Apple Announces Redesigned iMac With M1 Chip and Seven Color Options

[Warped9]

Seriously, calling the design a fail particularly as seen from the front is over-the-top absurd.

It’s essentially the same as the machine it replaces except the bezels are thinner and coloured white instead of black, the display is larger, the pedestal is slightly different and there is no Apple logo. The only other difference is the new one offers colour options whereas the previous version was available only in silver. Compare a silver 21.5 to a silver 24 and design wise there is little difference.

And THAT is likely the real reason some are calling the design a fail—because the new isn’t dramatically different from the old.

 

[Station Grey]

I wonder how many of us would have preferred a thicker device with no chin, apple really caters to themselves, they don't think of us (the public) when they design their devices ....

Somewhere around 99.9% I imagine.

Not caring about how ugly it is for the 8 hours a day you stare at in, in exchange for it being slightly thinner in profile is like choosing a car that's horrible to drive but has a really thin driveshaft.

 

[Stephen.R]

Somewhere around 99.9% I imagine.

I think you're vastly overestimating how many people are that hung up on the 'chin', and underestimating how many people just get on and use the ****ing thing.

 

[Station Grey]

Seriously, calling the design a fail particularly as seen from the front is over-the-top absurd.

It’s essentially the same as the machine it replaces except the bezels are thinner and coloured white instead of black, the display is larger, the pedestal is slightly different and there is no Apple logo. The only other difference is the new one offers colour options whereas the previous version was available only in silver. Compare a silver 21.5 to a silver 24 and design wise there is little difference.

An THAT is likely the real reason some are calling the design a fail—because the new isn’t dramatically different from the okd.

Don't tell me... you're not a designer, right?

I don't mean that rudely, but saying 'it's not a bad design if it's only ugly from the angle you spend all day looking at it from' and 'it's only slightly worse than the 14 year-old design it replaces' aren't very convincing.

 

[Station Grey]

I think you're vastly overestimating how many people are that hung up on the 'chin', and underestimating how many people just get on and use the ****ing thing.

I never said people wouldn't buy it, use it, enjoy it even. I hope it sells by the million.

The question I answered was 'how many people would've preferred it to be thicker with no chin.'

The answer to that, I suspect, is 99.9%. You may have a different view on that number, which is an entirely subjective guess, but you can't provide the answer to a different question.

 

[Stephen.R]

how many people would've preferred it to be thicker with no chin

Assuming 99.9% would "prefer" that, means that you're suggesting 99.9% of people who look at it, also think enough about how it looks to not just form a "I like it" / "I don't like it" view, but also form a "I would prefer it was X" view.


I guess I should have been clearer in my original response.

I think you're vastly overestimating how many people put anywhere near that much thought at all, into how a computer looks.

Edit: unless of course you inferred that the 'us' in "how many of us", refers to the echo-chamber that is MacRumors? Maybe @chad.petree also meant the same 'us', and it was me who was silly enough to think 'us' just meant 'people looking at the new iMac'

In which case, sure. The vast majority of people here do seem to lose any objectivity and get hung up on the most ridiculous visual details while glossing over actual functionality or productivity benefits or concerns.

 

[Station Grey]

Assuming 99.9% would "prefer" that, means that you're suggesting 99.9% of people who look at it, also think enough about how it looks to not just form a "I like it" / "I don't like it" view, but also form a "I would prefer it was X" view.


I guess I should have been clearer in my original response.

I think you're vastly overestimating how many people put anywhere near that much thought at all, into how a computer looks.

Again, not what I said at all. You can't keep making up your own version of my posts and responding to those!

'Prefer' means to prefer something over something else.

ie. If presented with two designs, one being the announced one and one being similar but with no chin and a thicker body, I suggest 99.9% would prefer the latter.

 

[Stephen.R]

Again, not what I said at all. You can't keep making up your own version of my posts and responding to those!

'Prefer' means to prefer something over something else.

ie. If presented with two designs, one being the announced one and one being similar but with no chin and a thicker body, I suggest 99.9% would prefer the latter.

And I'm suggesting that a significant percentage of them don't ****ing care. Another significant percentage of them, will ask what the functional difference between the two is, because every change to anything, has trade-offs.


But we will never know, because "do you prefer this actual product, or this non-existent product" isn't really something either of us is setup to survey the general public about.

 

[Station Grey]

And I'm suggesting that a significant percentage of them don't ****ing care. Another significant percentage of them, will ask what the functional difference between the two is, because every change to anything, has trade-offs.


But we will never know, because "do you prefer this actual product, or this non-existent product" isn't really something either of us is setup to survey the general public about.

