So why no iMac touch?

[steve62388]

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.

Posters aren't thinking 'Apple can't be wrong', they're thinking 'you're wrong'. It's a big difference.

Likewise I think touch screens on the desktop are a stupid idea.

If you're thinking of very specific niche cases then there are specialist providers that can supply you, as there has always been. Apple are not a specialist provider, they are main stream.

 

[samiwas]

Posters aren't thinking 'Apple can't be wrong', they're thinking 'you're wrong'. It's a big difference.

Yes, that "Apple can't be wrong" attitude never pervades discussions in these boards.... Still trying to figure out how I'm "wrong" for wishing that Apple made one, not demanding that they do or saying they are wrong for not doing it. THAT is why I refer to the "Apple can't be wrong' crowd. They jump at you for even desiring something. Because if Apple doesn't make it, then it's something that shouldn't be made. Everyone balked at the idea of large screen phones, then the 6 Plus came out and suddenly it was amazing.

Likewise I think touch screens on the desktop are a stupid idea.

Cool. I think watches are a stupid idea and tying everything to iTunes is a stupid idea and dumbing down all your software (which used to be great) to the most basic level possible is a stupid idea, but who am I? Hell, there's a ton of potential in the iPhone that isn't even being used.

If you're thinking of very specific niche cases then there are specialist providers that can supply you, as there has always been. Apple are not a specialist provider, they are main stream.

Yup. They are now. Which is why I've stopped really paying attention to their products and don't even care if I miss one of the events any more (and usually fast-forward through the ones I do watch). I just don't care for much of what they do now. It's all basic stuff to appeal to the largest crowd, which is, of course, part of business. When the first thing you say about every new product is how much thinner it is, you know you don't have much to offer. They used to produce really cool stuff geared towards production, which is what made them so popular with the art and production crowd. Not so much any more. Mostly yawnfests. I guarantee you that if touch technology existed 10-15 years ago, they'd have a massive trove of touch products because that was their market then. Again, it's business, and they're trying to please stockholders.

I have found it very, very interesting throughout this thread how many still can't understand that a computer having a touch screen does not mean that everything has to be touch and that you can no longer have a keyboard or mouse and that everything has to be redesigned and Photoshop will be impossible to use and you'll never be able to use a menu again and on and on. It's been really fascinating seeing the cognitive disconnect, be it intentional or distortion-field enabled.

 

[Fatboy71]

I wonder

Its bad enough having finger prints on a tablet screen, let alone something like a 27 inch iMac. Personally I wouldn't want one. Call me old fashioned, but I can get finer controls with a mouse than by touch.

 

[Lankyman]

I wonder

Putting greasy finger marks anywhere near my iMac screen is a Capital offence in our household. Just the very thoughts of a touch screen iMac fills me with dread.

 

[xmichaelp]

Touch screen desktops would be the absolute worst UX ever. It's already bad enough on laptops.

 

[xmichaelp]

Say "Hello" to the Magic Trackpad.

Thank you!

I don't get why so many people don't realize that the multitouch trackpad is the equivalent to the touchscreen. You can double tap to zoom, scroll, pinch to zoom, switch between apps/desktop, etc. What more could you do with a touchscreen? Draw? That would be terrible on a vertical surface.

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 being unreasonable because you have a very specific use case that benefits from a touch screen and you seem to think it's a mass market idea.

No one sitting at a desk programming or editing video is clamoring for a touch screen iMac.

iMac's design is outdated. It is based on iPod sitting on a dock.

Huh?

 

[Ethosik]

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.

You really have not had any issues? When I use my Surface Pro 3 and use Photoshop, I have issues tapping the correct tool I want to use. I either need to use my mouse or stylus instead.

 

[Ethosik]

I have found it very, very interesting throughout this thread how many still can't understand that a computer having a touch screen does not mean that everything has to be touch and that you can no longer have a keyboard or mouse and that everything has to be redesigned and Photoshop will be impossible to use and you'll never be able to use a menu again and on and on. It's been really fascinating seeing the cognitive disconnect, be it intentional or distortion-field enabled.

Like we have said before, yes it does. Take a look at Windows 8 and Windows 10. It is mostly touch based (Windows 8 mostly). And using a program like Photoshop and touching a tool with a 100x100 icon is very difficult.

 

[aevan]

You really have not had any issues? When I use my Surface Pro 3 and use Photoshop, I have issues tapping the correct tool I want to use. I either need to use my mouse or stylus instead.

Did you turn on the 200% UI option in Photoshop? (This is the retina default size on a Mac). If yes, perhaps I just have smaller fingers And the CC2 screen is slightly larger than the one on a Surface Pro 3 (but I don't think it makes much of a difference).

 

[Ethosik]

Did you turn on the 200% UI option in Photoshop? (This is the retina default size on a Mac). If yes, perhaps I just have smaller fingers And the CC2 screen is slightly larger than the one on a Surface Pro 3 (but I don't think it makes much of a difference).

No, I don't have that option. I don't have the latest version.

And that is our point. Programs WILL need to be changed to work with touch screen (making things bigger).