Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

retta283

Suspended
Original poster
Jun 8, 2018
3,179
3,480
On October 20, 2009, Apple updated the iMacs with 16:9 screens, with the sizes of 21.5 and 27 inch. They also redesigned the shape of the bezels, removing the rounded aluminum around the glass, and making the chin smaller.

Here we are, 10 years later, and it's still the exact same design. It's been slimmed down on the sides, but that's it. From the front a 2009 and 2019 iMac look the same. They have gotten higher resolutions though.

Not exactly attacking Apple for the lack of updates, I personally don't mind the current design, but it's the longest lasting computer design I can think of. I hope that if/when they refresh it, it gains a 24" option. The difference in the sizes is very drastic. Just thought I'd post this for the 10th anniversary of the current design.
 
I’ve had two, the 21.5” model and the 27” (slim) model. Great computers at the time!

Ten years later, the iMac has started feeling a bit dated though. It’s not so much the design, as the total lack of innovation. Other than the huge bezels, it still lacks any type of biometric identification (Touch ID/Face ID), it’s still HDD-based and even the peripherals are the same (including the Mouse which charges upside down).

I sold my 27” in 2018.

There is so much Apple could do with an updated model, I can’t wait. Personally I’m hoping for something of a mix between the iPad Pro (thin bezels, Face ID, maybe even rounded corners) and the old iMac G4s swivel design. Imagine that in Space Gray.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moonjumper
Of course you have a point, when you look at the tear-down of the 2014 5K model:


Bezels could be slimmer
Probably the body/housing could be made thinner if they use more modern PCB technology like for the iPhones/iPads
Don't have to take a 3.5" HDD into account

Not sure what Apple is thinking. Actually the same thing applies to the Macbook range. When I see the icon for the soon to be released 16" model, it's just a 16" display bolted on the same good old design.

I would like to see:

Slimmer bezels
SSD only
16 GB minimum in the 27"
FaceID unlock
WIFI6
 
I also can't believe that they still ship a 5400rpm drive in the iMac. One of the craziest things Apple has ever done. Even the iMac G5 had a 7200rpm hard drive. It wasn't until they made the slim iMac in 2012 that they started using 5400rpm drives.
 
Official product video from 10 years ago. What other iMac refresh had its own promo video from Apple?

Original 2014 5K. At the time I couldn't care less about the bezels with this jaw-dropping 5K display between them.


One of the few lasting innovations the iMac has seen in recent years, though it's a shame the 2014 model was extremely prone to image retention.
 
I agree, this is getting ridiculous. I am not going to dish out so much money for outdated design. I am now just waiting ignoring any internal upgrades.

Exactly! Would love to upgrade my Late 2012 27" iMac too but not gonna fork out 2K for a machine
that has exactly the same design as my 7 year old one
 
The baseline should be Fusion drive by now and not the tiny 24gb fusion drive. Or better would be putting in a Sata SSD drive for the low end.

They could even do a two SSD fusion drive with an 128GB fastest available M.2 SSD and a large SATA SSD to give big storage, at a reasonable speed without the big costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: newyorksole
The baseline should be Fusion drive by now and not the tiny 24gb fusion drive. Or better would be putting in a Sata SSD drive for the low end.

They could even do a two SSD fusion drive with an 128GB fastest available M.2 SSD and a large SATA SSD to give big storage, at a reasonable speed without the big costs.
The drive is only 24GB? Wow. You probably couldn't even fit all of your apps onto it. The MS Office suite alone is like 10-15GB with all the options ticked. There's a reason my 2010 iMac still performs fairly well, and that's the 7200rpm hard drive. An SSD would definitely be better, but it's surely better than a 2.5 5400rpm drive.

As @Icaras said, I wouldn't want to buy a brand new iMac with the same design. I'm about due for an upgrade, but I don't want to get something with the same design as my current. The sides might be thinner, but I never even see the sides so it's not important. I probably will go with the 27" or what ever the largest size is this time around, the 21.5 isn't a bad machine but I'm ready for more space. I use the 27" LED Cinema Display at work and it's nice.
 
I guess it shows the sign of the times/my age but I don't understand the obsession on here with everthing needing thinner bezels and being new and redesigned????? Every topic repeats the same thing when talking about upcoming product.

The current iMac is a great design and would prefer to see a larger display (with big bezels allowing more space for cooling) and upgarded fans like iMac Pro.

I suppose my oppinion is skewed as I remember when people purchased Mac's to do work with rather than fashion items to look at.
 
