What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
93 Comments
- SteveMax, on 10/11/2007, -0/+43why would a desktop need to be portable?
- addiggt, on 07/06/2009, -4/+37Don't get all excited yet. Here, enjoy this : http://www.applegazette.com/macrumors.php
- smartmlp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+27IMO Even 17" is way too big for a laptop. a 15 inch wide screen is the sweet spot for a true mobile. I have too many friends with the big 17" screens that even they say is awkward to use in class/carry around.17" is fine if you have a desk to setup all the time...
- Jeffler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16An operative deep inside Apple has advised us to expect a Flash based Mac Pro in the Second Quarter 2007.
- GraceMolloy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+18I want a 30 inch iMac. I would definitely shell out the cash for that.
- shadowmoses, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16Makes sense 20" display's are getting so cheap, why should apple bother with a 17" when they can offer a 20" at the same price.....Can't wait for this re-design
- meshman, on 10/11/2007, -19/+30"Apple understands the consumer like no other."
How's the iDVR and DivX support coming along? Can I play an original DVD in the Apple TV yet? If Apple knew what consumers wanted, these things would have existed a long time ago when the rest of the industry adopted them. - gordonm, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14Why does anyone want a huge monitor on an iMac? When the computer is obsolete in a couple of years, you'll have to trash that nice, big monitor, too. That's a waste of money and natural resources.
The all-in-one form factor is cute on an entry-level system, but beyond that it's just wasteful frippery. - kuyman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Why?
- clyde2801, on 10/11/2007, -7/+14Shouldn't you be out deciding what version of Vista you're going to buy?
- amsoell, on 04/20/2009, -1/+8@iwanttodiggthis
wtf are you talking about? what car do you buy with the hood welded shut? - aritheman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10How long before we see the30" IMac
- kuyman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7eMacs were never any color but white. Those were iMacs before they went flat screen.
- johnpaul191, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6it's also totally possible that Apple is just not changing the 17" iMac specs, and it will remain a base model. a lot of these rumors (if valid) are based on getting new model numbers. if they figure out the new model numbers apply to the larger screens, then they may assume the 17" is toast.
while LCD prices may be dropping, the 17" panel is that much cheaper. it's actually a decent sized screen. if nothing else i bet it lives on as an edu model. - dustblaaze, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9The 17 inch displays will now be used for the iMegaPhone. To be reavealed at MacWorld '09.
- Antialias, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6That would increase the prices. Apples business model involves having as few configurations as possible making stocking and manufacturing much more efficient.
- Iwantawii, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10I think they need to INCREASE the number of available sizes across all models.
- drouk1556, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@schoate:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't Apple just drop prices down one slot for all iMacs? Like 20 inch becomes $999 or $1199, 24 inch becomes $1499? Something along those lines? - schoate09, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8So now to buy a mid-range mac is even MORE unaffordable.
- iwanttodiggthis, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8Link to Gizmodo or it didnt happen
- Rice, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Thank you for clearly labeling this story as a rumor.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I would think there's still some demand for something that can be a little less intrusive. 17" is sometimes all you want.
- clonerad, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Am I the only one who likes a 17" display? I had a look at the 20"+ models, and I thought they were too big. I mean, it's nice to have a huge screen in some respects (such as to watch DVDs) but I mean, come on, people are usually less than two feet away from the screen. That can't be good for one's eyes.
In my opinion, this may put off some potential Mac buyers. I know that my parents wouldn't consider anything larger than a 17" screen. - theWrkncacnter, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Why not keep the 17" model and make it even more affordable?
- dropout, on 10/11/2007, -10/+13Totally cool. For laptops 17" is the way to go imo, 20" gets too big to carry around. For desktop, the bigger the better definitely holds true. Great move, Apple.
- ajchavar, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6never thought of it that way, good point.
though, to play devils advocate, not everyone needs to upgrade every few years, and if you were to max out your computer when buying it it could last even longer, depending on your needs for the machine. - kurtwinter, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7How about some upgradeable graphics? Is that too much to ask for?
- nick2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
- crazzy88ss, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3People can't fit a 20" in their inclosure? They could make the 17" cheaper, and let a lower end desktop-mac still have decent performance? I would have gotten the 24", but it wouldn't fit in my desk set up. I'm sure there's people out there that have the same situation with 17/20".
- jennamalia, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2can you back up that rumor with an internal apple e-mail, cojerk?
- drouk1556, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3An unconfirmed source says 25 minutes.
- johnpaul191, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5probably....?
the iMac uses a graphics chip on the motherboard for space saving fun. i realize some (non-Apple) laptops allow graphics upgrades, but the iMac is intended to be a consumer machine that will probably never have anything upgraded except maybe more RAM.
all the more reason maybe Apple should try again at filling the void between iMac/Mini and the huge Mac Pro (or equiv tower from back in the day). - streak, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5If the rumor is true, it's too bad. I find the 17-incher to be wonderfully unobtrusive, yet completely functional. Sometimes that's just what one wants and needs. Given that, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple has a new design of comparable or smaller size to replace the 17" iMac.
- Marmot, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5The iMac is currently the best bang-for-buck offering from Apple, and I think they're making boatloads of money off them. Why would they want to scrap that product line? It's a great offering for somebody who wants more than a Mac Mini, but doesn't want to shell out the big bucks for a Mac Pro. (Like me). I just got a 20 inch iMac over the weekend, and love it!
