Bloomberg: Face ID for iMac Likely Pushed Back to Second Iteration of Upcoming Redesign

[otternonsense]

Oh, I see where you're coming from. Your expectations with respect to new computer designs has to do with cosmetics, perhaps different shapes, materials, etc. Square corners instead of rounded. Perhaps titanium instead of aluminum cases. Or a breakthrough resulting in a smaller "chin." Or maybe a Surface Studio-like design that looks wowy, but performs poorly and has been rejected by the market. Or...maybe a fancy new articulating swivel stand for the current iMac! And if Intel boasts yearly 5% improvements in performance with dreadful thermals limiting new physical design potential to a smaller chin, well, that's OK.

Having low performance expectations is fine. That has enticed millions of Apple customers over the years.

Personally, I'm looking forward to significant year-over-year CPU and graphics performance improvements and new processing features realized in proprietary silicon that Apple's M-series cpus and Johny Srouji's design engineers promise. That they also offer superior thermals and power dissipation means new physical designs will emerge and not be limited to square corners, smaller chins, new stand, and new case materials.

Oh we sure see where YOU are coming from; forcing assumptions, belittling dissent and shifting blame by any whataboutist means necessary. I don't know why you're so militant in deflecting any and all criticism towards Apple but give it a rest. It's clear as day that when it comes to the Mac Apple has been sitting on their hands occasionally dropping stillborn "innovations" so ill-conceived they're being rolled back one by one. The M1 is the first good breakthrough to have come in years

For one thing: yes, what made the Surface Studio special wasn't the choice of material but the swivel mechanism, awesome viewing angles, touch, experimental new I/O etc. Was more like an iMac G4 successor than anything Apple put out in the market in the last decade. And for another: yes, the "wowy" factor, aesthetic value and product/industrial design matter! It's APPLE we're talking about and it's part of what made the Mac a household name. Who are you again to dismiss these qualities of a product as tertiary concerns? And why do you present it as an either or?

Now, your last "personally" paragraph reads like a wishful thinking infomercial for Johny whatshisface and his engineers. Who, by the way, do "Silicon and hardware technologies including batteries, application processors, storage controllers, sensors silicon, display silicon and other chipsets" as per his profile. That's fine and dandy; but who does product and industrial design these days? And who will sign off the final product? Tim? The same Tim who was more invested in the DJ jamming on the touch strip than anything else about that doomed computer? Whom Jony Ive publicly outed as totally disinterested in design and engineering (which is no big secret at Apple)? Who tried to prop the iPad as a viable Mac replacement and asked the world "what's a computer"? Who didn't even seem to know what was happening during the unveiling event of the Mac Pro? Who is capable of milking the same tooling literally forever?

I don't care what you think you know. After all this stagnating and wonky "innovation", the proof better be in the pudding and Apple better deliver.

Over and out.

 

[otternonsense]

Mr. Nonesne...try and relax. Deep breaths.

Typical. When the arguments end, the snark begins.

 

[citysnaps]

Typical. When the arguments end, the snark begins.

Yet at the end of your post you replied with: "Over and out". Funny.

And before that you were so off-base and presumptuous with your reply, not taking issue with any of my points, and instead coming off angry, and... snarky.

If you want to refute my points about the move to Apple silicon opening up loads of opportunity for significant year-over-year performance increases, AND just as importantly, new product physical design opportunities due to the much lower power dissipation along with increased levels of integration (which is what's holding Apple back on physical design), then have at it. But please, hold back the thinly veiled anger/snark, and address the points directly.

 

[otternonsense]

Yet at the end of your post you replied with: "Over and out". Funny.

And before that you were so off-base and presumptuous with your reply, not taking issue with any of my points, and instead coming off angry, and... snarky.

If you want to refute my points about the move to Apple silicon opening up loads of opportunity for significant year-over-year performance increases, AND just as importantly, new product physical design opportunities due to the much lower power dissipation along with increased levels of integration (which is what's holding Apple back on physical design), then have at it. But please, hold back the thinly veiled anger/snark, and address the points directly.

Sure, and you chose to focus on the last phrase out of the whole essay I wrote.

Nothing I wrote to you was off base. You went "oh so all you care about are the looks of a computer" on top of what I said, which I refuted. Happy to argue in good faith but you don't get to twist what I wrote to fit your narrative.

Anyway.