Yes, there'd be a trade-off. It'd be thicker. So, once every couple of months, when they're dusting their desks, they'd think 'Ah, it's 2cm thick instead of 1cm.'

And yes, it's a notional percentage of people in a fictional poll. No, it's not real. It's an opinion. As stated, repeatedly.

 

[Warped9]

Don't tell me... you're not a designer, right?

I don't mean that rudely, but saying 'it's not a bad design if it's only ugly from the angle you spend all day looking at it from' and 'it's only slightly worse than the 14 year-old design it replaces' aren't very convincing

Then you’re saying the previous design was also ugly and a failure as well, from your perspective.

Something having visual appeal is largely subjective. Objectively speaking the previous iMac design as well as the new one are hardly failures. A desktop computer is still very much a tool rather than a decorative knick-knack for your home—its form will be largely dictated by its function. Unless you want to go back to the Sunflower design or even the original forms of the G3s or eMac than a desktop AIO will be limited in form—It’s going to be a large rectangle with or without a component or “chin” extending beneath the display. The variations to that simple form will vary only in minor detail.

If you find Apple’s aesthetics disappointing—“ugly”—so be it. No one is going to dissuade you from a subjective viewpoint. But calling the design a fail is not an objective viewpoint—it’s a subjective exaggeration.

I, too, would have preferred something slightly different, but thats subjective. Setting that aside I can‘t say the new (or the old) design is a failure given its function and its intended customer. People can still have a neutral looking device with the silver colour while others now have a colour option.

In terms of design my criticism is in regard to port access, and it’s the same criticism I had for the current MacBooks sporting only a couple of USB-C ports. Forcing people buying an expensive machine to pay extra to access a USB drive or SD card is annoying the customer unnecessarily. Make the damned thing a few millimetres thicker and give the customer the convenience they should have. Forcing them to buy dongles is nickel-and-diming them. And note Apple looks to be rectifying that with the forthcoming MacBook redesigns in a few months. To that end you would think Apple would have retained that convenience with the new iMac, but someone obviously missed that memo.

 

[pdoherty]

Yes, there'd be a trade-off. It'd be thicker. So, once every couple of months, when they're dusting their desks, they'd think 'Ah, it's 2cm thick instead of 1cm.'

And yes, it's a notional percentage of people in a fictional poll. No, it's not real. It's an opinion. As stated, repeatedly.

The easiest way to dismiss his hypothetical is to state that “of people who have a preference, 99.9% would prefer not having the chin and the unit being thicker”.

 

[Stephen.R]

The easiest way to dismiss his hypothetical is to state that “of people who have a preference, 99.9% would prefer not having the chin and the unit being thicker”.

That's a clearer way to sate an opinion, but that's also a very high number for anyone to take seriously.


Do you realise what that means in terms of people? 1 in 1000. 1000 is a lot of people, to say that all but one of them agree on something like that, seems unrealistic. I can't think of many things in this world, that I would expect 999 out of 1000 people, who have an opinion on said topic, to agree on.

You know what they say: opinions are like *******s. Everyone has one, and most are full of ****.

 

[Station Grey]

Then you’re saying the previous design was also ugly and a failure as well, from your perspective.

No... why would you imply that?

The previous design was far more cohesive - it wasn't a mix of rich colours, pastels and whites in one, and there wasn't a strange blank section under the screen.

Plus, the old design is... old, and has to be taken in context. When it came out in 2009 it was fresh and modern, and the various tweaks along the way have improved things slightly. It was in dire need of refresh though to take advantage of technology improvements and spruce things up but, in my subjective view, failed to do either.

 

[Station Grey]

That's a clearer way to sate an opinion, but that's also a very high number for anyone to take seriously.


Do you realise what that means in terms of people? 1 in 1000. 1000 is a lot of people, to say that all but one of them agree on something like that, seems unrealistic. I can't think of many things in this world, that I would expect 999 out of 1000 people, who have an opinion on said topic, to agree on.

You know what they say: opinions are like *******s. Everyone has one, and most are full of ****.

I think you're taking my figure a little seriously and, just perhaps, labouring it a little.

 

[Stephen.R]

I think your taking my figure a little seriously and, just perhaps, labouring it a little.

I'm taking the thing you repeated, and clarified, three times, too seriously? Sure ok.

 

[Warped9]

The previous iMac was old from some people’s perspective, but many today still find it a cut above other PC AIOs. If a design concept works then there is no overwhelming reason to change it other than simply for the sake of change. My only quibble with the current/outgoing design was the thickness of the bezels. Thinning out the bezels alone would have been a distinct step forward and also would have had the illusionary effect of making the chin look smaller even if the chin wasn’t actually made smaller.

