Slashdot Mirror
Time Canada Shows New iMac
Kira-Baka writes "Okay, Time Canada screwed up big time. They have pictures of the new iMac which will be released tomorrow during the Mac World Expo keynote on their front page. it is likely that they will be getting a letter soon so though..." I'll be posting a full report on the keynote and other MacWorld goodness tomorrow as it happens. Time Canada seems a bit slow, but in short, think little pod of iMac with superdrive and flat panel screen. Update: 01/07 13:22 GMT by T : Several readers have pointed out that the story can (for now) still be found mirrored here, though it's been pulled from the Time site.
Maybe it's not when Apple would have wanted it, but Time did "the right thing" from a journalist's perspective. They "broke the story", which is what journalists are paid to do.
Now we know why Jobs moved the keynote up a day. If Time is published on Monday, Apple would either have had to "debut" the iMac a day after everyone had read about it in print, or ask Time to change their whole publishing cycle. Moving the keynote to occur as the magazine was _supposed_ to be released made everyone happy.
Now it makes sense....
My mom is looking for a computer to call her own, and I've been trying to steer her toward a Macintosh. Why?
First of all, her needs are simple. She needs to check her email, surf the web, and use a word processor. With Mail.app, Internet Explorer/OmniWeb, and AppleWorks, her needs are fulfilled.
Additionally, Macs really are easier to use than the alternatives. How did I install Office v.X on my iBook? I dragged the folder that had "Drag this to your hard disk" written next to it to... my hard disk! Uninstallation? Drag the folder from my hard disk to the Trash!
I can definitely see one of these new iMacs sitting in our kitchen where the Audrey (shudder) is now, and I can see my mom writing email, surfing the web, writing letters, editing movies from our HandyCam, and burning DVDs on it, all without much intervention from me beyond teaching her the basics.
That's truly a beautiful thing.
Done. You can run a fullscreen X server, or run it rootless so X and Aqua windows are side by side.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Of course, they don't ever tell you anything about what kind of DVD burner it is, which is much more important than with CD burners (there are numerous types).
Why is it important? My iMac has a CDRW in it. How fast is it? I don't know. Fast enough to burn a whole CD in about five minutes, which is fast enough for me. I don't worry about it.
My G4 at work has a SuperDrive. It reads CDs and DVDs, and it burns CDs and DVDs. How fast is it? I don't know; see above. I know that I can burn a DVD-ROM and read it in any computer I've tried so far, and I know I can burn a video-DVD and play it in every video DVD player I've tried. That's good enough for me. I don't worry about it.
I don't care what kind of CDRW or DVD my computer has, because it works perfectly every time (knock wood).
Time isn't in trouble, and Apple will be more glad than not. Jobs knows how to work the media - and people in general - and I'm sure that Time/Warner will be happy - people are probably going to snap up Time Magazine like it's going out of style.
--Dan
Say what you will, the cube was way ahead of it's time.
The arm isn't fixed dude. It can move up and down.
It's the biggest it's going to get at current (and near current) prices
Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity, my friend.
Well, it looks just as versatile as the original iMac to me :-). Give it some time, maybe it will grow on you, I thought the iMac was big ugly blob when I first saw it, but it really grew on me.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
I know looks are subjective, but there are some basic principles of aesthetics. Most people will agree that something gorgeous is at least attractive, or that something heinous is at least unattractive. And this flat-paneled thingie is pretty heinous.
I say this as someone who has liked Apple's aesthetics a lot. Visuals do mean something to me, which is why I chose my PC case based on both functionality and aesthetics. The original iMac had a great aesthetic--it was different and new, and yet it could blend in pretty seamlessly in almost any environment. It wouldn't look out of place in your living room or home office whether the decor were ultra-modern or quite old-fashioned. It looked at home in offices and schools and computer labs. And it looked good doing it.
But this flat-paneled monstrosity looks like a refugee from the movie *2001: A Space Odyssey*. In other words, it looks like a 1960's conception of a futuristic 21st century design. Looking at that film now, it's a wonderful film, but all the design elements look so conspicuous as to be almost laughable. And so does this new flat-panel presumed iMac. Whereas the old iMac dsign took a few moments to get used to but then blended right in naturally as if the design were obvious, this thing will always look conspicuously out of place unless your decor is 60's ultra-modern. I can't picture this is an old-fashioned office at all. And aesthetically, it just isn't attractive. It's an LCD on a stalk with a clunky base. It looks rather like a ladies' cosmetic mirror, actually--from the 60s.
And the flaws are functional, too. An awful lot of iMacs go into the educational sector--but not these. Why? Because, with the small LCD and smallish base and the mobility of the swiveling stalk, one of these could easily be slipped into a backpack or duffel bag. Public schools won't want them because they'll be easy to steal. Libraries won't want them because they'll be easy to steal. College labs won't want them because they'll be easy to steal. Basically, anything fairly public would be a bad place to put these things. It's a laptop on a stick. It's just begging to get stolen. And it kinda ruins the whole aesthetic--not that it was a good one in the first place--when such public places as do buy them start putting big ugly bicycle chains around the stalks.
