[psmith2.0]

The store might be down for ages, as I'm reading that Apple may not unveil the née notebooks until after Intel's event...which isn't until 10amPT/1pmET!

I predicted that the store would be down for at least 90 minutes (longer than we expect), but 6-8 hours would be nutty and way beyond what I imagined.

And I'm guessing there's no iMac update. Not hearing a thing about it...

[Robo]

Apple.com is up.

[psmith2.0]

Homepage updated, store still down. Odd.

No iMac updates, it seems.

[Matsu]

I don't think ultra-high screen resolutions are as important as better screen coatings and improved readability under diverse light conditions.

"Pro" machines need top spec computational power and I/O, so that we can move important work from one location to another. Strictly from a hardwar perspective, this means, USB3, lighpeak or whatever, 4 core CPUs, SSDs, Bluray, and long battery life. Not an easy undertaking, but then again these aren't cheap machines.

[zippy]

So it's still expected that the iMacs will see an update in the near future right? My parents are ready to make the switch, but it seems better to wait a bit. Then they'd have a choice between the latest and greatest or yesterday's model discounted. I'm expecting quad-core on all the 27" models as well as the upper level 21.5". Is there any chance we will see bigger changes?

[Robo]

Originally Posted by zippy So it's still expected that the iMacs will see an update in the near future right? My parents are ready to make the switch, but it seems better to wait a bit. Then they'd have a choice between the latest and greatest or yesterday's model discounted. I'm expecting quad-core on all the 27" models as well as the upper level 21.5". Is there any chance we will see bigger changes?

I'm expecting a redesigned iMac sometime after Lion hits. Apple could give the iMacs a speed bump this month and redesign them in October. Or they could do nothing until WWDC and redesign them then. Or they could do nothing until October, MacBook Air-style. It's really impossible to say.

WRT the redesign, I'm expecting articulating touchscreens. But that might just be me.

[drewprops]

Originally Posted by Robo WRT the redesign, I'm expecting articulating touchscreens. But that might just be me.

Somebody has been watching Avatar again...


...

[psmith2.0]

No touchscreens on any desktop. It's beyond lame.

It's gimmicky and after about 5-7 minutes of pretending you're Tom Cruise in "Minority Report", your shoulders and arms are going to be so sore and tired. It's all done from the mouse, keyboard or Magic Trackpad. Makes no sense to have that stuff comfortably (and conveniently) at your fingertips, but then reaching up to manipulate a 21.5-27" display. It looks cool, it sounds cool, it seems all "Star Trek" and future-y. But it's not. It's an orthopedic surgeon or physical therapist's wet dream. And I don't want any part of it.

[Maciej]

My dad gets tired holding an iPad in bed, I couldn't imagine him trying to use a touchscreen iMac all day...

zippy, I'd wait. SandyBridge seems to be a worthy update.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 No touchscreens on any desktop. It's beyond lame. It's gimmicky and after about 5-7 minutes of pretending you're Tom Cruise in "Minority Report", your shoulders and arms are going to be so sore and tired. It's all done from the mouse, keyboard or Magic Trackpad. Makes no sense to have that stuff comfortably (and conveniently) at your fingertips, but then reaching up to manipulate a 21.5-27" display. It looks cool, it sounds cool, it seems all "Star Trek" and future-y. But it's not. It's an orthopedic surgeon or physical therapist's wet dream. And I don't want any part of it.

Hence, articulating. As in this 2010 Apple patent.

[psmith2.0]

Hence, I don't care because you still gotta reach up and hold your arms out at an uncomfortable, unusual position than was ever intended.

Unless you have a high seat/stool and something like a drafting table set-up (where you look a good bit over the desk surface and it comes right up to you and your arms "fall" down to the screen almost), I don't see how "tilting back" really addresses the main concern.

If the iMac I'm using right now tilted far back like that patent drawing shows, it's still 18-24" away, and I still have to reach out - and up - to use it. It's still going to be position that far from me, and not 6-10" from my torso, which introduces a whole other set of issues and problems.

[Robo]

The screen doesn't just "tilt back." It moves down and forward, coming to a rest above the keyboard.

