Change my mind: The iMac is outdated.

[ruslan120]

Instead of producing an iMac and Mac Mini, Apple should offer standalone displays that allow for Mac Mini mounts on the back.

1. Screens: 23.5”, 27”, 32” varieties. Mid range, $800-$2K in price.
2. Stop selling the iMac.
3. Increase the size of the Mac Mini (slightly) and add a thermal solution to allow for a discrete GPU and improve performance.

The Mac Mini and iMac are similar in terms of components, with slight variances that can be eliminated (port configurations, thermals, etc).

This would allow for better reusability of hardware and more display sales.

Edit:
Another idea: add a Thunderbolt 3 port to the front of the Mac Mini and mount it downwards into the display, leaving rear IO open.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

I would change your mind by considering the actual customer, rather than what would appear to make 'sense' from a technological standpoint.

Case in point - the small business that operates in an office next door to my own space has just ordered seven 21.5" iMacs. Why? Because for their productivity needs they're going to save money in the long run versus the update costs of Win-PCs; the screen size is ideal for their needs; they each require only one cable (power); and they have Bootcamp.

By your logic, eliminating the iMac would mean that if the customer was still willing to go to Mac, the cost and physical space required for such a setup would be a step backwards.

Also consider the problem with designing a mount-hinge with the added weight and space taken by a computer essentially attached, which isn't a problem with the iMac due to the counterbalancing effect of the spring-arm.

 

[Plutonius]

Instead of producing an iMac and Mac Mini, Apple should offer standalone displays that allow for Mac Mini mounts on the back.

1. Screens: 23.5”, 27”, 32” varieties. Mid range, $800-$2K in price.
2. Stop selling the iMac.
3. Increase the size of the Mac Mini (slightly) and add a thermal solution to allow for a discrete GPU and improve performance.

The Mac Mini and iMac are similar in terms of components, with slight variances that can be eliminated (port configurations, thermals, etc).

This would allow for better reusability of hardware and more display sales.

Edit:
Another idea: add a Thunderbolt 3 port to the front of the Mac Mini and mount it downwards into the display, leaving rear IO open.

Will this increase Apple's profits ?

If not it will not happen.

 

[Abazigal]

I was listening to a recent “Mac Power Users” podcast” featuring Sara Dietschy and while she uses a windows desktop for work, she has an iMac in her (very small and expensive) apartment. She loves the all-in-one setup and how little space it takes up and I think that’s what Apple is trying to go with here.

For many consumers, the iMac has a gorgeous display, is dead simple to set up and fairly compact.

I believe the iMac remains fairly popular amongst consumers for these reasons. Conversely, it’s the people desiring an xMac who are in the minority, noisy as they may be here on these forums.

 

[mightyjabba]

I'm not actually that much of a fan of the iMac these days, and personally would prefer the idea of having a modular screen + computer. But it will probably never happen for a couple of reasons. It may seem cynical, but Apple would prefer to sell you a whole new computer with a screen attached every few years, than allow you to buy a nice display and then just change out the attached computer. And they prefer the all-in-one aesthetic. They redesigned the already-thin iMac so it would be even thinner, so I have trouble imagining them switching to a screen with a computer glommed on the back.

 

[MistrSynistr]

I was listening to a recent “Mac Power Users” podcast” featuring Sara Dietschy and while she uses a windows desktop for work, she has an iMac in her (very small and expensive) apartment. She loves the all-in-one setup and how little space it takes up and I think that’s what Apple is trying to go with here.

For many consumers, the iMac has a gorgeous display, is dead simple to set up and fairly compact.

I believe the iMac remains fairly popular amongst consumers for these reasons. Conversely, it’s the people desiring an xMac who are in the minority, noisy as they may be here on these forums.

These YouTubers need to get smart. Their chunk of change from that gimmick will not last.

 

[Ledgem]

Case in point - the small business that operates in an office next door to my own space has just ordered seven 21.5" iMacs. Why? Because for their productivity needs they're going to save money in the long run versus the update costs of Win-PCs; the screen size is ideal for their needs; they each require only one cable (power); and they have Bootcamp.

By your logic, eliminating the iMac would mean that if the customer was still willing to go to Mac, the cost and physical space required for such a setup would be a step backwards.

They bought iMacs with the intention of primarily using them as Windows machines? That strikes me as a really odd decision to make. The only way that's cost-competitive is if you factor in the costs of the screens. Even then, it's only cost-competitive as a one-time purchase. Depending on your hardware and display needs, buying a brand new iMac vs. upgrading a computer and keeping the same monitor can quickly become more expensive if going with iMacs after as little as one or two upgrades.

