Do you have an actual use case where this would make sense, or are you simply demanding this for the sake of the cool factor? Because cool factor alone is the worst reason ever to add a feature in.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
So why no iMac touch?
- Thread starter fusionid
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do you have an actual use case where this would make sense, or are you simply demanding this for the sake of the cool factor? Because cool factor alone is the worst reason ever to add a feature in.
There is no touch on iMacs because it is un-ergonomic (just try sitting at a desk and swipe accross your screen every few seconds for 1/2 hour and tell me your arm doesn't ache), it leaves horrible smears on the amazing 5K screen (you would spend ten minutes cleaning it every hour) and any sort of market research will show that almost everyone with a touchscreen desktop just never uses this feature due to the reasons given above.
Got to agree 100%
Touch screens are for mobile devices like cell phones and iPads.
I explained my reasons in my first post in this thread. A large part of my field of work revolves around the use of touchscreens. Using a mouse with these systems is slow and clunky. Using a trackpad with these systems is ten times worse.
I'm not "demanding" it. I'm saying it's stupid that there isn't one available from the company that is supposedly so far ahead of the curve in terms of computing. I've been an Apple fan and user since 1983. It kind of pains me that I have no choice but to go to PCs to get my job done.
Then I, and all other lighting programmers, must be Iron Man. Our systems are touchscreens. Sometimes 2-4 of them. We go many hours, some more than 12-14 at a time, programming with touchscreens, in addition to hard surface controls. Half an hour? Ha. Somehow, our arms are not in pain doing this day after day, and we don't go crazy with screen fingerprints. Right now, I'm working on a console with a 23" touchscreen, and it's awesome. My preferred system has three 15" touchscreens and an 8" touchscreen. I clean the screen once a week on average. If market research shows that almost no one uses it, then why are there so many PC touchscreen all-in-ones being made? Does only Apple understand the market (I know this is a terrible question to ask on this board).
And, this is the portable PC-based version of the console above, using a touchscreen PC. Last time I used it, with a second touchscreen added on, I didn't have to clean the screen every hour. In fact, I'm not sure I cleaned it but once every couple of days.
Oh well, I guess I'll have to stick to using a PC as the center of my system, and lose all the benefits of an iMac.
You just posted a load of pictures of custom set ups with angled screens in low positions for touch use, the only "desktop showed something where most of your work would be on a deck and has a mouse for navigating your OS etc. This is a very specific use and is not a consumer/prosumer setup in any way shape or form and must have cost a fortune to say the least. You are not being reasonable at all, but I'm sure you could replace all the PC's running this with mac pros if you wish.
Yes, the big consoles cost a fortune. That was not the point of that part. My point there was the "Oh, but your arms will hurt after 30 minutes, and your screen will be all smudgy!" whines, which are quite simply wrong. The first picture doesn't show the screens pulled up to their full height, the second is more normal. I wouldn't use them laid down like the one in the first picture. In fact, the unit I'm on now with a 23" screen is angled at only 20˚ above flat and it's annoying. I want it more like 75˚-80˚.
The mouse in the picture is because both a mouse and touchscreen are used, as I already said. I don't know why everyone keeps saying that having a touchscreen suddenly means that there is no mouse or keyboard any more. You people seem to think an iPad is the only way to use touch. The mouse is used for some stuff, but most of the action is either on the console hardware or on the touchscreen, much like...let's think about this...using a computer would be. In fact, using my laptop, I just pretended to stop typing and have to click something on my screen. Took a fraction of a second to stop typing and touch my screen. Took about a second and a half to take my hand, grab the mouse, move it to the object, and click. Multiply that by hundreds of times a day? That's a lot of lost time and inefficiency. The stuff attached to the computer is irrelevant in the end, and doesn't matter if it costs $50 or $500,000 (it's well under $10,000 by the way). So yeah, let me get some Mac Pros instead. Instead of a $1,400 iMac (or a $500 PC), let me buy a $3,000 Mac Pro with an additional external touchscreen. Yeah, great option.
Not sure how wishing that Apple made a touchscreen iMac is being "unreasonable". I can think of multitudes of other uses I would use touch for, besides this specific setup. But, I can see that the Apple Kool-Aid is alive and well here. Apple said no, so we must all say no. If Apple doesn't make it, then it's unreasonable to think it should even be an option. Apple knows what's best for you. Do not even think about something else. Never forget Steve! Man...weird.