[Brad]

That mechanism still hinges (see what I did there?) on the assumption that the user's keyboard/desk is in the perfect "sweet spot" that the design would support for the downward position, and it forces you to completely change your posture whenever you change modes. Even if it hits the sweet spot, that's still not the same natural position your forearms would be in when typing; it would be higher than normal by at least a few inches. Plus, you'd likely have to cradle it slightly from changing position while using it or smashing it into the keyboard/desk beneath it if you use anything but the lightest touch. On top of all that, Apple seems to hate any moving parts these days. Moving parts introduce mechanical points of failure and are apparently "inelegant" by the current school of thought. I'd bet if they could get away with killing the hinge on the back of the current iMac, they would.

Apple files plenty of patents it doesn't use. That's what all big companies do these days. Given the major ergonomic hurdles to this approach, I can't put much faith in anything like it coming to light without some major changes/rethinking from what's been described.

[zippy]

Originally Posted by Maciej My dad gets tired holding an iPad in bed, I couldn't imagine him trying to use a touchscreen iMac all day... zippy, I'd wait. SandyBridge seems to be a worthy update.

I wonder if they are using up their initial stock of SandyBridge on the MBPs and once that surge dies down, they will add them to the iMacs. I also wonder if we will still see the 21.5" and 27" models, or if those will change.

I think they are patient enough to wait it out a bit, but we are having a problem with their current Windows XP Dell where it won't install SP3 for Office 2003 (or any of the updates beyond that). I've tried everything I can think of with the exception of doing a complete re-install of the system. At this point, that just doesn't seem worth it.

[Robo]

I know Apple files for plenty of patents it doesn't use — it's not only the existence of this one patent that makes me think an articulating touchscreen iMac could be in the cards. Lion seems to be moving in a much more touch-friendly direction, and once the iPod classic disappears the iMac will be the only iProduct with a screen that isn't a touchscreen. That's what the "i" means to people, nowadays. It's synonymous with touch-friendly and thin and appliance-like, and I think the new iMac will be all of those things.

I also think Apple needs to do something major to keep the iMac relevant. It's Apple's flagship Mac — it traditionally represents Apple's ideal "computer as home appliance" vision, and Apple uses the iMac to debut new peripherals and OS versions — and I don't think another 2009-style refreshing is going to cut it. Where else are they going to go? I'm guessing Apple does have an interest in selling $1200 iMacs instead of $999 MacBook Airs, because iMac owners are more likely to buy iPads. But to keep the iMac relevant and interesting I think it's due for a fairly thorough rethinking.

With regards to this:

Originally Posted by Brad Plus, you'd likely have to cradle it slightly from changing position while using it or smashing it into the keyboard/desk beneath it if you use anything but the lightest touch.

I am 100% positive that the articulating stand would come to a stop and support the iMac in the "touch position," and you wouldn't have to "hold it up."

I think the any touchscreen iMac would be very thin, which would help the screen be closer to keyboard height and would also make it easier to reposition. (Think "iMac Air" or "giant iPad" more than the current approach.) The screens may also be smaller than the current 21.5" and 27", but that's close to a given with the cost of capacitive displays.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Robo I am 100% positive that the articulating stand would come to a stop and support the iMac in the "touch position," and you wouldn't have to "hold it up."

Which means there's only one touch position, maybe two if you also lock into the vertical position? That doesn't make it sound all that great either. And what about the other ergonomic issues? And fingerprints? Oleophobic coating or not, iPods and iPads still get messy, but they're easy to wipe off since you hold them in your hands.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Brad Which means there's only one touch position, maybe two if you also lock into the vertical position? That doesn't make it sound all that great either. And what about the other ergonomic issues? And fingerprints? Oleophobic coating or not, iPods and iPads still get messy, but they're easy to wipe off since you hold them in your hands.

yea, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. lots of issues.

Apple may be adding a lot of gestures to Lion but it seems as if Apple prefers for them to be carried out on their trackpads which seems to work just fine.

Just because something makes perfect sense for handheld devices doesn't mean it makes the most sense for desktop computing. Desktop computing, usage and demands are completely different.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Brad Which means there's only one touch position, maybe two if you also lock into the vertical position? That doesn't make it sound all that great either.

Apple's designed both of their iPad cases to prop the iPad in two positions: a nearly-horizontal angle for typing and touch-oriented tasks, and a nearly-vertical angle for content viewing. The iMac already has the nearly-vertical angle covered. I don't think having only one "touch position," a keyboardesque angle, would bother Apple. In fact, I'd be extremely surprised if the iMac was at all designed to be used in any position between "touch mode" and "Mac mode" — as you suggest, it would be difficult to touch the iMac in those positions without moving the screen (and those would be awkward positions anyway). The slick promotional video will show people flattening their iMac in half a second, automatically bringing up the touch interface, and that will be that.