All-in-ones also increase the likelihood of catastrophic failure. My own iMac - the first one I ever purchased - is developing screen failure (pink fringing on the edges) and had a few small insects crawl into the display and die. First time I've ever had problems like this with a display, and of course, these problems occurred after my extended AppleCare ran out. Yet I had maxed out the internal components, hoping that I'd be one of those people crowing about having a Mac that was ten years old. The system is still going strong, but at this rate my display will be the thing that prevents me from using the computer. Wouldn't have been an issue if the computer and display were separate.

On the business end I wonder if people also came to a similar conclusion. I work in the hospital and clinic settings, and over the years I've worked in small to huge institutions. In general, these places go for computer boxes (some of which are incredibly small, minimal desktop footprint) and upgrade the monitors separately. Yet one hospital where I worked was, for a while, replacing their computers with all-in-one systems (from Lenevo, I believe). Space is tight at these places, so you'd think that would make sense. Modern medical centers require computers for nearly every little thing that happens, and yet they're placing workstations in floor plans and layouts that were made back when computers were a novelty and people still did everything on paper. Yet they ultimately continued upgrading the standard computer boxes, and they're the only hospital that I've seen even try the all-in-one approach. (Realistically, there probably wasn't any decision made based on upkeep or failures; they probably received a better volume licensing deal, and they got a better deal on a different set of systems during the next cycle.)

I wish Apple would create the "xMac" and I don't think it has to come in place of the iMac. I'm sure Apple can also design it to be a seamless, beautiful thing. Yet I also don't think that they'd do it. Consider that other PC makers also produce all-in-one systems, but when is the last time you saw one in a store, or heard of anyone buying one? It doesn't really register for most people, yet many people know about the iMac, which is a unique marketing advantage. By comparison, a monitor-less computer box - even if it's space grey, or has a "cheese grater" grille - isn't all that unique. It seems more like a commodity computer, which is a harder thing to stand out on. So it would become a harder sell to people who are open to buying any type of computer... and I could imagine it just confusing people who have already chosen Macs. Apple generally tries to keep their product lines simplified to three choices. For desktop Macs you have the Mac mini (which currently occupies the "entry level" slot... although for some time it seemed Apple might abandon this one), iMac (which generally contains the power options for people not wanting to pay professional-level prices), and Mac Pro. Sure, maybe Apple could view the xMac as a step above the Mac mini and think of the iMacs as a separate desktop category, but if it would eat into some of the iMac's market share, why would they? Diluting an iconic system that is selling well for one that appeals to the hardcore fanbase but does little to stand out would be a tough sell, I'd think.

 

[lJoSquaredl]

I was listening to a recent “Mac Power Users” podcast” featuring Sara Dietschy and while she uses a windows desktop for work, she has an iMac in her (very small and expensive) apartment. She loves the all-in-one setup and how little space it takes up and I think that’s what Apple is trying to go with here.

For many consumers, the iMac has a gorgeous display, is dead simple to set up and fairly compact.

I believe the iMac remains fairly popular amongst consumers for these reasons. Conversely, it’s the people desiring an xMac who are in the minority, noisy as they may be here on these forums.

Tho to be fair Sara used to be a full on Apple user but had to switch to PC for a lot of stuff cuz...well one it does well with views diversifying on YouTube but also cuz Apple was slow to update a lot of stuff. As a user of Adobe Premiere Pro she was probably feeling it a lot more than someone like me who uses FCPX.

Also the older I get the more I hate wires and noise and prefer more mobility. I love having an iMac with 1 cord available, a simple all in one solution that looks nice and sounds relatively quiet...I just wish they'd update the hardware and include hyperthreading across the board. (At least last I looked anyways only the top spec 27 inch has HT and I would only need a 21.5 for my desk)

 

[jinnyman]

With new generation of Apple users, Apple has never tried offering xMac. So nobody knows if it will work or not. iMac is successful only because Apple designed its offering that way.

Think about it, if Apple were to offer consumer grade display with very nice looking desktop, wouldn't people buy it? Of course, some will prefer AOL due to space saving feature, but unknown number of people will also prefer to use display while upgrading their xMac. It's just part of Apple's profit maximization essentially forcing people to buy another display whenever they upgrade the computer.

