i is for irony

[WebHead]

Apple's success has been built on simplicity, on insulating the user from the complexity going on beneath the surface, with a smooth, sleek outer shell for hardware and software.

So "isn't it ironic" that the iMac, which heralded their break away from beige boxes and back into innovation, was designed around exposing its messy innards in all their glory?

I personally loved the design, but more recently it's occurred to me it runs counter to Apple's philosophy.

(I did also like how the "pinstripes" of the original iMac blended in with the same in Mac OS X)

 

[darkpaw]

The "i" in "iMac" stood for "internet". Steve Jobs said on stage that people wanted an easy way to get online.

Seeing into the computer's innards was a selling point, and he made a big deal of showing it off, getting the mobile cameraman to circle the iMac twice.

Apple's later success - after the introduction of the iMac - is based on simplicity, yes, and that was built on Mac OS X, then iOS, macOS etc. The iMac didn't ship with Mac OS X.

 

[WebHead]

The "i" in "iMac" stood for "internet". Steve Jobs said on stage that people wanted an easy way to get online.

Seeing into the computer's innards was a selling point, and he made a big deal of showing it off, getting the mobile cameraman to circle the iMac twice.

Apple's later success - after the introduction of the iMac - is based on simplicity, yes, and that was built on Mac OS X, then iOS, macOS etc. The iMac didn't ship with Mac OS X.

Yes, I know the "i" stood for "internet", was just making another point.

I'd also argue that Apple's design philosophy was simplicity from the start, not just since the iMac. Classic Mac OS was always more user-friendly than Windows, and the Mac was always "the computer for the rest of us".

 

[Starfia]

So "isn't it ironic" that the iMac, which heralded their break away from beige boxes and back into innovation, was designed around exposing its messy innards in all their glory?

I personally loved the design, but more recently it's occurred to me it runs counter to Apple's philosophy.

I think you're right about Apple's longtime philosophy. (Don't forget "it just works," as well.)

But I'd say the idea of "exposing the innards" was consistent with it, not contrary. No one at Apple (certainly not Steve) claimed that all of computing was simple; the idea was that Apple's computers and systems took care of the complicated parts – rather than the user – and could thus expose and offer simplicity. I think the view of the engineered components seemed to represent that. It's similar to what they still do for broadcast events when they (deliberately) show a highly optimized diagram of regions of the current M-series chips, or the arranged hardware components of the current iMacs.

 

[maflynn]

So "isn't it ironic" that the iMac, which heralded their break away from beige boxes and back into innovation, was designed around exposing its messy innards in all their glory?

The first iMac was bondi blue not was not transparent (a tad translucent). It wasn't designed around exposing the internals but rather providing a low cost, easy to use all in one computer for the home user.

 

[WebHead]

The first iMac was bondi blue not was not transparent (a tad translucent). It wasn't designed around exposing the internals but rather providing a low cost, easy to use all in one computer for the home user.
View attachment 2542788

I dunno, seems like a conscious design choice to me. Otherwise why not just make it fully opaque?

My favourite was actually the later Graphite one that was most transparent!

 

[maflynn]

My favourite was actually the later Graphite one that was most transparent!

Yes, a later model was transparent, but the model that heralded the move away from beige boxes was not. I guess I'm just don't see the irony in what you posted.

 

[WebHead]

Yes, a later model was transparent, but the model that heralded the move away from beige boxes was not. I guess I'm just don't see the irony in what you posted.

Translucent, transparent, whatever. You can still see the insides. Which I still consider anti-Apple-elegance (even thought it was attention-getting and influenced the whole industry again).

But you are entitled to disagree!

 

[WebHead]

Another example of irony...

IBM sold its PC division to Lenovo in 2005.

Apple put Intel inside Macs in 2006.

So from that point until the transition to Apple Silicon, Apple made "IBM compatibles" and IBM didn't!

 

[bluespark]

Part of the point was that the visible components were still simple and beautiful, and thus in line with Apple's focus on elegant simplicity. I recall some comparisons at the time of Apple's elegant, thoughtful arrangements, and the often-chaotic and thrown-together look of many PCs. So I agree with other posters that Apple's approach was consistent with its philosophy and therefore not ironic.

 

[DaveEcc]

Another example of irony...

IBM sold its PC division to Lenovo in 2005.

Apple put Intel inside Macs in 2006.

So from that point until the transition to Apple Silicon, Apple made "IBM compatibles" and IBM didn't!

Well, technically, what IBM sold before 2005 weren't IBM compatibles either.

 

[WebHead]

Well, technically, what IBM sold before 2005 weren't IBM compatibles either.

They weren't? Oh well, still ironic I guess.

(As an aside, my first Mac had an IBM chip inside: Power Mac 7200/75 with PPC 601)