Fingerprints may indeed be a real-world issue, but that's not one that's kept Apple from putting ultra-glossy touchscreens on anything else.

[psmith2.0]

I just have a hard time imagining it, as I sit here at my desk. I can't see any benefit or upside to touching my iMac on any consistent, day-to-day basis. It's not a "cuddly" reading device, and it's not a 3.5" screen in your pocket that you can access everything with one thumb.

When I'm using the iMac as it currently is, it's sitting far enough away (about 18-24"?) not to blow my eyes out. If I want to use it in tablet/flat mode, and use my fingers on the screen, I'm suddenly reaching up and out that 18-24" distance. Or am I supposed to physically scoot the iMac 12-18" closer to me when I want to use it in that way, so it's closer to me and more "under" me?

But even if I decide that's not a totally annoying pain-in-the-ass and I'm okay with that, the thing is still about chest-high, simply because of the height of most desk and chair set-ups (BTW, I'm doing all the above in real life, moving the iMac closer to me, imagining it dropped back and lowered and scooted out tomorrow me. At best, it's chest level, kinda under my chin (hope I don't sneeze!) and I'm still raising my arms and hands 8-10" higher than they are when at my keyboard and mouse.

I'm not going to do all the above - scoot the iMac forward (minding the power cables and any others I may have connected), tilt/slide it into its prone "use it like a tablet" position, crank my chair up a few inches, have the thing now 10" under my nose and just "in my space".

It seems to be an "either/or" proposition. Either use the iMac as it was intended, or you get a machine that is kinda always lying down and you get a desk/chair/stool setup that places you high enough above it so it is more like a drafting table feel, where you can kinda rest your arms down on the edges.

But that's not always good, and, on a computer like this, there are things that are better left to a mouse, keyboard, trackpad, etc.

If I want to gesture, use natural-feeling movements and "draw on the screen", I'll get a Wacom or something that won't involve me having to change my furniture, posture, sitting position/height, constantly be putting my iMac up and down based on my whim-of-the-moment.

I don't wanna do that. Any of it. I want to use an iMac like a computer. If I want to touch stuff, I'll use my iPhone or get an iPad.

The OS itself isn't made for touch, so this idea, IMO, is simply the reverse of Microsoft putting the full version of Windows, as is, on tablets and expecting anyone to gravitate to that.

They're two different things...sizes, approaches, navigations, positions and postures, etc. It sounds neat and looks cool, but when you break it all down and think about real-world, day-to-day use, I can't imagine it being better than the iMac, or better than the iPad. As you said the other day, while talking about a 7" iPad, it's really highlights the worst aspects of it all, and would be the worst of both worlds.

I've been sitting here now, for 15-20 minutes, tugging my iMac around, using a straight-edge to mark my angles and measure my heights. The simple fact of having to move the damn thing, back and forth, kills it for me. Because I'm not gong to use an iMac 12" from my face, just so it's easy to go into "recumbent" mode. And I'm certainly not going to lift my arms 12" high and 18-24" out to play with the thing in that mode if I leave it sitting where it normally sits. And I'm definitely not going to have a stool on standby so I can swap my chair out for it to get me a "higher perch" when I want to use that mode.

Nope. Not doing any of it.



Maybe in certain scenarios, if you work at some funky, hipster office where everyone just kinda stands at their desk and does nothing traditional or expected for eight hours a day, sure...having tilted-back iMacs, with everyone looking like Mr. Spock while using them, may impress clients coming into the building.

"Wow, these guys are modern, futuristic and forward-thinking...not a mouse in the entire damn building! They're getting the account...".

But I don't think that's enough.

Explain, or show, it in a way that negates or addresses all the above and maybe I could see the light. But it almost comes down to furniture...you can't get yourself high enough, spur of the moment, to be above the thing enough to where having it set in lie-back mode makes any practical sense.

Either I'm totally missing something, or you're just embracing a bad idea.



I'm not saying which one is is, the jury may still be out. But, as I sit here and try all this, I'm not stumbling across anything that makes me want this in an iMac. Not in any sort of "dual-use" way, at least.