 

[konqerror]

By your logic, eliminating the iMac would mean that if the customer was still willing to go to Mac, the cost and physical space required for such a setup would be a step backwards.

Also consider the problem with designing a mount-hinge with the added weight and space taken by a computer essentially attached, which isn't a problem with the iMac due to the counterbalancing effect of the spring-arm.

PC makers actually listened to the business market and came up with the exact solution the OP is advocating without a space penalty, cable mess, or issues with hinges.

The huge benefit for them is that if the PC fails, gets corrupted, or needs an upgrade, it can be popped out and replaced in seconds. Likewise, the monitor can be swapped without losing data or configuration.

 

[melican]

That's clearly the better way to go from an environmental perspective.

 

[Abazigal]

With new generation of Apple users, Apple has never tried offering xMac. So nobody knows if it will work or not. iMac is successful only because Apple designed its offering that way.

Think about it, if Apple were to offer consumer grade display with very nice looking desktop, wouldn't people buy it? Of course, some will prefer AOL due to space saving feature, but unknown number of people will also prefer to use display while upgrading their xMac. It's just part of Apple's profit maximization essentially forcing people to buy another display whenever they upgrade the computer.

There are a lot of things Apple hasn't done if we want to go down that rabbit hole. Apple hasn't offered a round smartwatch, or offered macOS on the iPad, or released a folding phone. We may never really know if those were the right strategies moving forward.

A company the size of Apple will have definitely done its market research, and debated this matter internally. Personally, I feel that Apple doesn't offer an xMac because it goes against their principles of design and simplicity. The Mac mini exists as a cheaper Mac, while the Mac Pro exists because some users have needs that go beyond what a maxed out iMac Pro can provide.

I think that from Apple's perspective, there simply isn't much of a point to an xMac precisely it would be comparable to the iMac power-wise anyways. Or to put it another way, it's just not worth their time and resources to create one for a small pool of users, if the majority is still going to opt for the iMac anyways.

 

[jinnyman]

There are a lot of things Apple hasn't done if we want to go down that rabbit hole. Apple hasn't offered a round smartwatch, or offered macOS on the iPad, or released a folding phone. We may never really know if those were the right strategies moving forward.

A company the size of Apple will have definitely done its market research, and debated this matter internally. Personally, I feel that Apple doesn't offer an xMac because it goes against their principles of design and simplicity. The Mac mini exists as a cheaper Mac, while the Mac Pro exists because some users have needs that go beyond what a maxed out iMac Pro can provide.

I think that from Apple's perspective, there simply isn't much of a point to an xMac precisely it would be comparable to the iMac power-wise anyways. Or to put it another way, it's just not worth their time and resources to create one for a small pool of users, if the majority is still going to opt for the iMac anyways.

Well assumption on your part, we still don't know if Apple has traded off profit over more user.
I still think Apple's drive over AIO is to sell screen together not some kind of philosophy that AIO is good for consumer.

Also, Apple is known for making some weird choice, and in some cases, Apple is known for failure. Giving up Apple's own display offering for consumer and AirPort, and famous MP 6,1 are some of the examples. Apple opted out of displays and Apple fans back then tried to defend Apple's decision by saying they are trying to focus on the product that matters. Eventually that didn't go well, and LG's ultrafine didn't really got started (mostly due to its poor quality). Look what happened? Apple's now offering XDR. And look at its reception? The same thing can happen with xMac and consumer grade monitor. They won't do it because of profit.

As for Airport, discontinuation of the product will soon bite Apple as IOT is starting to take off. It's going to act as a central hub, and established vendors are already offering the product. Apple seems interested in the field, and I bet that we will soon see a new generation of Airport.

Well I don't have to explain MP 6,1. Apple once thought external modular is the future of computing and innovation. And Apple fans back then were defending that like zealots. We all know how that went.

You see, based on track record, I don't think some of Apple's decision is based on reaslly thought out internal research and vision. Apple's the same corporation like other company that sometimes screw up their decision.

 

[Abazigal]

Well assumption on your part, we still don't know if Apple has traded off profit over more user.
I still think Apple's drive over AIO is to sell screen together not some kind of philosophy that AIO is good for consumer.

Also, Apple is known for making some weird choice, and in some cases, Apple is known for failure. Giving up Apple's own display offering for consumer and AirPort, and famous MP 6,1 are some of the examples. Apple opted out of displays and Apple fans back then tried to defend Apple's decision by saying they are trying to focus on the product that matters. Eventually that didn't go well, and LG's ultrafine didn't really got started (mostly due to its poor quality). Look what happened? Apple's now offering XDR. And look at its reception? The same thing can happen with xMac and consumer grade monitor. They won't do it because of profit.

