Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I disagree with this. My reason being that what I like about HD video is pixel for pixel matching with the resolution of a screen. So for example a 24" imac has a resolution of 1920 x 1200 and a blu-ray video has a res of 1920 x 1080 so it looks great an un-stretched on a 24" monitor.

My monitor is 1280 x 1024 and dvds do look stretched on it and 720p looks perfect and the resolution matches my monitors pixel width (1280 x 720). However 1080p video would be overkill, but it is not to do with screen size in my opinion.

Thank you for educating me. This makes sense and I understand what you are saying :). I just don't think it is worth paying extra for BluRay player in iMac. I don't want price hikes on iMac's right now.
 
I'm in the market right now for a new 24" iMac and have NO PROBLEM with the ones that are currently available and even those are more than adequate to fulfill my needs. However, I don't necessarily need the computer right this moment but the anticipation is killing me.

I nearly went out and bought a Mac Mini to hold me over because I've got a really nice 22" monitor.

Anyways I hope that I/we hear something soon!
 
I really do not think that the new iMac will have a quad core. If this where to happen then it would eat into the mac pro quad core line up.


I don't think so, considering that the Clarksfield is MUCH, MUCH slower than the Xeon Quad.
If only Apple would give us a Lynnfield in the iMac, THEN you would have a point. I wish Apple would offer a Lynnfield in a tower for $1500....but no, it's more important to make the new iMac thinner and prettier. :(

This concedes a HUGE market to Dell, HP and others. Soon I will buying my first PC for precisely this reason.
 
makes sense. but will apple have an iMac lineup in which the low-end models have a higher clockspeed than the high-end models? will they trust consumers to look beyond that number?
I think so. After the netburst disaster most consumers are now comfortable with clock speed != performance. They will likely just emphasize the Quad-Core i7 in their literature.
 
Originally Posted by NeverhadaPC
You must not have watched HD content on an Samsung 8000 series LED HDTV (1080p). It is AMAZING!

Though on an iPod or a smaller TV (42 and less) I find that HD content is overkill.

does it not make more sense that on a 17" MBP 1920*1200 HD content will be at its best because the pixels are packed as tight as possible... whereas on a 42" TV the pixels are stretched a bit more therefore resulting in a loss (very slight, but if you sit in front of your TV about 2 foot away you could see the stretch, whereas on a 17" MBP it would be next to perfect? :D
 
I would suspect the option to be in the $150-$200 price bracket for Apple considering it will have to be a slot loader and depending on the speed.

That's 10+% increase in price on current iMac prices... add in the Apple-Care and you suddenly have a $2500-3000 iMac.

I think the iMac is meant to be for those who do not want to spend on a Mac Pro and is willing to compromise performance and price. $3000 is not compromising price
 
That's 10+% increase in price on current iMac prices... add in the Apple-Care and you suddenly have a $2500-3000 iMac.

I think the iMac is meant to be for those who do not want to spend on a Mac Pro and is willing to compromise performance and price. $3000 is not compromising price
I would only see it as a BTO option. The Mac Pro would also have to get this option at least at the same time.
 
That's 10+% increase in price on current iMac prices... add in the Apple-Care and you suddenly have a $2500-3000 iMac.

I think the iMac is meant to be for those who do not want to spend on a Mac Pro and is willing to compromise performance and price. $3000 is not compromising price

iMacs used to be well into the 2k nearing 3k limit at one time
 
All this Blu ray talk again?!

Sheeeeeeeeeez.

Blu-Ray is a STILLBORN technology, how many times do I have to say it?

Apple is more than wise to steer clear from that ridiculous bag of hurt, as its added value and benefits are marginal, its costs high, its usefulness in computers close to nonexistent and its licensing+DRM schemes simply ludicrous.

Just add quad-core, a thinner enclosure if possible, a newer GPU, perhaps media reader ports and more default RAM/HD...nothing else is needed to what is already the best desktop lineup on Earth.

BLU-RAY IS DEAD. MS IS DEAD.
 
I really do not think that the new iMac will have a quad core. If this where to happen then it would eat into the mac pro quad core line up. So until they are updated (6 core) then we will not likely see a quad iMac. Blue Ray would be nice

The Mac Pro line starts at $2,499. Apples least expensive quad core. :eek:

How can a $1,100 iMac eat into the sales of a $2,499 workstation for a completely different user group ? I can't believe Apple won't offer an affordable quad core two years after they've been available.
 
I don't really see how a quad 1.66 Ghz can eat into a quad 2.66 Ghz lineup.

