Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iMac' started by Hieveryone, Jun 11, 2014.
They already did, over 5 years ago.
Why don't they anymore?
My guess is the resolution would be 1900x1200
That's what the resolution was back then. Only Apple knows for sure what their reasoning is behind the introduction and discontinuation of models. They introduced them in late 2006 and discontinued them in late 2009, when they introduced the 27".
What they should have done is offered a 21.5" and 24" and a 27"
That's certainly one opinion.
Yeah the more options the better. No doubt.
Not necessarily. It's more costly to maintain manufacturing and service for more models. Apple chooses the models it thinks will sell well, and occasionally discontinues models that don't. While the users may prefer more options, it's not necessarily best for the company.
It's better for the consumer. We get more to choose from.
It's not better for the consumer if the company goes broke maintaining a myriad of product lines, many of which are wanted by only a relatively small number of consumers. It's a more prudent approach to maintain models which appeal to the majority of potential users, rather than to try to satisfy every whim of every consumer. Sometimes the consumer needs to simply choose from available options the one that best meets their needs. You can't always get everything you want, and it's unrealistic to expect any company to deliver what everyone wants.
Henry Ford did fairly well with the approach, "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black."
Likewise, Apple seems to do be doing fairly well with their business decisions so far.
Except that prices go up. Thats a bad thing for the consumer.
It certainly didn't work out for Apple in the 90's.
I pretty much always get what I want. Anyway, the 24" would probably be a hit so I don't know why Apple doesn't launch it.
The 24" iMacs (I had the first, Late 2006 model) were all 1920x1200. All 21.5" iMacs are 1920x1080, and all 27" iMacs are 2560x1440.
There doesn't appear to be a modern, 'wide screen' resolution between the 1920 and 2560 widths, and I don't think anyone is making 24" 2560 displays.
Unless Apple felt like commissioning a new display standard, a modern 24" iMac would therefore have the same 1920 width as the original 24". Assuming Apple want to retain the same aspect ratio and physical dimensions as the the existing iMacs then this would have a height of 1080 rather than 1200.
So... a new 24" iMac would actually have less screen real estate than the eight year old 24" iMac. But I can't imagine such an iMac would cost more than $20-30 over and above the 21.5" to produce, which means decent profit margins on a $100–$150 price bump.
When my lovely old white iMac died I wasn't really in the market for a new one – I can't cope with that glazing – so I went with a Mini and a 23" 1920x1080 Dell display. I'd sooner have stayed 1920x1200 but wasn't able to justify doubling the cost for an extra 10% of screen depth.
Have subsequently played with both current iMac sizes. The 21.5" is nice if you're pushed for space; I find the 27" a little overwhelming and I don't really need all them pixels. A 24" iMac is definitely my personal 'sweet spot', if I could just see past that screen glare.
I couldn't agree more.
I actually got a 24" Dell Ultrasharp today which is why I started thinking, why doesn't Apple have a 24" iMac?
I think it is the sweet spot. 27" can be overwhelming and 21.5" is...small.
I like the aspic ratio of the 24" iMac (16x10 vs 16x9 on 21.5 and 27"). The 16x10 is great for viewing photos. Chances are 24" is never coming back though.
Clearly other consumers and Apple do not agree with you as they only made three refreshes of the 24" model. Personally I like the 24", but the 21.5" is far from small.
Or it could be something in the new designs that made it hard for Apple to make them. Just because they discontinue don't mean it wasn't selling...
The 24" sold like hotcakes but once the 21.5" went 1920 x 1080 there really wasn't any reason for it to exist.
The 27" gave not just a larger screen but an increase in screen real estate too.
Now the 27" sells like hotcakes.
If I got one it'd be the 21.5" probably. The 27" is beautiful but I can't sit so close to such a huge screen.
Right now I use my MBPr as a desktop connecting it to a Dell Ultrasharp 24" monitor.
I love it!
I don't think the death of the 24" was consumer-driven. If I remember correctly, the issue Apple had was the huge amount of negative publicity over their claims that the 20" displayed millions of colours, when in fact it was a cheap'n'nasty 6 bit display.
Replacing the 20" with a superior (but less expensive) 21.5" panel was a necessary move, and it also made Apple realise the cost benefits (to them) of using mass-market 16:9 displays rather than 16:10. I'd imagine the 27" panel cost them significantly less than the previous 24".
EDIT: or what everyone else said in the sudden burst of activity that's occurred since I started typing this!
If there was enough consumer demand I think Apple would of kept it. It could have been cost, but once you release a product that takes the 24" market away what is the use. Once they got the resolution up on the 21.5" model they saw no use in keeping the 24" I would imagine.
I also have a 24-inch Ultrasharp now and prefer it over both the 21.5-inch and 27-inch iMacs. I think that the first Retina iMac will be a 24-inch with a 4k (3840x2160) display. The reason I think that is because LG is supposedly releasing their first sRGB 4K panel in August and it is a 24-inch panel. (Up until now the 4k panels have either been cheap TN or expensive wide gamut panels. There isn't a 21.5-inch 4k panel in production, at least that has been announced, and the larger ones are all still too expensive to be likely used in an iMac. There is an AUO 27-inch 4K sRGB panel that is in production now, but I haven't seen a price for it.
If a Retina iMac comes out this year, the only panel that makes sense is the 24-inch 4k panel. I'm hoping this is true, because like you, the only screen size I like right now is the 24-inch.
It wasn't about demand. Apple uses the panels that make the most sense financially. When production of 16:9 displays ramped up, it became cheaper to produce 16:9 panels than 16:10, and at the time there were no 16:9 24-inch panels in production.
I believe that Apple will shift back to 24-inch and larger panels with the move to 4k Retina displays, leaving the 21.5-inch iMac as only a budget computer. This is just my opinion, of course, but time will tell.
My only issue with the 27-inch model is the footprint, my desk isn't very deep and the display would be smack in my face - definitely one of the only advantages the 24-inch model.
Yeah, I know, buy a bigger desk, but I live in a cramped city apartment.
Now if they'd make a 24-ish inch model that kept the 27-inch's screen resolution (then upgrade the 27-inch with 4k), I'd be a happy camper.
Are you really trying to argue that it is better for us (consumers) that apple doesn't offer a 24" imac model because it will save us money? LOL. That's rich.
I have a 24" imac. It's the perfect size. Wish they would bring it back. Why I like it? Text size. The fonts are too small on the 27" and 21" is a little cramped.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. You really know how to add meaning to a post that wasn't there. I'm saying it's not practical or profitable for a company to maintain a wide variety of product lines, even if some aren't selling as well as others. Just because you and a few others prefer the 24" model doesn't mean there's enough demand among other buyers to economically justify keeping it in the product lineup. Expecting a company to cater to every whim of every customer is unrealistic and any company that attempts to do so is unwise.
We get it. You like the 24" iMac. The fact is that there's not enough buyers who feel the same way, or Apple wouldn't have discontinued it in favor of more popular models.