Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Thinner, Limited iMac

One Still Sheep

One Still Sheep

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 16, 2012
84
0
I would like to purpose a hypothetical question to the participants on this forum.

Suppose that next week Apple releases a new iMac. The iMac has been redesigned and is far sleeker, slimmer, and more attractive than the current model; in fact, it exceeds all expectations in its ability to impress visually.

Inside, it features a gorgeous 27" display (glossy, but with less glare problems), and the top-of-the line Core i7 Ivy Bridge processor. It also now supports USB 3.0 and has added an additional Thunderbolt port.

However, in order to accommodate the reduction in girth, the iMac's internal design was changed dramatically: it no longer features a GPU (it utilizes on-board graphics) and a small SSD (128MB) with no option for a 3.5 drive; also, in order to achieve maximal thinness, the RAM is now soldered to the main board. (Obviously, the optical drive has also been removed.)

The iMac described above has a sticker price of $2000 (USD).

Considering all of this, I have two questions for the users here:

1. Would you still buy this new iMac?
2. Do you think that this new machine would hurt Apple's sales; if so, how badly?

For clarification: I know that some will think, "Well, I have a 2010 iMac so I wouldn't buy this iMac; I'd wait until the next model." Please bear in mind that this is the new design for the iMac: the 2013 or 2014 model would be the same but with an updated processor. So the question becomes: would you buy this type of iMac, or would you switch to something else?

I'll go ahead and throw in my prediction for the second question and say that I think such a redesign would hurt Apple sales, but would only result in a 10-20% drop in purchases. This is, of course, just a guess on my part.
 
The issue you are presenting is a non-issue. I can guarantee you 100% that there will be graphic cards in the new iMac.

Look at the thickness of the new rMBP, I doubt the iMac will be any thinner, probably thicker. And, it will give you the option to get a good GPU. Most likely a 680m if you want. The current iMac maxed out has better specs than the rMBP. and I'm certain they won't go backwards. Because of new building techniques you will get a sexier and more sleek iMac without the cost of reduced hardware specs. I guarantee you. Look at how the iMac started, the size of it. Have they ever gone down in specs while reducing size, no!.

Maybe the lowest models will have a built-in GPU only to reduce cost, but if you are ready to cough up some serious bucks, you will get a serious machine. There's no doubt about it. Remember, its more than 500 days since the last iMac and 3 years since the new design. Apple has improved their building techniques a lot since then, particulary with the air and rMBP, they've taken more control over how every component is built and put together. Don't you think they will use these techniques in all their other products ?
 
Did you fall out of bed onto your head?

One Still Sheep said:
I would like to purpose a hypothetical question to the participants on this forum.
Click to expand...

History teaches us that desktops, both PCs and Macs, do not lessen in performance but increase as components permit. :) To accommodate your proposed redesign, why wouldn't Apple take the rMBP approach with the new IMAC, i.e., flash memory?
 
Last edited:
It depends, for me, I would be happy to have a fast 64GB SSD and then 1 or 2 TB of HDD space for all the stuff, I do not see it as a bad configuration despite the fact I would of course prefer something like 500GB of SSD...
 
honestly, this is pretty stupid. Everyone here have got to calm themselves and stop, just stop.

like one poster noted above, the rMBP have a MUCH smaller form factor and includes a battery which takes up 50% of the space, and still have way higher spec than the computer you (op) have "dreamed up".
 
The new iMac, may have a matte screen, 256G ssd 3tb hdd 8Gig ram usb3 ports and Thunderbolt ports. The graphics card will have some thought about driving a Retina display or they may somehow use two As far as design is concerned the shape now is great but if the whole front was glass that would be nice. ivy Bridge of course.

There would be upgrades to the system as always at a cost.

Please bear in mind Apple has announced that it may not use Intel chips in future but their own, this worries me a great deal as of now we can bootcamp Windows onto it so that you can run your Windows only based programmes and knowing that Apple does not like third parties unless the go through iTunes making ecoenvironment would they allow Windows to operate with the new chip?
 
I actually hope that the new iMac does not have a retina screen or anything like that.
 
harlex said:
Please bear in mind Apple has announced that it may not use Intel chips in future but their own, this worries me a great deal as of now we can bootcamp Windows onto it so that you can run your Windows only based programmes and knowing that Apple does not like third parties unless the go through iTunes making ecoenvironment would they allow Windows to operate with the new chip?
Click to expand...

Where's your reference to Apple's announcement that it may not use Intel's chips in future?
 
What you are describing is essentially an amalgamation of a mac mini with a thunderbolt display. I may expect something along the line for the entry model (the rumoured 2012 mac mini refresh, that is), but definitely not for a high end desktop like the imac, which is supposed to be apple's signature desktop model. It may not boast top-end specs, but would at least be able to hold its own against the rest of the competition.

In response to your hypothetical question, I would not burn a single cent on it, but I am also very certain Apple will not blunder down that route. Yes, we like sleek, sleek and shiny products, but there too is a limit to how much we are willing to give up for this. :)
 
Such an iMac would make no sense, because you can already by the retina MBP with a dedicated GPU for practically the same money. So its pretty much a given that the iMac will have a dedicated GPU. The question is: which exactly GPU it will have ;)

P.S. Of course I won't buy something like that.
 
