ReflexReact
macrumors 6502
Just a guess by me, but the 24" really is much better than 21.5 - I suspect they'll bring it back, along with a 28" replacing the 27" - making way for Apple TVs which are rumoured to come in 28/32" flavours...
The next iMac will be 24/28"
- Thread starter ReflexReact
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Remember, Apple likes FEWER choices, not more...
I really do not think that the 21.5" is going anywhere. Apple wants to hit a specific price point for the Entry Level iMac, and the bigger screen means more cost. It is also a good size to incorporate in the living room for family use where the parents can keep an eye on the kids online activities. It is also good for dorm room and bedroom uses.
They dropped the 24" for a reason. It may have been a sweet spot, but it may not have sold as many as the low and high end sizes. also, I will admit I have not been following the flat screen manufacturing market for the past 2 years, but is 24" a prevalent size? And can Apple get the resolution they desire?
They also do not like to overlap lines, so bumping the high-end to 28" to lead into a full fledged AppleTV also does not make sense. Plus you would need to re-do the Thunderbolt Display as well.
IMHO, the current design could continue for another year or more before warranting an update. The only thing I am aware of people wanting is a reduction / elimination of the "chin", but it is there for structural reasons. IF they can design out additional weight, then removing the chin could be done. Eliminating the spindle drives, optical drives is a start here, but can they shave enough weight and thermal load to matter? Glass is still a big factor here in the weight load of the assembly.
What I am more convinced is that there may be a market for a 21.5" iMac Touch. I am developing a business plan and one central position could use a 21.5" iMac, and a touch display would be a perfect fit. Anything bigger is not a good fit for the task in mind. Not able to give out further details right now, but when it either comes to fruition or is abandoned, I will share.
IF the iMac gets the rumored re-design, the new sizes may happen. But I would expect that, retina or no, that the most popular screen sizes are what Apple selects due to availability and cost considerations. Remember, the master of the supply chain is in charge now, so expect that influence to continue over the product line.
I really do not think that the 21.5" is going anywhere. Apple wants to hit a specific price point for the Entry Level iMac, and the bigger screen means more cost. It is also a good size to incorporate in the living room for family use where the parents can keep an eye on the kids online activities. It is also good for dorm room and bedroom uses.
They dropped the 24" for a reason. It may have been a sweet spot, but it may not have sold as many as the low and high end sizes. also, I will admit I have not been following the flat screen manufacturing market for the past 2 years, but is 24" a prevalent size? And can Apple get the resolution they desire?
They also do not like to overlap lines, so bumping the high-end to 28" to lead into a full fledged AppleTV also does not make sense. Plus you would need to re-do the Thunderbolt Display as well.
IMHO, the current design could continue for another year or more before warranting an update. The only thing I am aware of people wanting is a reduction / elimination of the "chin", but it is there for structural reasons. IF they can design out additional weight, then removing the chin could be done. Eliminating the spindle drives, optical drives is a start here, but can they shave enough weight and thermal load to matter? Glass is still a big factor here in the weight load of the assembly.
What I am more convinced is that there may be a market for a 21.5" iMac Touch. I am developing a business plan and one central position could use a 21.5" iMac, and a touch display would be a perfect fit. Anything bigger is not a good fit for the task in mind. Not able to give out further details right now, but when it either comes to fruition or is abandoned, I will share.
IF the iMac gets the rumored re-design, the new sizes may happen. But I would expect that, retina or no, that the most popular screen sizes are what Apple selects due to availability and cost considerations. Remember, the master of the supply chain is in charge now, so expect that influence to continue over the product line.
JoeSixPack
macrumors member
I absolutely love my "square" iMac 24 and rushed to buy it before Apple got on the widescreen bandwagon. Personally, I still believe the square shape is better for computers and the widescreen better for tvs (at least until Apple accepts the reality that is Blu-ray).
But if Apple is dead set on going the tv route they will continue only making widescreens. You would think the computer for "the rest of us" would give us more options and not just follow the PC lemmings.