These are indeed awesome product design opportunities thanks to the properties of the new chipsets. Fact. Was anybody stopping Apple reworking product lines like the iMac since 2013 with the available components at the time tho? Was Intel holding Cook's yoga mat hostage? Was Apple even aware there was a gross problem with their Mac decisions unless users were so vocal?

The new chipsets rock, I just don't have faith in Apple's product design team to explore and deliver because
1) Top level leadership demonstrably shows no interest in design and is not equipped to give them guidance
2) Long term lack of care for the Mac product family and user needs
3) No designer in chief since Ive left (whether latter is good or bad is debatable)
4) Years of ad nauseam repetition / iteration on existing product lines with few pet favorites by management

 

[George Dawes]

I’m more bothered about no fans and smaller chin

 

[citysnaps]

Sure, and you chose to focus on the last phrase out of the whole essay I wrote.

Nothing I wrote to you was off base. You went "oh so all you care about are the looks of a computer" on top of what I said, which I refuted. Happy to argue in good faith but you don't get to twist what I wrote to fit your narrative.

Anyway.

These are indeed awesome product design opportunities thanks to the properties of the new chipsets. Fact. Was anybody stopping Apple reworking product lines like the iMac since 2013 with the available components at the time tho? Was Intel holding Cook's yoga mat hostage? Was Apple even aware there was a gross problem with their Mac decisions unless users were so vocal?

The new chipsets rock, I just don't have faith in Apple's product design team to explore and deliver because
1) Top level leadership demonstrably shows no interest in design and is not equipped to give them guidance
2) Long term lack of care for the Mac product family and user needs
3) No designer in chief since Ive left (whether latter is good or bad is debatable)
4) Years of ad nauseam repetition / iteration on existing product lines with few pet favorites by management

Laptop/destop computer physical design is *significantly* driven by CPU/GPU power dissipation. And the ability to efficiently remove generated heat.

The Intel CPUs used in i7 iMacs generate around 100 watts under normal computing loads and can peak to around 150 watts in turbo mode. Apple's M1 CPU (which includes graphics processing) runs at about 10 watts, peaking to around 30 watts. And offers much better compute performance.


Looking specifically at the Mac Mini computer as an example: The 2018 6-core Intel i7 Mini under full load generates 122 watts producing a thermal energy output of 417 BTU/hour. Apple's 2020 M1 Mini peaks at 39 watts producing a thermal energy output 133 BTU/hour. The difference is huge, and offers far greater physical design options. With the new Mini offering much better processing performance.

Apple's progress has been shackled by Intel, both in terms of thermals and performance. Now that Apple is not beholden to Intel anymore expect more frequent updates with significant performance improvements every year. Gone are the days of 5% per year increases in performance.

With respect to points 1), 2), 3), 4)... Only #4 has some merit. And that is driven by the above physical properties and limitations. With respect to 1,2,3 I could not disagree more. That's simply personal opinion not substantiated by facts. Apple's huge R&D commitment to M-series CPU development and software tools going back many years, recent releases, along with new upcoming 2021 Mac designs speaks to 1 & 2. Regarding #3, not true, Evans Hankey and Alan Dye are in charge of design.

 

[Techwatcher]

I dont care about faceid. My Apple Watch can unlock my mac.

So you'll always have your watch on while on your iMac?

 

[Techwatcher]

What makes you think that it's a problem? They could've done it 4 years ago, but... why would they? They'll have enough "new" features to sell this year and they'll make next year all about face id. That's a genius marketing move.

Sure but it's also 2021. Time to just get it done.

 

[MikeyUnix]

Who is breaking into your house with a latex mask of your face? If it ain't Tom Cruise then it ain't happening! Unless you got some state level secret that some nefarious party is after, I reckon you're gonna be just fine.

You do realise that the security was not raised by myself, but I responded to a post where someone stated they wanted Face ID to keep their data safe, when in fact its less safe than using a password, hence Apple have new patents to work on making Face ID safer, which is probably why they are not putting it on the first M1X or M2 iMac

 

[smoking monkey]

You do realise that the security was not raised by myself, but I responded to a post where someone stated they wanted Face ID to keep their data safe, when in fact its less safe than using a password, hence Apple have new patents to work on making Face ID safer, which is probably why they are not putting it on the first M1X or M2 iMac

And I'm saying it doesn't matter. FaceID is plenty safe enough for the vast majority of users.

Besides, your musings about why Apple didn't put/isn't putting FaceID on Macs is quite silly and proves I was responding to the right person! haha.