[canyon_Carver]

For a while now I wished, hoped and speculated for a
30" iMac with QuadCore --

Alot of people laughed at me, said it would never happen...

Now it looks like there are rumors on AppleInsider.com
That it will be a 28" iMac with i7 core....quad core, multithreading to mimic 8 core--with upgraded NVIDIA graphics...
Now if its capable of 8GB+ RAM---

SOLD
BRING IT ON!

28"imac

[ezkcdude]

Hot damn! I don't care about the iMac, but if the Mac Pro rumor is true...hot diggity. I'd love for it to start shipping in February. My bet is this rumor is bogus, though. Too good to be true.

[Brave Ulysses]

Just what Apple needs in this economy.... a $3,000 iMac

[psmith2.0]

Yeah, I'm not sure who such a thing would sell to (in large, consistent numbers). It's definitely a pro-level machine (if those rumored features/specs are legit), but aren't most serious pros (those into video, photography, etc.) quite demanding and picky when it comes to their displays (color fidelity, various specs and settings, etc.), and almost always have third-party, often CRT-based, high-end models for their demanding, color-critical work?

This model, seeing as how the current highest-end 24" goes for $2,199, would most certainly be in the mid-upper $2,000's ($2,499-2,799, at least?), assuming "massive price drops" aren't part of Tuesday's keynote. Wouldn't people in those ranges usually opt for most customizable, expandable towers? Once these specs seem "old hat" in 3-5 years, you're stuck with an $2,799 28" display that you can't use with anything else once the machine it's attached to has run its course.

What casual user, Safari surfer and iPhoto hound is going to fork out $2,500-plus for an AIO that isn't expandable and probably not packing the end-all/be-all of displays? Seems like a Cadillac take on a previously affordable, nicely-aimed mid-range device.



Very odd. I'm sure it'll sell, quick and early on, but it seems to have a very niche, selective target and market, IMO.

But hey, in any case...the iMac sure has come a long way, baby! I'd like to see a side-by-side comparison between this 28" iMac (if it turns out to exist) and the very first Bondi blue iMac from 1998.

[Wrao]

a 28" iMac would be a little weird. Especially if it was basically a mac pro in an iMac body. But, I think it would have its niche.

[psmith2.0]

Yeah, a pretty small one. And probably one that would snap them up quite early on, before they had a chance to really think it through.



I can easily imagine it being the iPod Hi-Fi of Macs. Because who in the hell - in any high, sustainable numbers besides some very specific, adventurous early adopters or those with generous tax rebates and nothing else to spend it on - is going to drop $2,500-$2,800 on a non-expandable AIO, once the initial "oh wow!" thing wears off?

I think it has a high likelihood of being met with more "WTF?!" than not, for the various reasons I mentioned earlier.

People wanting an AIO have awesome (and affordable) 20" and 24" models to choose from. And anyone dropping $2,500-plus on a computer is probably going to want something they can open up and add to/update as time goes on (hard drives, graphics card, optical drive, various task-specific cards depending on the work they do, etc.), to justify that kind of price.

It'll sell some, sure. But it won't outsell the 20" iMac or the standalone towers. How could it?



EDIT: Okay, I take some of it back...if Apple drops the 20" iMac from their lineup, and suddenly the 24" model is the new "low-end" at $1,199 and $1,499, and the new 28" occupies the spot previously held by the 24" model (at $1,799 and $2,199), okay...then it would succeed! But I'm not sure how likely such a scenario is. Sounds like that might be asking a bit much.



But it would certainly be cool, and makes a hell of a lot more sense than keeping the 20" and 24" and adding an ultra high-end iMac that most people couldn't afford (and most pros wouldn't want).

Maybe that's what they're planning on doing? At one point (the iMac G4 and early days of the iMac G5), the 20" iMac was the "high-end". In just 2-3 years, it's become the entry model, while the various 15" and 17" sizes have all gone away. Who's to say the 20" hasn't reached that point? I don't know the prices for these displays, so I might be pissing up a rope with all this.

But a 24" and 28" iMac lineup (at current prices) would certainly kick a little bit of ass.



