By a mile, the most common argument for a headless iMac is "folks don't want to have to replace their monitor" Let's make the assumption that iMac buyers trade-up every three years... Three years ago the standard monitor was just becoming a 17" CRT. In fact, the iMacs were still 15". So if iMacs of 2001 had've been headless, who would now be buying a new iMac and keeping their old outdated monitor? My other argument is, when you sell your three year old headless iMac... who buys a computer without a monitor?? Or do you take a loss, and trade it? Hanging onto monitors is pretty rare. Especially among prosumers who always want the best. And look at all the secondhand PC ads. How many do you see without a monitor?? Not many. Maybe the Mac crowd is different... maybe in the PowerMac market, but I just can't imagine it in the majority of the iMac market. The only time I've ever kept a monitor is when I've upgraded the internals of a PC. i.e replaced motherboard, memory cpu and hdd. How often are you going to do that with any Mac? There are some good arguments out there for a headless Mac (eg simpler form factor reduces cost; 3rd party monitor reduces cost; reduced cost means more possibility of appealing to corporate market; have a wireless monitor or TV etc) But the most popular argument here (which seems to be dominated by techies), wanting to hang onto your monitor, just doesn't hold water for the majority. Apple may choose to release a headless iMac in September, but it won't be because people want to hang on to their old outdated monitor. edit: I've got three computers in my house (see below) and none of them are headless. In fact, the iMac was bought specifically because it wasn't headless.