I’ve had two, the 21.5” model and the 27” (slim) model. Great computers at the time!

Ten years later, the iMac has started feeling a bit dated though. It’s not so much the design, as the total lack of innovation. Other than the huge bezels, it still lacks any type of biometric identification (Touch ID/Face ID), it’s still HDD-based and even the peripherals are the same (including the Mouse which charges upside down).

I sold my 27” in 2018.

There is so much Apple could do with an updated model, I can’t wait. Personally I’m hoping for something of a mix between the iPad Pro (thin bezels, Face ID, maybe even rounded corners) and the old iMac G4s swivel design. Imagine that in Space Gray.

I loved the iMac G4. It was great aesthetically and ergonomically. I’d love an updated iMac in that format.

Another thing I’d love from the iPad is the 4:3 screen ratio. Vertical screen height is important for many tasks, and gives more screen space without more desk space.
 
Have you guys ever worked in a setting where there wasn't just a flat still wall behind your screen? It's incredibly useful to have a bezel to separate the edge of your 'focus area' on the screen from the background. This whole 'innovation' for innovations sake is ruining products for some of the people who love them most.. Google's new Pixel shows that going back on this could be the way forward. Been there, engineered it, it's possible... now, back to common sense and comfort..
 
  • Like
Reactions: mmomega and choreo
It's not a desire to make everything all-screen, at least to me it isn't. It's just that we need a shakeup of the design. Note the "screen sizes" in the title. I'm hoping we'll see better screen sizes, I'm still hoping for a 24".
I agree with @Moonjumper that vertical height is more important, that's why I really liked the 16:10 iMacs. I doubt they would put 4:3 on a desktop in 2019/2020, 16:10 would be the more likely option.

Perhaps a design that is closer to that of the old LED Cinema Displays is what I'd like to see. The chin would go away, thinner bezels, but still gives you some area around the screen. I use screens daily that have 2-3 inch bezels on all sides, so I'm not complaining about that particularly. It's just an old design, with its roots in the iMac G5, and the black-aluminum color scheme dates back to 2007. The iPhone was brand new at that time. It's been a long, long time. At least give a 24" and 30"-32" option.
 
The drive is only 24GB? Wow. You probably couldn't even fit all of your apps onto it. The MS Office suite alone is like 10-15GB with all the options ticked. There's a reason my 2010 iMac still performs fairly well, and that's the 7200rpm hard drive. An SSD would definitely be better, but it's surely better than a 2.5 5400rpm drive.

Oops I got it wrong :O It was 24GB with late 2015 model (for the 1TB Fusion drive), its now 32gb for the 1TB fusion drive - still tiny. The 2 and 3 TB fusion drives have a 128GB gb SSD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: retta283
The screen size hasn't changed because I reckon the two display sizes that Apple offers pretty much satisfy what the overwhelming majority of customers need or are happy with.

How much "thinner" can the iMac be made?
To what purpose?
There has to be enough room inside for components AND adequate cooling.

The "chin" is there because to get rid of it would reduce the room inside for components (see above).

The current iMac design leaves little to change, but for "the sake of change".
The changes THAT COUNT are on THE INSIDE, and the quality of the display panel.

That's enough for me.
 
The screen size hasn't changed because I reckon the two display sizes that Apple offers pretty much satisfy what the overwhelming majority of customers need or are happy with.

How much "thinner" can the iMac be made?
To what purpose?
There has to be enough room inside for components AND adequate cooling.

The "chin" is there because to get rid of it would reduce the room inside for components (see above).

The current iMac design leaves little to change, but for "the sake of change".
The changes THAT COUNT are on THE INSIDE, and the quality of the display panel.

That's enough for me.
There should be a middle size option. The difference is too great in consumer settings that some will go for 21.5 even if they want a larger screen, because the 27" is too wide. Most College desks are too small for that width. And for the prosumers that originally praised the 27" option, it has now been outclassed.

At least for me, I don't need it to be any thinner. I think the 2012 design change was a mistake. Not that it makes actual difference in size as the base still is the same distance from the display. I'm almost certain that if they made it the old thickness, they could get rid of the chin and make it look like the LED Cinema Displays.

The desire for a new design is probably mostly aesthetic, but wanting it to have new screen sizes and smaller sides to help keep the width a bit lower is functional.
 
