iMac: why did they discontinue the 17-incher?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Cloudsurfer, Nov 30, 2007.

  1. Cloudsurfer macrumors 65816

    Cloudsurfer

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #1
    They just got one of those new aluminum iMacs at our local Media Markt (small town, not much demand for Apple computers). It was the 20" low end version, and like it's predecessor, I think it's way too big for the casual user. In fact, I didn't go for the 20-incher last year because it simply does not fit on my small desk.

    17" is the perfect size for me; it's a small desktop computer with enough horsepower to play my favorite games. I love it. Why did Apple choose to drop it? Didn't they sell enough of those? I think a 17" aluminum model would look sweet.
     
  2. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #2
    Screens have got bigger and cheaper, most people will always take a bigger screen if given the choice and cost isn't an issue.

    The 20" screens presumably hit a cost where it just wasn't worth the expense of producing 3 different sized cases and internals.

    Sucks if you specifically like and wanted a 17", but for the vast vast amount of people, 20" is better than 17", and if it doesn't cost any more they'll take it.
     
  3. Prof. macrumors 601

    Prof.

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    #3
    So when are we going to get a 30-incher for the same price? :p
     
  4. AlexisV macrumors 68000

    AlexisV

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #4
    20" is the perfect size really. I think you need to get bigger desk if the 20" doesn't fit! The iMac has a tiny footprint, so I don't quite understand how it doesn't fit!
     
  5. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #5
    He might have a boudoir-like computer desk (such as mine) that has a shelf or whatever above where the quote monitor unquote goes. Frigging beige boxes... A 24" iMac wouldn't fit in it, and we have all this worthless wasted space down where the tower is supposed to be. Not to mention a giant hole in the back where cords and ventilation are supposed to be. Oh well. I use that space for my Mac|Life and MacWorlds. :D
     
  6. jonswan macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    #6
    I also wanted the 17 inch screen and was annoyed that they discontinued it. However, the 20 is wonderful, especially for looking at photos and watching films is like a home cinema. Yeah, I'd say go with a bigger table...
     
  7. craig1410 macrumors 65816

    craig1410

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Location:
    Scotland
    #7
    I'd say the 17" market is well covered by a Mac Mini plus third party 17" display. As has been mentioned above, I would expect the wholesale price difference between 17" and 20" displays will be minimal and certainly not worth the cost of a re-engineering exercise. I would also expect that most folks would prefer to buy a 20" if there was only, say, $50 difference which would make it difficult to sell enough units to recover the extra design costs. In fact, it is almost conceivable that the 17" could have ended up costing more than the 20" model due to lower shipping volumes!

    Craig.
     
  8. AlexisV macrumors 68000

    AlexisV

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #8
    I hate those kind of desks, which is why I got a flat top one, in frosted white glass:

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Cloudsurfer thread starter macrumors 65816

    Cloudsurfer

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #9
    It's not really a desk but a terminal table, with room for only one pc. A 20" screen would be too wide, there would be no room left for my external speakers. My desk isn't very deep either, so I'm very close to the screen when I'm typing. I'd have to turn my head to view the entire screen with a 20", but the 17" screen is completely in view.

    In other words, the 17" is perfect for me, and I'm glad I picked one up last year and didn't wait until the iMac revision.
     
  10. Leon Kowalski macrumors 6502a

    Leon Kowalski

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Location:
    Gondwanaland Reunification Front HQ
    #10
    Speculation: Not enough space in a 17" version of the "slim" aluminum-and-glare cabinet.

    ...once again, form trumps function,

    LK
     
  11. Mindflux macrumors 68000

    Mindflux

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Location:
    Austin
    #11
    That.. ORRRRRRRRRR. Nearly all PC manufacturers give (standard) 19" or better screens with their systems these days.

    I couldn't cope with a 17 after using my 19" WFP at work and my 24" iMac at home.
     