Hmm...the more I think about it, the more I like it (and it's about the only thing I can imagine that makes a 28" iMac make any sort of reasonable, "real world" sense).

[Robo]

I speculated about a 30" all-in-one "Thirtieth Anniversary Mac" a few years back. That's still really the only situation I could imagine such a computer becoming reality - it's such a niche product, it would really have to be some sort of limited-edition, "exclusive" product for it to be successful. (After all, an anniversary Mac would sort of have to be an all-in-one, and a top-of-the-line 30" screen made sense, for obvious reasons).

But yeah. No way they can actually add it to their line as a permanent product, until it can be done for under $2,000 or so. I think they'll be taking enough of a hit using the more expensive LED tech from now on, to be honest.

[zsummers]

Originally Posted by Roboman I speculated about a 30" all-in-one "Thirtieth Anniversary Mac" a few years back. That's still really the only situation I could imagine such a computer becoming reality - it's such a niche product, it would really have to be some sort of limited-edition, "exclusive" product for it to be successful. (After all, an anniversary Mac would sort of have to be an all-in-one, and a top-of-the-line 30" screen made sense, for obvious reasons). But yeah. No way they can actually add it to their line as a permanent product, until it can be done for under $2,000 or so. I think they'll be taking enough of a hit using the more expensive LED tech from now on, to be honest.

I agree with Robo. I also think, sadly, that the days of "limited-edition" high-end Macs have gone the way of the dodo. Jobs seems to have--and this, to me, is a shock coming from someone of his stature and determined ways--learned from his past mistakes. Everything that went wrong with the Newton has been corrected via the iPod; everything that went wrong with Apple Computers towards the end of Jobs' first run have been (mostly) corrected. Weird, but not too revisionist, I think.

[nikstar101]

I don't think they will drop the 20" as some people actually want small computers. The 24" is huge and it certainly wouldn't look right jammed onto my mums desk.

Plus how many work environments (offices etc ) have space for a 24" iMac. So i would see the 28" iMac complimenting the 20 and 24.

[Matsu]

Imagine the price structure staying largely the same for the lesser models, all the screen migrate down one notch so the line-up looks like this

20" (1199)
24" (1499)
24" (1799)
28" (2199)

No reason why a 28" iMac couldn't sell for $2199. 24" displays aren't as expensive as apple likes to pretend they are. The top iMac model is just a 24" with tastier internal bits. This update would give it a body to match the brains.

It would also make the 1499 model into a very strong offering, which is typical of the model just above entry when Apple launches a new product or update.

There may be no reason for a 1799 version, but they can always do something with RAM, HDD and CPU speeds to justify its existence and provide another choice.

[MBHockey]

Originally Posted by Matsu Imagine the price structure staying largely the same for the lesser models, all the screen migrate down one notch so the line-up looks like this 20" (1199) 24" (1499) 24" (1799) 28" (2199) No reason why a 28" iMac couldn't sell for $2199. 24" displays aren't as expensive as apple likes to pretend they are. The top iMac model is just a 24" with tastier internal bits. This update would give it a body to match the brains. It would also make the 1499 model into a very strong offering, which is typical of the model just above entry when Apple launches a new product or update. There may be no reason for a 1799 version, but they can always do something with RAM, HDD and CPU speeds to justify its existence and provide another choice.

That would indeed be very nice

The only bad thing is how they reserve certain upgrades for the more expensive models. For example, you cannot currently configure a 20" iMac with a 3.06 GHz CPU, the nVidia 8800, or a 1 TB HD which are all options for the 24" iMacs. I'm not sure if it has to do with the 20" iMac's inability to accommodate these upgrades (I doubt this is the case) or if they simply want you to spend the extra money on the 24" version to get the best upgrades.

I've tried a 24" iMac, and it's simply too large for my workspace. The 20" model should fit fine...but why can't I go upgrade crazy, Apple?!