As for Airport, discontinuation of the product will soon bite Apple as IOT is starting to take off. It's going to act as a central hub, and established vendors are already offering the product. Apple seems interested in the field, and I bet that we will soon see a new generation of Airport.

Well I don't have to explain MP 6,1. Apple once thought external modular is the future of computing and innovation. And Apple fans back then were defending that like zealots. We all know how that went.

You see, based on track record, I don't think some of Apple's decision is based on reaslly thought out internal research and vision. Apple's the same corporation like other company that sometimes screw up their decision.

With regards to IoT, it thought it was fairly obvious that from Apple’s perspective, their hub would be the iPhone, given that they have sold so many. It makes no sense to base your smart home strategy over a low volume product like the airport express, and other companies are doing so only because they have zero smartphone presence, not because a router is necessarily the best solution moving forward.

As for Apple’s decision to get out of the monitor business, while there will be people upset by this move, it’s ultimately Apple’s right to do so, no?

At the end of the day, Apple seems to have decided that certain product categories are more worth their time and resources compared to other products and who is to say whether they are right or wrong really?

 

[jinnyman]

With regards to IoT, it thought it was fairly obvious that from Apple’s perspective, their hub would be the iPhone, given that they have sold so many. It makes no sense to base your smart home strategy over a low volume product like the airport express, and other companies are doing so only because they have zero smartphone presence, not because a router is necessarily the best solution moving forward.

Perhaps you are talking about the user interface control part. iPhone is that, but not the hub. Are you going to connect, for example, home devices to iPhone? by what? yes. through an airport. As this starts to take off, it's pretty obvious that Apple will come up with a new kind of Airport if Apple want to control the trend.

As for Apple’s decision to get out of the monitor business, while there will be people upset by this move, it’s ultimately Apple’s right to do so, no?

At the end of the day, Apple seems to have decided that certain product categories are more worth their time and resources compared to other products and who is to say whether they are right or wrong really?

I'm not questioning a corporation's decision making right here. As consumer, I'm criticizing their decision. I'm just pointing out the fact that Apple's decisions are not perfect, and that may be the case for this as well. Apple's never tried before. So who knows? As much as you insist, you are also assuming.

 

[Abazigal]

Perhaps you are talking about the user interface control part. iPhone is that, but not the hub. Are you going to connect, for example, home devices to iPhone? by what? yes. through an airport. As this starts to take off, it's pretty obvious that Apple will come up with a new kind of Airport if Apple want to control the trend.

What is an airport going to offer that an ordinary router doesn’t? There are over 900 million iPhones in use today. An airport router might sell a few million units. Most carriers give away free routers with a home internet plan these days. It makes more sense for Apple to make their HomeKit initiative work over any wireless router and have their products handle it on their own end via software, than to confine it to a product with an extremely low install base.

 

[bunnspecial]

PC makers actually listened to the business market and came up with the exact solution the OP is advocating without a space penalty, cable mess, or issues with hinges.

View attachment 886373
View attachment 886376
View attachment 886391

The huge benefit for them is that if the PC fails, gets corrupted, or needs an upgrade, it can be popped out and replaced in seconds. Likewise, the monitor can be swapped without losing data or configuration.

That's actually what I was thinking of when I read the OP.

I haven't seen any super recent ones(my department at work either gets pre-packaged computers or tends to go for more traditional towers for general use/office computers) but I have seen a bunch of those small form factor Dells with a pseudo-integrated monitor kicking around. The ones I've seen/dealt with have been older ones usually with a 17" 4:3 LCD, a "shelf" on the base to hold the computer, and a complement of short cables to hook it all up. They're handy for certain tasks since-as you pointed out-the computer and monitor can be swapped out/upgraded separately and they only have a slightly larger/deeper footprint than a 17" monitor by itself.

I guess modern interfaces have eliminated the rat's nest of wires that use to be there(and probably why I also no longer run across those annoying little foot long DVI cables at surplus).

I'd LIKE a Mac with that sort of set up, but for a lot of reasons I don't see it happening. Probably the closest we've seen to that sort of simple integrated idea was the now-discontinued Thunderbolt display when paired with a Mini, but the TB display was also showing its age by the time it was discontinued.