The only reason I say this is that the price difference will likely be only 300-500 dollars difference with out a monitor, which honestly most people have. Why would not spend the extra money to get some upgrade ability.

top of the line iMac only 2199.00 vs 2499.00 MP
 
What about us consumers who have Blu-ray movies? Ever since I got a Playstation 3, I have been buying all my movies in the Blu-ray format. I have no (simple, quick, and easy) way to rip the Blu-rays to my iPhone or iMac.

So you want a blu-ray disc released on ALL iMacs so that you can "rip" your "HD" discs to watch on an "iPhone"?

You fall in the other 20%.

I am 100% positive the iMac or any Mac for that matter won't have blu-ray before 2010.
 
iMacs used to be well into the 2k nearing 3k limit at one time

I know (I bought one back then) but that was back then. Now is now. iMacs have been reduced recently to compete better with other PCs. I think another price cut will come from Apple on Oct. 20th.

No way will they increase prices. That is business-nonsense and apple suicide :eek:
 
Blu-Ray is a STILLBORN technology, how many times do I have to say it?

Apple is more than wise to steer clear from that ridiculous bag of hurt, as its added value and benefits are marginal, its costs high, its usefulness in computers close to nonexistent and its licensing+DRM schemes simply ludicrous.

BLU-RAY IS DEAD. MS IS DEAD.

Do you know what the word stillborn means ? It doesn't matter how many times you say it. It's still absurd.

Put the bong down and very slowly walk away.
 
piggly sum' b****

beep.

ah you're startin to piss me off, you little piggly sum' b****. call me!

i'm not buying another mac til they get blu-ray. i only have one, got it two years ago with the release of leopard, but still. it has to happen. enough people want it. no one cares about you people who don't want it. blu-ray is the future, and i'm not gonna buy another mac only to watch them come out with one that has blu-ray 6 months later. though i hope this addition is sooner than later, as i'm looking to get a laptop next semester. come on apple! you're killing me!
 
Many consumers are buying HD cameras now. iMovie can handle HD content. How does Apple expect consumers to ever move their finished videos off the Mac? The Mac has become an HD video "black hole".

About the only option is to buy a third party blu-ray burner

This has been my issue too. I can't burn finished HD content created on my iMac to a format for HD playback on a Blu-ray player.
 
That's 10+% increase in price on current iMac prices... add in the Apple-Care and you suddenly have a $2500-3000 iMac.

I think the iMac is meant to be for those who do not want to spend on a Mac Pro and is willing to compromise performance and price. $3000 is not compromising price

Thank god you don’t make decisions for Apple. Otherwise we would have never had DVD (1999) or DVD-R (2002) drives in consumer Macs years before the bulk of the PC industry.

They were priced similarly to the current Blu-ray drives at the time they were introduced to the iMac line. In fact, Apple’s slot-loading DVD drive might have been one of the first in the industry. It was the first I’d ever heard of.
 
makes sense. but will apple have an iMac lineup in which the low-end models have a higher clockspeed than the high-end models? will they trust consumers to look beyond that number?

Easy. Look at TV's claiming a dynamic contrast ratio of 50,000 - i.e. it's really 10,000 but it shifts the range that 10,000 is plucked from according to the picture on screen.

Apple could sell this as a dynamic CPU with up to 3+ GHz for power and it drops down to <2GHz to conserve power. Just like selling a hybrid car, eh?
 
Do you know what the word stillborn means ? It doesn't matter how many times you say it. It's still absurd.

Put the bong down and very slowly walk away.

Probably YOU don't know what it means, so here it is:

stillborn |ˈstilˌbôrn|
adjective
(of an infant) born dead.
• figurative (of a proposal or plan) having failed to develop or succeed; unrealized : the proposed wealth tax was stillborn.

That's what Blu-Damn-Ray is: a technology that FAILED TO SUCCEED, period.
 
So you want a blu-ray disc released on ALL iMacs so that you can "rip" your "HD" discs to watch on an "iPhone"?

You fall in the other 20%.

I am 100% positive the iMac or any Mac for that matter won't have blu-ray before 2010.

lol rip your HD discs to put on an iPhone.. i thought this was pretty funny too, the iPhone has a resolution (width) equivalent to a non-HD American television ... try tv rips or try downloading on iTunes... although i dont like wasting money on iTunes so download Handbrake and rip your regular DVDs for good quality on the iPhone

surprised nobody is mentioning the potential new keyboard and mouse? im saving my student loan pennies hoping they will release some new gobsmackingingly awesome mouse and keyboard lol :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.