Thanks for the info. I'll have to go with PC.
iMac's design is outdated. It is based on iPod sitting on a dock. And to be honest, touch screen is not so intuitive when iMac's screen is floating 2-3 inches above the desk. I'm pretty sure next major redesign of iMac will resemble iPad with a stand... If the screen is low, and the entire iMac is easy to move around the desk, then touch screen would be amazing. However.... OS X is not so optimized for touch screen... The OS will also have to go through a major redesign to fit touch screen.
I've used touch screen laptops for university projects, and they are extremely useful. I hope one day touch screen makes its way to Mac computers
I've used touch screen laptops for university projects, and they are extremely useful. I hope one day touch screen makes its way to Mac computers
Well it would need to be changed quite significantly for the same reasons Windows did. Use a VM of a non touch OS on a tablet for a couple minutes (example Windows 7 on an Android tablet) and you'll find it's a pretty terrible experience. Even worse with OS X because it already has gestures built in.
Yes, the big consoles cost a fortune. That was not the point of that part. My point there was the "Oh, but your arms will hurt after 30 minutes, and your screen will be all smudgy!" whines, which are quite simply wrong. The first picture doesn't show the screens pulled up to their full height, the second is more normal. I wouldn't use them laid down like the one in the first picture. In fact, the unit I'm on now with a 23" screen is angled at only 20˚ above flat and it's annoying. I want it more like 75˚-80˚.
The mouse in the picture is because both a mouse and touchscreen are used, as I already said. I don't know why everyone keeps saying that having a touchscreen suddenly means that there is no mouse or keyboard any more. You people seem to think an iPad is the only way to use touch. The mouse is used for some stuff, but most of the action is either on the console hardware or on the touchscreen, much like...let's think about this...using a computer would be. In fact, using my laptop, I just pretended to stop typing and have to click something on my screen. Took a fraction of a second to stop typing and touch my screen. Took about a second and a half to take my hand, grab the mouse, move it to the object, and click. Multiply that by hundreds of times a day? That's a lot of lost time and inefficiency. The stuff attached to the computer is irrelevant in the end, and doesn't matter if it costs $50 or $500,000 (it's well under $10,000 by the way). So yeah, let me get some Mac Pros instead. Instead of a $1,400 iMac (or a $500 PC), let me buy a $3,000 Mac Pro with an additional external touchscreen. Yeah, great option.
Not sure how wishing that Apple made a touchscreen iMac is being "unreasonable". I can think of multitudes of other uses I would use touch for, besides this specific setup. But, I can see that the Apple Kool-Aid is alive and well here. Apple said no, so we must all say no. If Apple doesn't make it, then it's unreasonable to think it should even be an option. Apple knows what's best for you. Do not even think about something else. Never forget Steve! Man...weird.
Thanks for the info. I'll have to go with PC.
It's not unreasonable to think it should be an option just unreasonable to think it is any more than a specialised niche that apple should provide for. Why go to all that trouble to produce something that very few people will use when you are a consumer electronics company?? Just my experience of course but all my friends with touchscreen computers just don't use the touchscreen, including those with light foldable yoga type laptops, even my boss with his surface rarely ever uses it as a tablet or touches the screen.
I'll be fair I hate them so I am biased, but hey if apple do provide it I'll be paying more for something I'll never use and I'm far from in the minority.
I've seen/worked with people that had touch screen laptops and desktops. In all honest, the only thing they ever used it for was to occasionally scroll. It was mouse/trackpad all the way.
I mean, I see how it could be nice to zoom in or scroll on a huge display once in while if you're in the mood (touch screen is fun) but then you get fingerprints all over your display and I think that in day to day use, it will just be too cumbersome.
I mean, I see how it could be nice to zoom in or scroll on a huge display once in while if you're in the mood (touch screen is fun) but then you get fingerprints all over your display and I think that in day to day use, it will just be too cumbersome.
You wouldn't pay more if you didn't buy the touchscreen version...
But, it's all cool, I have discovered DisplayPort Multi-Streaming, which will allow me to get a PC all-in-one touchscreen and add numerous external monitors. No more need for the iMac. It'll suck not being able to dual boot, but that was low on the list anyway. One more nail in the coffin.
I guess since Apple makes the OS, they wouldn't supply a touchscreen device. Just because you have a touchscreen doesn't mean everything has to be touch. If I added a touchscreen to my current setup, it wouldn't mean that I suddenly couldn't use MacOS, it would just mean that I could more effectively use things that were designed for touch.