 

[jinnyman]

What is an airport going to offer that an ordinary router doesn’t? There are over 900 million iPhones in use today. An airport router might sell a few million units. Most carriers give away free routers with a home internet plan these days. It makes more sense for Apple to make their HomeKit initiative work over any wireless router and have their products handle it on their own end via software, than to confine it to a product with an extremely low install base.

In here you are the one being less open minded about it. By integrating a router with Apple’s inhouse feature, the possibility of what you can do with homekit can be vastly increased. At the very least, the integration of IoT is going to be so seamless experience by doing so, and such thing is Apple’s favorite mantra isn’t it? Essentially, a router is your network hub for a household. People will go out buying the stuff if what is offered is vastly superior and innovative enough for it. There are ample examples of Apple introducing the previously available product by making it right. Look at Airpod. Do you think bluetooth earphone was not available before Apple? Go back before Apple introduced Airpod, and I bet you would say the samething about a new Airpod.

 

[Spungoflex]

PC makers actually listened to the business market and came up with the exact solution the OP is advocating without a space penalty, cable mess, or issues with hinges.

View attachment 886373
View attachment 886376
View attachment 886391

The huge benefit for them is that if the PC fails, gets corrupted, or needs an upgrade, it can be popped out and replaced in seconds. Likewise, the monitor can be swapped without losing data or configuration.

Outside of an office setting, it makes less than zero sense to stuff a stand-alone PC inside a monitor. Not to mention, it just looks clunky and ugly - the exact opposite of everything Apple stands for.

I actually like the mini PCs from Dell and Lenovo, but shoving them inside a blocky plastic monitor like a thanksgiving turkey... yuck. You can’t get less Apple than that.

I would like to see a real Apple display (24” and 27”) replacing the ugly LG displays sold in Apple stores though.

 

[fuchsdh]

That's clearly the better way to go from an environmental perspective.

Only if it actually translates to a longer life for the product.

Few people have ever upgraded their computers after the fact to extend their lifespans. They use it until it's slow and then get a new one. Few use them until they break, let alone desire to fix them at that point.

 

[konqerror]

Outside of an office setting, it makes less than zero sense to stuff a stand-alone PC inside a monitor. Not to mention, it just looks clunky and ugly - the exact opposite of everything Apple stands for.

The HP model looks exactly like a normal monitor when you put the covers on. People at home put their computers against the wall. It's work where you have two people sitting on opposite sides of a desk.

I think all of the in-monitor PC solutions are going to be less clunky than a Mac mini or detached PC setup that requires three cables at minimum (2 power, 1 video), and 5 cables to match the in-monitor (webcam, soundbar).

 

[melican]

That's clearly the better way to go from an environmental perspective.

Only if it actually translates to a longer life for the product.

Few people have ever upgraded their computers after the fact to extend their lifespans. They use it until it's slow and then get a new one. Few use them until they break, let alone desire to fix them at that point.

I was thinking more about the fact that you throw away a (potentially) good monitor every time you get a new iMac. Or, if your monitor somehow breaks, you are throwing away a good computer with the bad monitor.

Personally, I'd be happy getting a new computer every 5 years and a new monitor maybe every 10 years.

 

[Sooby]

I agree that it's outdated, but I think they should stay with the all in one design and push it further to reach the format's potential. At the moment it feels like the iMac is reaching about 75% of the potential of what it could be. Various aspects of the iMac need to be redesigned to modernise it, such as:

- Significantly improved thermal performance which may require a thickening of the chassis so that noise is kept to a minimum and stronger graphics cards can be included without having to be down clocked and so that CPUs can turbo boost to higher levels. If the chassis were thickened it may also allow for higher quality speakers as well. Apple have thickened the chassis in the Mac Pro and given it better speakers, so I would like to see this in the iMac as well.
- A significantly redesigned magic mouse, which offers the same functionality but with much improved ergonomics.
- Improved webcam ~ at least 1080p 60fps, with FaceID included.
- SSD as standard. Even if they kept the fusion drive, the SSD component should be increased to 256Gb.
- 4 thunderbolt ports, so that two 5k monitors can be used. Keep all the other current ports.
- Wifi 6
- Bluetooth 5.0
- Slimmed down bezels, but not so slim that I can't mount a webcam at the top.
- Backlit keyboard.
- The ability to purchase higher end GPU options with lower end CPUs and RAM options. For example, it would have been nice if we could pair an i5, with a Vega 64 without requiring ECC ram as well.
- Further improvements to the 5k screen, such as increasing the refresh rate to 120hz. That would be an incredible advancement and would significantly improve the user experience.
- Height adjustable stand.
- T2 chip for improved security and the ability to watch 4k movies from the TV store.
- Maybe removing the 21inch option and replacing it with a 24inch retina option.