But if Apple is dead set on going the tv route they will continue only making widescreens. You would think the computer for "the rest of us" would give us more options and not just follow the PC lemmings.
doktordoris
macrumors 6502a
I am not saying you are wrong in your choice of a non-widescreen screen, but why do you prefer it? a wider screen shape make sense to me because our eyes are side by side not one atop t'other, and I love having 2 full-size browser windows running at once. what is it about 3:4 that you like so much?
If you are sitting at the iMac at a desk, I agree that it does not make ergonomic sense.
But think about it this way...
You are standing at a desk / counter / podium. Integrated waist high is the iMac facing up at you at an angle, allowing you to interact with the glass. Doing tasks such as blocking our blocks of time in a calendar, filling in standard forms with checkboxes, answering calls routed to your bluetooth headset. Processing payment information, doing light research. Sliding files from shared volumes to USB drives or optical discs to burn.
I can see that. More power than an iPad needed, but the touch interface is in control.
Hellhammer
Moderator emeritus
It's 16:10. 4:3 is horrible IMO but 16:10 is pretty sweet. More vertical space reduces the need to scroll. I don't think 16:9 is all that bad though, I have two 23" 1080p displays. 16:10 displays would have cost me twice as much.
The 27" has the exact same vertical scrolling space as the 24" with a couple inches added to either side.
Hellhammer
Moderator emeritus
Physical size means nothing. Whats counts is the pixels. 27" wins there, though (1200 vs 1440). However, if you had to decide between 21.5" and 24" (e.g. no space for 27"), the 21.5" would lose.
JoeSixPack
macrumors member
For me, 1 browser screen at a time is preferable and 3:4 feels more natural for games. For content designed for widescreen there is the tv. Of course my paradigm assumes the space and money for different devices for different channels. When I was younger the ability to have a widescreen computer with Netflix and ditch the cable bill would have been compelling
Anyway, it would just be nice to have a choice.
It is very unlikely the display sizes will change. Apple now have a small and a big iMac; a 24 inch model would be borderline, which Apple want to avoid.
They wouldn't want to reduce pixel density either. Finally, Apple only really go with what's out there - a custom panel just for their products would be extremely expensive until they are mass produced to a standard. Hence why we have 27 inch panels at 2560x1440, and 21.5 inch panels at 1920x1080. The weird pixel counts would not help either.
Finally, the TV and computer displays will not be streamlined, because you don't watch TV at a couple of feet away, as you do with a computer display.
They wouldn't want to reduce pixel density either. Finally, Apple only really go with what's out there - a custom panel just for their products would be extremely expensive until they are mass produced to a standard. Hence why we have 27 inch panels at 2560x1440, and 21.5 inch panels at 1920x1080. The weird pixel counts would not help either.
Finally, the TV and computer displays will not be streamlined, because you don't watch TV at a couple of feet away, as you do with a computer display.
You can get screen "protectors" for the matte option, should be easy to apply as well.
21.5" is great for 1080p resolution (and the 16:9 resolution won't go anywhere anytime soon). All that cheap 24" 1080p monitors have much blockier pixels (I am not even talkign about the 27" 1080p crap).
Similar story with 27" and 1440p.
So: no.
dylin
macrumors 6502a
thank you so much for being another person to understand this. So many people on these forums dont seem to understand that there would be a need to have a completely custom resolution for a 24 inch screen if they were to keep it at a 16:9 ratio, because im pretty sure apple isnt going to change the ratio back to 16:10.
thekev
macrumors 604
I don't know if LG is still really manufacturing panels in the older aspect ratio. None of their new designs have taken it on.
You have to look at available panels and the likelihood of a major design change. Apple doesn't care as much about desktop computers these days, so major redesigns aren't as likely. Yes I noted the rumor about a redesign, but it could just as easily be nothing. I have not personally seen anything about LG bringing out much in the way of 28" panels, and that is where you would look to determine screen sizes for Apple. The 16:9 panels shoved out the 25.5" 16:10s. These panels simply reached a price point comparable to that of the 24" panels a few years ago. Given the lack of another format shift, you are unlikely to see them bumped to 28", and 30" panels remain quite expensive most likely due to lower sales volume.