That is because most of the time you are using the horizontal controls. Imagine if that control board with all the sliders, faders, etc were on a vertical panel on front of you. THAT is how using a touch screen PC would be for that functionality without the specialized hardware -- hardware that is necessary because of how non-ergonomic sustained use of vertical control surfaces are.
It wouldn't make sense for Apple to alter their entire UI, hardware and API infrastructure for little niche markets like this.
It's a lot more than making a "touch iMac". The hardware is nothing without the software, which includes touch-aware OS, touch-aware APIs, touch-aware programming guidelines, touch-aware developer training, etc. Touch-aware apps have a significant UI mismatch to non-touch apps. E.g, you can't just "port" full-featured Photoshop to a touch platform. Where do you put the 100s of menu options, tabbed style sheets, etc? The UI objects (scroll bars, check boxes, etc) are not sized for touch selection nor is the OS and app logic designed to receive and process touch events. The entire app must be redesigned.
Those PC touchscreens are running Windows 8 or later and the Metro/Modern UI. After so many failed iterations at mobile platforms, and seeing Apple pass them by in that space, Microsoft frantically tried to use their desktop strength to force-feed a touch UI down customer's throats -- the Metro/Modern UI and underlying API system. It was poorly executed and damaged the company. Most key Microsoft executives and program managers in charge of it were either fired, demoted or resigned.
The Win8 and later touch UI works in two modes: for Metro/Modern apps they have the infrastructure to process touch events directly. However the UI and control constructs are simple and limited relative to a desktop app. A Metro/Modern app does not have access to the rich array of APIs (memory, threading, synchronization, etc) that OS X or Windows desktop apps have. Therefore they are best suited for lightweight apps. I doubt you will ever see a full-featured version of Photoshop or Premiere Pro using *either* Microsoft's Metro/Modern UI or Apple's iOS -- at least in their current form.
The forces a split in the development pathways, OS and API support. Apple has chosen to split that along hardware lines, with iOS and OS X running on unique hardware. Microsoft is trying to merge Metro/Modern and Windows desktop onto a single platform.
On touch-enabled hardware, Windows 8 and later can remap touch events to keyboard/mouse events in a desktop app. After a fashion you can interact with those via touch even though the apps were not designed for that -- but it's very clunky. It's akin to using a web site designed for a PC from an iPhone, but worse.
A Windows Metro/Modern app on a touch PC might actually be a good fit for the scenario you showed -- assuming all the other support hardware is there. If the app need not be highly complex and just used to select modes, memory banks, EQ settings, etc, that is possible. However if you hit the complexity/capability limit of what a Metro/Modern app can do (from either a UI standpoint or underlying API) then it would have to be a Win32 desktop app and use the Windows touch remapping to fool the app into thinking it's receiving mouse/keyboard events. That is usually not a good choice either.
So the reasons why Apple thus far has not pursued a touch-oriented OS X are quite complex, but well-grounded. Ergonomics are only one aspect. This isn't to say Apple will stay on this course forever, but Microsoft's disastrous foray indicates a need for caution.
Ummm..the touchscreens are used more, if not the same as the hard surfaces. The vast majority of object selection and control is done via touch. In fact, when I set up my system, I only need to touch the hard controls when recording and playing back, but not for programming. But...keep reading...
The entertainment industry is hardly a "little niche". Apple used to cater directly to it, then dropped it in favor of more profitable gadgets.
Sigh. I've addressed all of this multiple times. I don't know if I haven't been clear, or if reading comprehension just isn't a strongpoint. I have said numerous times that a touchscreen compliments existing hardware and software. It does not need to replace it. Who said photoshop needs to be a touch app? I use Vectorworks extensively...there is no way that would be touch, even if it was on a touch system. But, this thinking is why Apple's Pages and Numbers are garbage now...they made the desktop versions match the iPad versions, which is ridiculously stupid. Have to use the old versions, if at all, to even see how stuff will print.
Okay, I get it, I get it. There is absolutely no use for touchscreens on a mac. I also agreed that since Apple makes both the OS and the computer (unlike PC manufacturers and developers), they probably wouldn't make a touchscreen computer if their OS wasn't touch. I will use PCs instead for this project. I found everything I need to do what I'm looking to do, with even more monitors than I could get from the iMac. No more need for Apple products on this. Sadly, this has been happening more and more lately.