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by Matsu Imagine the price structure staying largely the same for the lesser models, all the screen migrate down one notch so the line-up looks like this 20" (1199) 24" (1499) 24" (1799) 28" (2199) No reason why a 28" iMac couldn't sell for $2199. 24" displays aren't as expensive as apple likes to pretend they are. The top iMac model is just a 24" with tastier internal bits. This update would give it a body to match the brains. It would also make the 1499 model into a very strong offering, which is typical of the model just above entry when Apple launches a new product or update. There may be no reason for a 1799 version, but they can always do something with RAM, HDD and CPU speeds to justify its existence and provide another choice.

That's a reasonable, workable line-up as well. I don't think you can ask much more than $2,199 for an AIO Mac, no matter how big the screen is, for all the reasons I've given upthread.

But for the next year or so, this 28" can be the high-end "Cadillac" iMac, and the single low-end 20" and two mid-range ($1,499 and $1,799) 24" models can round it all out.

Ideally, the new 28" would be something like $1,999, and the rest of the line gets pushed down accordingly. Or, better still, they simply offer three iMacs of three distinct sizes (20", 24" and 28"), each with generous BTO options and going for $1,199, $1,599 and $1,999 respectively? Tie the main price breakdown to screen size since that's what most people will be looking at and going on, first and foremost. Space them $400 bucks apart from one another so there's reasonable separation and let people decide which size they want, first off, and then go from there with any desired BTO options. If they want to throw in a couple of special high-end features in the 28" model to make it all the more "deluxe", that's cool. But the 20" and 24" models should both be somewhat "matchable" (you should be able to BTO a 20" iMac with whatever 256-512MB graphics card the 24" comes with, etc.).

Another thing I'd like to see (especially since the notebooks are doing it) would be to have a user-accessible hard drive bay for upgrading or easy swap-outs down the road. If they can make such a thing so easy and straightforward in their notebooks (including the 13" MacBook models) surely they can do figure out a way to do it in the iMacs (and Mac mini) as well.

I think such a tight, focused (but flexible and BTO-friendly) three-piece lineup would meet with much success. People can trick them out a bit from the stock offerings, according to their budget or the type of stuff they'll be doing with them (bigger hard drive, better graphics, etc.).

And if you make the two big things - RAM and hard drive - easily accessible, that covers probably 90% of the people out there, for anything they'd want to upgrade in the coming years (more memory as the OS and apps get greedier, and a bigger hard drive as they accumulate more music, video and photos).

[Wrao]

Wrao wants a new iMac. That is all.

[Partial]

I've seen 28" TN-based LCD's go for about 250 on Slickdeals. Don't the iMacs use TN panels now?

[nikstar101]

No the 24" uses IPS (the most expensive) and i think that 20" uses a PVA (but i am nor quite sure about that although its certainly not a IPS panel)

[Frank777]

Anybody alleging a 28" iMac has to offer some sort of proof of the existence of a 28" IPS panel.

Apple doesn't grow those things themselves. Without a commercially available panel, the rumour is nonsense.

[Moogs]

Can't believe no one has Photoshopped the first 42" iMac sitting on a big computer desk.

[almost2mac]

Instead of this, I think they should make a 32" iMac with Apple TV built in with the intention of it taking a spot as a primary television and couch computer.

I'm thinking a 32 inch display unit with coax and 2-3 hdmi and component inputs just like a TV but shaped like an iMac, 2 usb 1 firewire on back, 1 usb and 1 firewire and an SD card reader on the low side for cameras. Apple TV is an application on the desktop with some added DVR functionality. iPod dock on top. DVI out would let the hardcore connect an even bigger TV, say above it as a secondary monitor to which the cpu can throw media content.

The keyboard would be wireless, essentially the bottom half of a macbook with a touchpad so you don't need a mouse - useable on the coffeetable or lap.

An uber Apple Remote has a button to change between Apple TV, "standard" live TV mode where you change channels with a clickwheel, and the computer desktop. It also has an accelerometer and sensor on the unit to use as a pointing mouse like a Wii.

[psmith2.0]

How much would all this cost?

[wtd]

Sounds like he wants a MacBoard hooked up to a generic 32" LCD tv