You change a design when you have something new that works better. If the essential concept is still sound, and maybe even superior to whatever alternative available, then you need only tweak it or freshen it up some. Evidently Apple reasoned the current design was still the best option functionally, and to appeal to the greatest number of potential customers, so they opted to simply refine it. They weren’t going to fix what they felt still worked better than whatever else was available.

I have no doubt they studied other concepts such as having the whole computer in back and nothing but display with thin bezels visible in front—essentially an oversized iPad Pro on a pedestal. But obviously they concluded they couldn’t get the functionality they wanted in an oversized iPad on a pedestal. Apple’s function criteria overrode aesthetic considerations, in terms of what a more vocal group of Apple devotees were clamouring for.

One can disagree with their choices, but Apple’s overall batting average over the years is pretty damn good.

 

[Station Grey]

OK, I've had a quick and simple stab and what *I* think they should've done

Sure, keep the colours, no problem. Keep the same colours even, just make sure they're ether bold or pastel, not both. Extend the colour around the whole frame and match the stand. Maybe taper the stand slightly, optional extra.

As for the side, I don't care at all. But here it's twice as thick at the bottom. If it has to be thicker still, so be it. I've never once looked at the side of mine.

(This isn't all the colours, btw, just some. I did orange too, looks really nice. Oh, and I added dark grey).

We can have a poll now

https://imgur.com/94i6MWH

https://imgur.com/vs192CJ

https://imgur.com/R4nGRTo

 

[Warped9]

^^ What you’ve done is affirm what so many others have commented on—gotten rid of the chin. I do like the coloured bezels. Otherwise it looks pretty much like what everyone else is doing.

The nothing-but-display look with really thin bezels is clean and futuristic looking, but there could well be functional compromises in such a design. For one I don’t think Apple could have had the built-in audio capability they wanted so the customer would have to connect to external audio by wire or wireless. It’s possible later tech advancements could allow for a nothing-but-display design while achieving all functionality ctiteria.

Other PC AIOs have opted for a wedge or rectangular shaped box hidden in back to get their nothing-but-display design.

 

[Station Grey]

^^ What you’ve done is affirm what so many others have commented on—gotten rid of the chin. I do like the coloured bezels.

The nothing-but-display look with really thin bezels is clean and futuristic looking, but there could well be functional compromises in such a design. For one I don’t think Apple could have had the built-in audio capability they wanted so the customer would have to connect to external audio by wire or wireless. It’s possible later tech advancements could allow for a nothing-but-display design while achieving all functionality ctiteria.

Like everyone else on here, I have no knowledge of their specific engineering issues and limitations. But given that there's so little actually inside the new model, I can't believe it couldn't have been arranged differently.

My current 2017 5k iMac is around 3x thicker, and looks perfectly thin and sleek to me (I had to look just now as I'd never normally see the back of course!) - surely, surely, they could fit the new internals in there and still lose the chin?

 

[Stephen.R]

Like everyone else on here, I have no knowledge of their specific engineering issues and limitations. But given that there's so little actually inside the new model, I can't believe it couldn't have been arranged differently.

They apparently have six speakers in that chin.

Took me all of 2 minutes to find that information on the iMac page.

How is this not common knowledge amongst the “why chin?” posts, a week after it’s announced?

 

[Stephen.R]

I've had a quick and simple stab and what *I* think they should've done

now do one with a forehead, to house those speakers.

 

[Warped9]

Using a convex design in back, like on the current iMac, could have allowed for a thin side profile and a nothing-but-display in front, but not the audio capability Apple wanted.

I’m sure, even if the forthcoming larger iMac meets tech spec expectations, there will be those still bummed out over the exterior design—because I don’t think the larger iMac will look radically different than the current 24in. as it wouldn’t make any sense cost wise

 

[Station Grey]

They apparently have six speakers in that chin.

View attachment 1765105
Took me all of 2 minutes to find that information on the iMac page.

How is this not common knowledge amongst the “why chin?” posts, a week after it’s announced?

So? I wasn't aware that there was any confusion about that.

 

[Station Grey]

Using a convex design in back, like on the current iMac, could have allowed for a thin side profile and a nothing-but-display in front, but not the audio capability Apple wanted.

I’m sure, even if the forthcoming larger iMac meets tech spec expectations, there will be those still bummed out over the exterior design—because I don’t think the larger iMac will look radically different than the current 24in. as it wouldn’t make any sense cost wise

Yeah, the convex shape probably wouldn't work. But there's no specific need for that, just a deeper rectangular shape would be ok.

I do hope there is a different design for the larger one... seems more likely that there won't be, but I hold out hope!

 

[Michael Scrip]

It's nice that the entry-level iMac is finally getting some attention.

Nobody talked about the old 21.5" 1080p iMac this much... 53 pages and counting...