And keep in mind that I've never purchased a PC personally. I've had only Apple computers, apple routers, apple phones, etc for 32 years. So, it's not like I'm some old Apple-hater. They've just gone in a different, much more basic-consumer direction that no longer fills my needs.
Nobody said Photoshop needs to be a touch app. If you read the thread you'll see that. The point about Photoshop, Premiere Pro and other complex apps is they can't be ported to touch, so a touch-enabled OS X could only service "simple" apps -- IOW a competitor to iOS. OS X would have to be fundamentally re-architected to even provide that. A touch-enabled OS X would split Apple's efforts and the entire OS X development community.
That might be an acceptable penalty to pay if Apple got something of greater value in return. So far they don't see it as worthwhile -- their touch-device strategy is iOS based. Microsoft's strategy is to shoe-horn two different UIs into a PC. Overall it has been extremely costly for them. So far all those "multitudes of other uses" for touch-enabled PCs have not translated into dramatic sales increases -- probably because they are all tiny little niche markets. Maybe it will eventually pay off, but for now it hasn't worked out that way.
The issue of touch-enabled desktop apps is more complex than first appears, with many interconnected parts, hidden costs and non-obvious dependencies.
Yep. All cool. Going the PC route.
This discussion, however, has reminded me of why I stopped going to the hardware forums on here. Even questioning a product offering is a recipe for attack. Steve Jobs would be so happy.
Haven't been on forums much?
Before you sign up make sure you have your thick skin on first......pretty much mandatory on any forum.
I belong to about 15 forums....this is pretty mild compared to most IMHO.
I mostly stick in PRSI. Thick skin required. It's not that I can't take the heat, it's seeing the "Apple can't be wrong" type stuff that drove me out.
Haha... do you really believe this? I find it highly unlikely that there will never be any touch screen macs ever...
Most new Wacom Cintiq tablets have touch, so when you attach them to a Mac, you basically get a touch Mac. There even is a 27" touch Cintiq. I use my Cintiq Companion 2 attached to my iMac. I can use a touchscreen in OS X without problems, it's not hard to press things, use a finger instead of a mouse, and it's even in a comfortable position as the Cintiq is mostly horizontal...
...and yet, I never use touch. Simply put, it's not needed. The mouse, keyboard and a stylus may not seem that fancy, they are the best ways to control your Mac. The reason an iPad or an iPhone use touch and not something like a mouse is not because touch is better - it's because it would be hard to use a mouse with devices you hold in your hands (imagine having to pull out a mouse in the middle of the street to use your iPhone).
What I'm saying is - every device is different, every usage case is different, and at this time, we just don't need a touch-based iMac. I mean, it's especially silly for an iMac - I don't know how the OP got the idea, but it wouldn't be practical at all. If they made a hand-held Mac (like a tablet), then perhaps touch would make sense. But on an iMac?! Seriously?
BTW - I have actually used touch on a gigantic iMac-like computer: the HP Sprout. Using touch on it was very unpractical.
...and yet, I never use touch. Simply put, it's not needed. The mouse, keyboard and a stylus may not seem that fancy, they are the best ways to control your Mac. The reason an iPad or an iPhone use touch and not something like a mouse is not because touch is better - it's because it would be hard to use a mouse with devices you hold in your hands (imagine having to pull out a mouse in the middle of the street to use your iPhone).
What I'm saying is - every device is different, every usage case is different, and at this time, we just don't need a touch-based iMac. I mean, it's especially silly for an iMac - I don't know how the OP got the idea, but it wouldn't be practical at all. If they made a hand-held Mac (like a tablet), then perhaps touch would make sense. But on an iMac?! Seriously?
BTW - I have actually used touch on a gigantic iMac-like computer: the HP Sprout. Using touch on it was very unpractical.
OSX isn't really optimized for touch, so it wouldn't buy you much. On the windows side, I only use touch with smaller systems (eg. my SP3 screen). In that use case, touch is awesome! But I don't even think about touching my two 27" displays when my SP3 is in the dock, though I'll sometimes touch the SP3 screen itself while docked.
So not a huge deal for the iMac, but would be great for Macbooks, IMOHO... if, that is, OSX did something like continuum on the Win side
So not a huge deal for the iMac, but would be great for Macbooks, IMOHO... if, that is, OSX did something like continuum on the Win side