If at least some of the above improvements were made, along with standard technological improvements that always occur such as faster CPUs and faster GPUs, then the iMac would be so much better and would be reaching much more of its potential. It would also keep its simplicity, compactness and user friendliness which is what the iMac does so well.

 

[Ledgem]

What is an airport going to offer that an ordinary router doesn’t?

What Apple largely built its reputation on: a seamless user experience.

I used a few different routers before getting my first AirPort Extreme. The AirPort was easily the most stable router I'd ever used. It lacked some of the custom reporting features I had enjoyed using on my other routers, but that didn't really matter. I bought the latest AirPort Extreme (version 6) as an upgrade at one point, relegating my older version 5 as a range extender, and it was so easy to do. Setup could even be accomplished through the AirPort app on my iPhone. I connected a USB printer and a USB hard drive for Time Machine, and it all worked flawlessly with all of my Macs and iOS devices.

Unfortunately, for reasons I'm still not certain of, my AirPort Extreme 6 stopped functioning after a few years. Apple had already announced that they were stopping production by then. I could have bought another, as they were still available at that time, but I figured I'd best bite the bullet and get a high-end router from a different company. So I went with Synology, which people were comparing favorably to AirPort Extremes.

I'll keep a long story short: I had to fiddle with the settings to get networked Time Machine functionality to work reliably. It works fine now - I'm guessing it probably needed a software update from Synology, too. But my USB printer that had worked flawlessly as a network printer with my AirPort Extremes? I could never get that one working with the Synology. I ended up having to buy a "true" network printer, and even that didn't print properly without tweaking some software and driver settings. And this wasn't some fancy, multifunction printer unit; it was an HP LaserJet.

This isn't a knock on Synology. Unless Apple gets back into the router field, I intend to continue with their networking equipment. But it highlights pretty starkly what Apple was doing for their customers. It was a strength of the Apple ecosystem, that having a Mac or an iOS device meant you could easily set up your router, and that keeping with Apple's devices meant good quality and a flawless user experience for those Macs and iOS devices. It was also another brick in the "walled garden" that keeps people inside of Apple's ecosystem. Sure, you could still use your router with a Windows or Android device, but it wouldn't be quite as seamless. Routers from other brands don't go out of their way to make the experience better on Apple's devices.

Apple has been working on HomeKit for some time now, and it has the potential to be really nice. But let's face it: if I struggled to set up a networked printer in the year 2019, is a "smart home" really going to work as flawlessly as we're all expecting? If Apple were in control of more aspects of that connectivity - that is, the router - then maybe they could ensure a smoother experience, similar to how easy things were when the AirPort Extreme was the hub of my network. As it is, I anticipate things will be pretty kludgy whenever I have the chance to try them out.

(For what it's worth, I've heard that Apple also used to make their own printers, but stopped once printers became fairly straightforward... which is fair. But routers and connectivity have a lot more complexity, and it's still an area where I think Apple left prematurely.)

 

[Abazigal]

Apple has been working on HomeKit for some time now, and it has the potential to be really nice. But let's face it: if I struggled to set up a networked printer in the year 2019, is a "smart home" really going to work as flawlessly as we're all expecting? If Apple were in control of more aspects of that connectivity - that is, the router - then maybe they could ensure a smoother experience, similar to how easy things were when the AirPort Extreme was the hub of my network. As it is, I anticipate things will be pretty kludgy whenever I have the chance to try them out.

Thank you for taking the time to share your personal experience.

I am still not entirely convinced that Apple needs its own branded router to make say, HomeKit work (though I admit I am also not invested in the smart home ecosystem, unless you count using Siri to turn on the Apple TV in my living room).

It makes more sense to me for Apple to take elements of their airport router and integrate them into their existing products. For example, in the past, you could connect a speaker to an airport router and stream music to it via airplay, but that also meant limiting where you could place your speaker. Today, you can do that via the HomePod.

Though the way you make it sound, I do regret not having had the opportunity to try out the AirPort Extreme back when it was released, because it sounded like an amazing product indeed. I have pretty much always just used the router given to me by my internet provider (typically Asus brand), and they seem to work well enough for my needs. Just plug it into my ethernet jack, change the password, and I am done.