Have you guys ever worked in a setting where there wasn't just a flat still wall behind your screen? It's incredibly useful to have a bezel to separate the edge of your 'focus area' on the screen from the background. This whole 'innovation' for innovations sake is ruining products for some of the people who love them most.. Google's new Pixel shows that going back on this could be the way forward. Been there, engineered it, it's possible... now, back to common sense and comfort..

No, because the Pro XDR display, designed for pros, throws that whole “focus area” idea out the window.

2014F520-32CD-42FA-9EC3-37DBD701E678.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: StumpJumper
I doubt they would put 4:3 on a desktop in 2019/2020, 16:10 would be the more likely option.

The Microsoft Surface Studio 2 has gone even further at 3:2 and side-by-side the 28" MSS2 screen looks much larger next to a 27" iMac, despite a diagonal only 1" bigger, and I think it is a much better working space. It provides a good case for a better ratio.

maxresdefault.jpg


The MMS2 also has height adjustment! Microsoft have made a lot of progress with their designs. They also have laptops with this ratio, which work great. I still want a Mac though, but competition improves the breed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 28Gauge
The Microsoft Surface Studio 2 has gone even further at 3:2 and side-by-side the 28" MSS2 screen looks much larger next to a 27" iMac, despite a diagonal only 1" bigger, and I think it is a much better working space. It provides a good case for a better ratio.

maxresdefault.jpg


The MMS2 also has height adjustment! Microsoft have made a lot of progress with their designs. They also have laptops with this ratio, which work great. I still want a Mac though, but competition improves the breed.
That actually looks pretty good. I haven't seen 3:2 much.

I guess I'm a little ignorant on 4:3, because I haven't seen it used in many displays that are 17"+. I just think of my old CRTs and small LCDs when I remember 4:3.

16:9 is pretty common for HD video and movies, so for consumers they like it. But I prefer 16:10.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moonjumper
I would have bought an iMac Pro if I could have access to and ability to swap out components myself over time. Since everything is soldered in, I never purchased an iMac (stayed my my 2012 Mac Pro and three 3rd party screens so far).

Thin bezels are important to me running 3 monitors side-by-side, but most people that buy an iMac just use the included screen - so not sure why bezel size matters - actually can be a plus to block out background distractions when placed near a window, etc.

Would have bought the new Mac Pro coming out, but don't need "that" much expansion for that high a price (beautiful machine though). About $4500 would be my personal max if spec-ed out right. I am getting old... my first Corvette that I special ordered from Chevy in 1972 (loaded), cost less than a new stripped down Mac Pro now and I drove that car all over the country for 11 years (and it never went in the shop once) - also sold it for more than I paid for it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moonjumper
I would have bought an iMac Pro if I could have access to and ability to swap out components myself over time. Since everything is soldered in, I never purchased an iMac (stayed my my 2012 Mac Pro and three 3rd party screens so far).

Thin bezels are important to me running 3 monitors side-by-side, but most people that buy an iMac just use the included screen - so not sure why bezel size matters - actually can be a plus to block out background distractions when placed near a window, etc.

Would have bought the new Mac Pro coming out, but don't need "that" much expansion for that high a price (beautiful machine though). About $4500 would be my personal max if spec-ed out right. I am getting old... my first Corvette that I special ordered from Chevy in 1972 (loaded), cost less than a new stripped down Mac Pro now and I drove that car all over the country for 11 years (and it never went in the shop once) - also sold it for more than I paid for it!
That must've been an awesome car to have, I drive a Plymouth from 1987 and it's been pretty good, but I haven't driven it too far, mostly local.

I think that it's hard to find screens that match well with an iMac for side-by-side, due to the bezels and height of the display. I'm sure some adjustable screens can be used decently. I remember using two CRTs side by side and it was not a very uniform experience.

Of course as you said, most people that buy iMacs probably don't plan on using them with a second display next to it.
 
The Microsoft Surface Studio 2 has gone even further at 3:2 and side-by-side the 28" MSS2 screen looks much larger next to a 27" iMac, despite a diagonal only 1" bigger, and I think it is a much better working space. It provides a good case for a better ratio.

maxresdefault.jpg


The MMS2 also has height adjustment! Microsoft have made a lot of progress with their designs. They also have laptops with this ratio, which work great. I still want a Mac though, but competition improves the breed.
I wouldn't mind a return to the old 16:10 aspect ratio for the iMac, a display sized similarly to the old 30" Apple Cinema Display. It's a shame Microsoft isn't going to make an attempt to compete in terms of resolution, and the same is true with the current Surface Book line. You effectively get less usable screen space than the iMac.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.