I'll just get a retina MBP if this is the case, since it'd be a higher performance computer. The only disadvantage would be the smaller screen, which I could buy separately.

Really hope they don't go through soldering things down, though.
 
12dylan34 said:
I'll just get a retina MBP if this is the case, since it'd be a higher performance computer. The only disadvantage would be the smaller screen, which I could buy separately.

Really hope they don't go through soldering things down, though.
Click to expand...

The rMBP is just as limited if this was true(highly unlikely)...
 
Abazigal said:
In response to your hypothetical question, I would not burn a single cent on it, but I am also very certain Apple will not blunder down that route. Yes, we like sleek, sleek and shiny products, but there too is a limit to how much we are willing to give up for this. :)
Click to expand...

I think this is the essential question (meaning, "How far will consumers go for design?") that everyone is asking about Apple in one way or another.

For the record, I am not trying to say that Apple will release such a device; I think that Apple still has years of thinner machines with increased performance ahead, but I could see a split along these lines somewhere in the future (where performance is sacrificed for design's sake).

I somewhat myopically suspect that such a shift would not create an enormous disturbance in sales. While it is true that people on forums may dicker over every spec of a new machine, I doubt this same process is occurring in the mind of people waiting on line for the newest iToy.

To rephrase this another way: what would it take for us to believe that Apple is falling behind in the tech world? (I am not saying that Apple IS falling behind, it's merely a hypothetical question.)

For example, the iPhone 5 lacks near-field, even though this has been adopted by some of its competitors. Apple is/was late to adopt USB 3.0 and Ivy Bridge. Even the iPad Mini seems a bit like "playing catch-up." Things like Apple's refusal to adopt BluRay are seen not as being less than their competitors (which offer the option of BluRay), but rather as a mark of "looking forward to a media-less world." If tested, how far could we stretch this logic?

So I thought, "What would Apple have to do before we, as consumers, would definitively say that they are more interested in producing some shiny object more than keeping up with technology?" To me, removing GPUs from desktops would be a pretty strong indicator, but I wonder if others would feel the same; bearing in mind that it would be released in a sleeker body and with a keynote speech that emphasized how it is 30% better than it's predecessor (without any real world comparison against desktops by competing manufacturers; other desktops being non-Apple and therefore simultaneously both non-comparable and inferior).
 
They can't go too thin, otherwise what revolutionary redesign will they be able to do next? By going a little thinner, they can always redesign in two years time by going a little thinner again. You don't want to get too far ahead of yourself.

Just look at Usain Bolt: he gets paid a lot of money by his sponsors every time he breaks the world record. So he only beats it a little bit each time so that he is able to beat it again. Genius!

----------
ihuman:D said:
What is?
Click to expand...

The rMBP's limitations.

One example: Connect rMBP to a normal 1920x1200 24" monitor - UI and games run smooth and great

Use native screen - not so great.
 
theSeb said:
They can't go too thin, otherwise what revolutionary redesign will they be able to do next? By going a little thinner, they can always redesign in two years time by going a little thinner again. You don't want to get too far ahead of yourself.

Just look at Usain Bolt: he gets paid a lot of money by his sponsors every time he breaks the world record. So he only beats it a little bit each time so that he is able to beat it again. Genius!

----------



The rMBP's limitations.

One example: Connect rMBP to a normal 1920x1200 24" monitor - UI and games run smooth and great

Use native screen - not so great.
Click to expand...

Oh right, I thought you were on about this 'Thinner, Limited iMac' being true :) .
 
ihuman:D said:
The rMBP is just as limited if this was true(highly unlikely)...
Click to expand...

I guess that I should have added that I get portability, which is a bonus for me. If I can get a better computer that's also portable, I would spring for it. The main reasons I would buy an iMac is the superior GPU and screen size.

I don't think that it's true either, though.
 
What concerns me is bottom line cost for 128GB SSD and 16GB of RAM. Will Apple go with soldered RAM and daughter card SSD as they have in the Air and rMBP models? Apple prices for SSD and RAM are still insanely™ high. If we get 8GB vs. 4GB RAM standard, at least the upgrade to 16GB will be $200 not $300. Their SSD prices are still about $2 per GB, so expect $100 to $150 for 64GB, $250 for 128GB and $500 for 256GB. Even OWC prices for SSD cards for the Air are about $1.50/GB.

I'm happy to hear about the laminated screen to avoid the dust catcher hassles of current models and USB 3.0 is long overdue.
 
One Still Sheep said:
I think this is the essential question (meaning, "How far will consumers go for design?") that everyone is asking about Apple in one way or another.
Click to expand...

Maybe on these forums.

80% of the people don't care. I'm betting if you'd go out and ask random people there opinion about the Mac, 80% will answer that it's better at creative stuff, but you can't game on it. They don't give ***** about specs, unless they see higher numbers. Even if Apple would put an i7 U-serie Sandy Bridge in the "better", ultra-thin, iMac and an normal i5 in the baseline, most mac buyers won't notice the U when when buying it.

It's thinner, it's sexiers, it's probably better.
 
One Still Sheep said:
However, in order to accommodate the reduction in girth, the iMac's internal design was changed dramatically: it no longer features a GPU (it utilizes on-board graphics)
Click to expand...

troll.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back