Apple would be better off making a 17-20" iPad, and you just place it on a shallow easel on your coffee table (which sits a lot lower than a desk) or kitchen counter/island (where you're usually standing and would be well enough above).

Now maybe I can see that...a larger iPad that is kinda meant to sit at at 15-20 degree angle and control lots of things? But then you wonder why make something so big that won't have the strengths of the iPad (lightness and mobility) or the iMac (power and full OS X usage).

So I guess I don't even like that idea either, after giving it 42 seconds of extra thought...



Sometimes devices designed for a dedicated, set purpose really do the trick. Have an iMac, and have an iPad...where each, being what they are and playing to their specific strengths and purposes, are amazing. You try to mish-mash them together, and something usually gets sacrificed and the resulting product is never as good as the two items are on their own.

Just my personal, gut feelings on it. I'm no expert in anything.

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by Robo WRT the redesign, I'm expecting articulating touchscreens. But that might just be me.

Yeah, pretty sure that's just you!

Originally Posted by Robo Lion seems to be moving in a much more touch-friendly direction

In recognition that most people use touch interfaces to interact with their Macs. MacBook sales have long overtaken desktop sales, and for desktops there's the Magic Mouse and now the Magic trackpad - both great input devices that allow you to control your Mac not just through point and click, like on those other pedestrian operating systems, but the 'magic' of gestures. And if you use a trackpad with your Mac, you'll know how brilliant gestures are, for scrolling, bring up Exposé and so on - all without moving your arm at all, just a few quick flicks of you fingers. And the whole time your hand isn't even very far from your Keyboard, especially on MacBooks.

Originally Posted by Robo and once the iPod classic disappears the iMac will be the only iProduct with a screen that isn't a touchscreen. That's what the "i" means to people, nowadays.

Because of a name they launched 10 years ago? Before iOS was even conceived? Yeah, well, then it's obvious that Apple was planning this all along! I think "i" means to most people these days "Apple is really lazy at product naming"

Originally Posted by Robo It's synonymous with touch-friendly and thin and appliance-like, and I think the new iMac will be all of those things.

It already is, really

Originally Posted by Robo I also think Apple needs to do something major to keep the iMac relevant.

They're not the kind of desperados that will chuck any new buzzword into their products just to make them 'hip' and 'relevant', but I don't need to tell you that. The design of the iMac hasn't changed any less than the design of the MacBook Pro in recent times - I think they've just reached the point where there's little you can do to actually improve on it (and I really don't think they believe a giant touch screen is a good thing by any stretch) other than minor refinements and making it slightly thinner each time. And that's OK.

They've basically reduced it to it's bare elements: Sleek inputs—keyboard and multi-touch peripherals— sitting wirelessly on the desk and a high-quality display hovering above with the CPU etc tucked in behind it. Short of making the display hover in midair and shrinking the internal components down to microscopic proportions (I'm sure they're working on both), this is minimalistic design at it's best. They can keep it 'relevant' by keeping the internal components up to date (flash and all the rest) and of course the software.

The best inputs for the form factor. For a 24" form factor, 1:1 touch input just doesn't make any ergonomic sense. Gestures do.

I think you're best off waiting for some sort of HP webOS TouchSmart thing. Or perhaps a Microsoft Surface.



No offence, but I think this is wackier than your iPhone mini theory, and you know how I feel about that one


EDIT: P.S. I don't mean to keep tearing you down; I think you have some good insights on lots of things. But not this, or iPhone minis.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Robo Apple's designed both of their iPad cases to prop the iPad in two positions: a nearly-horizontal angle for typing and touch-oriented tasks, and a nearly-vertical angle for content viewing. The iMac already has the nearly-vertical angle covered. I don't think having only one "touch position," a keyboardesque angle, would bother Apple. In fact, I'd be extremely surprised if the iMac was at all designed to be used in any position between "touch mode" and "Mac mode" — as you suggest, it would be difficult to touch the iMac in those positions without moving the screen (and those would be awkward positions anyway). The slick promotional video will show people flattening their iMac in half a second, automatically bringing up the touch interface, and that will be that. Fingerprints may indeed be a real-world issue, but that's not one that's kept Apple from putting ultra-glossy touchscreens on anything else.

plus, with iPads becoming more and more powerful and iOS apps gaining power, at what point does your articulating iMac idea become better suited by an iPad?