-air HD in the U.S., and coming up on the Canadian launch in August. Why doesn't the 27" come with an integrated TV tuner?

As we have seen, Apple has no real interest in building televisions. It is a difficult market that leads to a lot of complaints. Having a TV tuner also means delivering software for said tuning, and that means complaints from users who think Apple should do it "their" way. It's just a bad idea. Apple will eventually enter this market, but not before they have the leverage to twist the networks into delivering a seamless, consistent model.

We might die before it happens.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by kscherer Why?

I haven't checked, but it'll probably get easier and cheaper to get a USB 3 external drive than one with FireWire 800, let alone Thunderbolt.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by chucker I haven't checked, but it'll probably get easier and cheaper to get a USB 3 external drive than one with FireWire 800, let alone Thunderbolt.

That certainly is a possibility. However, in my experience, price is not the only factor.

Keep in mind that USB3 is still going to present us with an awful lot of "dumb" technology. Thunderbolt will daisy chain (just like Firewire). Not that that makes a lot of difference to some folks. But it does to others.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by kscherer What new iMacs will get: 2) revised graphics cards (AMD, not Intel)

The iMacs don't use Intel's graphics. They currently use AMD (née ATI) graphics. Before that, they used Nvidia.

Originally Posted by kscherer What new iMacs will not get: 4) Price reductions - I am calling this based on the lack of reductions in the laptop line

Erm, MacBook Air says hi?

Originally Posted by kscherer The 21.5" is by far the better sell, simply because most folks haven't got the space

While it's true that some people don't, I'm guessing the 21.5" is the far better sell because it's $500 cheaper and is closer to what most people expect to pay for a computer.

Originally Posted by kscherer Average humans rarely take advantage of USB2, let alone 3. Believe it or not, the only high-speed devices most people ever plug in are flash drives and/or digital cameras.

iPods?

Originally Posted by Frank777 We're a year past the implementation of over-the-air HD in the U.S., and coming up on the Canadian launch in August.

Pet peeve: the US DTV transition in 2009 was not the implementation of over-the-air HD in the US. It was also not the implementation of digital TV broadcasting. Both of those had existed for years at that point. It was the cessation of high-power analog TV broadcasting.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Robo iPods?

Even iPod classics are fairly slow, but flash-based iPods are way below USB 2's typical speeds. So, hardly relevant for USB 3.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by chucker Even iPod classics are fairly slow, but flash-based iPods are way below USB 2's typical speeds. So, hardly relevant for USB 3.

I'm not saying they'd get USB 3. I'm just saying they do use USB 2. They're "High Speed USB" devices that hundreds of millions of people use that aren't flash drives and/or digital cameras. That's all I was saying.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by Robo The iMacs don't use Intel's graphics. They currently use AMD (née ATI) graphics. Before that, they used Nvidia.

Not now, but they did use integrated Nvidia chips in the past. However, I should have been more clear and said "no integrated video chips", as exist in the 13" MB Pros.

Originally Posted by Robo Erm, MacBook Air says hi?

Again, I should have been more clear. I was referring to the last MacBook Pro update, which saw only two price changes, one of which was not a change, but an elimination—the mid-range 15" MacBook Pro—and the other was a price increase—the 17" MacBook Pro went up $200.

Originally Posted by Robo While it's true that some people don't, I'm guessing the 21.5" is the far better sell because it's $500 cheaper and is closer to what most people expect to pay for a computer.

The price increase affects some people (perhaps 25%). But believe you me, the majority of our customers gravitate toward the bigger screen and, without ever asking how much, respond with "too big" and look at the 21.5, then look at prices. Perhaps some of that is a psychological thing, so I will concede a tad. However, I've been at this a long time, and the majority of shoppers in our store are not price conscious. They have decided—usually before they walk through the door—that they are willing to pay a bit more for a better thing, so money is not as big of an object as it might seem. Then, again, we are an Apple Specialist, not an Apple Store, and our focus is different than theirs.

Originally Posted by Robo iPods?

Very true—iPods use USB 2 (we still hate that Apple dumped Firewire from them). But you wait; Apple is going to push Thunderbolt like the mad business, and I could see them supporting USB2, but not 3, as a way to entice manufacturers into adopting it. Yes, I know that didn't work for Firewire, but the game has changed.

I think that the reality of the USB3 vs. Thunderbolt debate is that USB 3 is marketed toward consumers/tech nerds looking for a new bullet point, whereas Thunderbolt is being marketed toward Pro users who have genuine need of serious, intelligent bandwidth. It is kind of like the average blogger-moms screaming out for 10Mb/s internet upload connections for their "business" vs. hard-core Flash web-developers asking for 20Mb/s upload speeds. Consumers/tech nerds really have no genuine use for this stuff, but Pro users do. We really have reached a point in computing where the technology is a thousand times faster than the average person using it. It sells because it can, not because it has to.