The compact desktop is quite nice, actually. There's no separate CPU, which means no connecting cables (esp. if you get the wireless mouse and keyboard). With the flat screen, it's quite nice to have all of the real estate back on my desk. Yes, the downside is that if anything craps out, the machine craps out as a whole. However, I've had very good luck with Macs, so I'm not *too* worried.
Don't discount the cabling issues. The more cables coming out of a computer, the more of a rats nest it becomes. With my iMac, I literally have one power cord that disappears behind the desk, and a USB keyboard (with daisy chained USB mouse). It's very neat and clean. Even though I'm no neat freak, I appreciate that.
Is it expandable? Not a whole lot--I can upgrade from 1G to 2G of RAM, or maybe have a bigger hard disk put in. I can add external hard disks, if I need the space (and can run the cables neatly). I expect it will meet my needs just fine though. Most consumers don't upgrade their computers beyond basic things like RAM upgrades, so expandability isn't a huge priority--they'll just buy a new one in 3-4 years anyway. - ajchavar, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3apple does cater mostly to designers/photographers/videographers, in that sense most of their base would prefer bigger=better, i for one would definitely spend the extra money for the 24" imac, though right now portability is what i need (being a traveling student and photographer), so i stick to a maxed out macbook. once i leave school and have the $$ and job for a desktop system to compliment my notebook, there would no reason to get a smaller screen.
- ajchavar, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5then what do the photo/video/design people do? also, what does that have to do with screen size at all? i bet a 17" imac would take up less space than a comparable windows box with a 17" screen, simply because of the tower.
anyway, not trying to hate on windows, just pointing out that you dont adequately make your off-topic argument - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3The 17" is still big enough for most end users. The 24" is unwieldily, the 20" slightly less so. They're gonna have to start putting handles on each side of these things so two people can safely carry them.
- iwanttodiggthis, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Home Premium
- rickcarson, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2The difference between identically configured 17" and 20" iMac is not 'hundreds' of dollars, it is 'exactly' USD $125.
- kuyman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3A computer is hardware my friend, but if that's what you're trying to do you'd probably be better off buying a TV and hiding a Mac Mini inside of it.
I love Apple but there are monitors are way too expensive, especially when they're made out of the same parts as Dell's which sell for 200 dollars less. - aeropl, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2For most people the display gets outdated right there with the computer. My upgrades were from 15" to 17" and now most people (like me) would like at least a 20" to enjoy with all the new media that's available online.
- allenb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2It's not just about that, antialias.
Apple try to make things as simple as they can - that drives everything from their product design, to their interface design to their product line-up.
The first thing Steve Jobs did when he came back in 1997 was cut down the number of Macs (and clones) on the market. Originally the idea was to have 4 models - 2 notebook, 2 desktop - a pro and consumer version of each. Things have evolved slightly from then, but the ethos of simplicity, to aid customer choice by not presenting them with an overwhelming number of options (like Dell do, for instance), remains intact.
That's not to say I agree with axing the 17", but I didn't agree with the axing of the floppy drive in the original iMac, either.
Steve Jobs likes to try and create the computer of the future, even if consumers aren't ready for it yet. It's obviously been decided at Apple that the average consumer will soon want bigger than 17". - shableep, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2crap, didn't say what i meant. I meant they are gearing more towards mainstream electronics these days instead of focusing just on computer technology. i agree, for the savvy user a mac mini for your TV would be sweet. but for the average consumer, that kind of interface is a bit too complicated. so i thought, mix the 2 ideas. you have a mainstream styled computer (the iMac), and a mainstream styled livingroom media center (appleTV). put them together and you'd have the iTV, something hanging on your wall much like a huge iPod and it'd do everything you'd need as for media, and the basic functions of a computer. get a keyboard for it and you can use it for web browsing or basic word processing.
they already take on monitors, why not take on the rapidly increasing market of HDTVs? - diggimator, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3"... undergo a substantial facelift that will showcase striking new industrial designs aimed at leaving both competitors and onlookers smitten."
would be cool if true. - tnoy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Awesome, just when I thought Apple's product line cant get any better, they go and remove something and offer less options to the consumer... oh.. wait.
- Marmot, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I just opted for the 20 incher, but I agree, the extra couple of inches over a 17 inch iMac might make all the difference for some--especially if the larger screen doesn't fit your workspace (e.g. due to shelving, desk hutch, etc).
For me, the 20 inch display makes it very useful. It''s nice to be able to set up non-overlapping windows, especially if I'm working on several things at once. It's great for software development, or if you have to work in multiple terminal sessions at the same time. No more three-card-monte every time I want to jump between windows :) - meatmcguffin, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4I'm guessing if you upgrade every few years you would more inclined, by nature, to go for the Mac Pro.
- MauiMac, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2"Why not keep the 17" model and make it even more affordable?"
theWrkncacnter, Apple is going to keep the 17". The 17" iMac will keep its current design while the 20 and 24"-ers get a totaly new design... - Marmot, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I too have a spare monitor, and I personally would love to see something between the Mac mini and Mac pro without a built-in monitor. I don't know what Apple's reason is for not offering one. I assume they've considered it though, and decided it didn't make sense. Maybe they figured it would end up competing with the iMac and Mac Pro, potentially cannibalizing sales from both. Maybe they figured it would make the product line confusing.
One of the things that's nice about their product line is it's not confusing. It's easier to narrow down your options when you only have a small number of product lines to choose from. Maybe Apple figures that translates to an easier buying experience and therefore improved customer satisfaction / retention, even if that means they don't have a product that appeals to everybody.
At the end of the day, it's all about profit maximization and shareholder value--not being all things to all people. - clyde2801, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Oh, you mean OSX Lite
-
Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is