  12. CashGap macrumors 6502

    CashGap

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Location:
    Music City, USA
    #12
    I can't follow the speculation... a 17" LCD panel, 3" smaller than a 20" LCD panel, would fit in a version of the 20" improved cabinet if it were ~~ 3" smaller...

    No one ever likes to hear "The market has spoken and your niche was not heard", but that's most likely.
     
  13. Leon Kowalski macrumors 6502a

    Leon Kowalski

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Location:
    Gondwanaland Reunification Front HQ
    #13
    As you slim the cabinet down, the internal volume under the "dome" of the back cover shrinks.
    At some point, there's no longer sufficient space for disk drives, fans, power supplies, etc.
    Obviously, there's less space to begin with under a 17" dome than a 20" or 24" dome.

    LK
     
  14. CashGap macrumors 6502

    CashGap

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Location:
    Music City, USA
    #14
    LOL, OK. That one probably would have stumped the engineering team.
     
  15. Cloudsurfer thread starter macrumors 65816

    Cloudsurfer

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #15
    That sounds like a plausible explaination. If people are happy with 13" and 15", I can't see how they suddenly would hate 17" so much that Apple decides just to discontinue it.
     
  16. Prof. macrumors 601

    Prof.

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    #16
    What I don't understand is...

    If Apple can make an "All In One" design, why can't the other computer makers? (i.e. Dell, Toshiba, HP, Gateway)



    sorry for the swear words:eek:
     
  17. Italchef macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Location:
    Maple, Ontario
    #17
    Actually they have. This is the best one that I've seen. I still love my iMac but you have to love how easy it is to upgrade. What do you think?

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=393210&highlight=cnn
     
  18. Techguy172 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Ontario Canada
    #18
    Most people want bigger screens. Including me I think 20 is too small, For screens the bigger the better. If you look for a new computer it will most likely come with a 20" widescreen. Take dell for example most of their computers come with a 20" of bigger even on the cheaper ones. This is just the way technology works.
     
  19. CashGap macrumors 6502

    CashGap

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Location:
    Music City, USA
    #19

    Yep.

    Apple did the math. 17" LCD $14 less at manufacturing level than 20", with $0 additional manufacturing savings. Tooling for a third case design, $X00,000. 17" unit sales are cannibalized from 20", $150 per unit less revenue every time you sell a 17" and could have sold a 20". Gains... MAYBE an additional 1 or 2% of unit sales.

    Equals = non-starter.

    Or it could be that the engineers who designed the 15" white iMac and the 17" MBP were abducted by aliens, and the challenge of putting a 17" display in an aluminum case was more then the 20"/24" team could handle!
     
  20. gorby macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    #20
    After owning a 24", can't imagine going smaller again!

    I fear I might eventually splurge on the inevitable 30" iMac
     
  21. bobriot macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    #21
    The answer to a smaller screen is to put the imac under the desk and then buy a 15" or 17" screen and use the video out on the imac to run it. I've managed to downsize to an old tobacco sunburst IBM 10" CRT while my ugly 24" Alu iMac is hidden out of the way.
     
  22. Leon Kowalski macrumors 6502a

    Leon Kowalski

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Location:
    Gondwanaland Reunification Front HQ
    #22
    The G5 white iMacs were rectangular boxes -- no "dome" involved -- so, the maximum
    component height at any position behind the screen was constant and totally independent
    of screen size.

    ...maybe the aliens can show 'em how to stuff a 25mm x 3.5" HD into a 26mm MBP,

    LK
     
  23. RevToTheRedline macrumors 6502a

    RevToTheRedline

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    #23
    I would never do this otherwise, but if Apple dropped a 30" iMac within the next year, I'd buy it.

    That would be shweeeeet
     
  24. Prof. macrumors 601

    Prof.

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    #24
    Prolly in the next 5 years.
     
  25. Techguy172 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Ontario Canada
    #25
    A thirty Will happen eventually not for a while though.
     

Share This Page