What does this ugly, gangly design have that others don't? It offers greater mobility for swiveling your LCD screen since it's attached to that weird stalk instead of to the base just as most (far better looking) rumor site concept art had it. Now, even though half a dozen Mac zealots and one or two PC guys who are a lot closer to their computers than any average home users are, are going to dispute this, the fact is that most people sit their monitors (or iMacs) where they want them, adjust once, and leave everything be. Even in multi-user environments, tilting the monitor a little takes half a second and is even easy for a young kid--I just nudged my gigantic 20 inch CRT monitor around with ease, and it's a lot more heavy and bulky and crowded on all sides than most monitors will ever be. There's just not a need for the average user to have a swiveling stalk, which will only contribute to people thinking it looks really stupid. I think this is a case of Apple having graphic designers in mind more than home users and average guys and educational institutions--which is a mistake since graphics professionals are more likely to shell out for the extra horsepower of a more expensive Mac, not an iMac. The design here is just very, very poorly targeted to its demographic. Average home users--the bread and butter of the iMac market segment--are going to think this thing looks ugly.
What they should have done instead of this gangly monstrosity is to use the Cube design, but for the new LCD iMac. It was a gorgeous, award-winning design. Many, many people said they would have bought it if they could afford it. Instead of plopping an LCD atop a stick attached to an oversized AirPort unit (which is what this new design looks like), Apple should have redesigned the Cube, packaged it with an LCD monitor, and that should have been the new flat panel iMac. It's not quite as integrated as connecting the central unit to the LCD with a stick, but methinks even the most lame of home users know how to stick a wire from the LCD into the Cube. If they were too dumb to even do that, then how could they even plug in their modem wire from an old iMac to the wall plate?
Yes, the Cube design should have been harvested for Apple's new LCD iMac. Everyone loved it. The design was practically universally praised, (except the mould lines) and the only reason it didn't succeed was that it was priced way above the iMacs but very close to the full, powerful G4 towers. Opinion is clearly mixed at best on this new thingie, however. a Cube with LCD design for the new iMac would still be compact and relatively light and hence suffer from the same "stealability" factor which I mentioned may deter public schools and such from upgrading to the new iStalks, but at least it wouldn't look ugly and stick out in almost any decor, it would look gorgeous and complement any environment. Either way, if public schools and libraries upgrade to a newer lighter iMac, they'll have to chain them down with a vengeance whereas the old iMac was better suited thanks to its CRT bulk and heft. Flat panels in general are a poor choice for such environments thanks to stealability and the relative ease of damaging an LCD's more delicate screen.
At any rate, I think I've made it obvious that while I liked the old iMac design and the G4 Cube design and even the Apple tower designs, I hate this new "iStalk" design. It truly looks like a piece of set dressing from *2001: A Space Odyssey*, and hence just too bizarre to fit in here in the real world. The primary advantage of having the LCD on the swiveling stalk, ease of moving the screen, is also an advantage few of the iMac's target demographic will really use--oh, and it also makes the LCD prone to get repositioned too frequently for comfort, if you're the type of person who likes to get his monitor or TV just-so.
And finally--it wouldn't take a clumsy person to knock one of these off a desk and break it; it would only take a quick accidental arm movement. I'm sure the base is extra-sturdy with just this in mind, but you just know several people will knock these things down by accidentally hitting the LCDs.
My final, final word: Yep, Apple should have just put the Cube together with an LCD monitor and branded it the new imac, instead of creating this ugly beast. the Cube had aesthetic splendor, while this is aesthetic squalor...
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
I've had to give it to Apple in the past, they have come out with some damn nice looking machines. However, this time, I looks like they have run out of idea.
This is exactly what I thought when the original iMac first came out. I thought it looked like an ugly cheap plastic joke and I was sure I was witnessing the end of Apple Computer. At the time the initial reaction of many geeks was the same as mine. Of course as it turns out that the target audience loved the look, it looked better in person than it did in pictures and it sold like hotcakes singlehandedly bringing Apple back from the financial grave. It just goes to show why Steve Job's net worth is counted in hundreds of millions and mine is $3.67 after taxes.
Now I see the *new* iMac and my initial reaction is the same - what an ugly (not so)cheap plastic joke. But this time I'll reserve my judgement until I get a chance to see it in person and see the reaction of the people who are it's intended audience (not me, or people like me.) Don't get me wrong I'm not deferring all sense of aesthetic tast to Steve Jobs. He and Apple have certainly gotten it wrong before both with looks (the original iBook) and with price (the Cube) But I hope as I look at this thing that despite my initial reaction that they have again hit it out of the park in a way that I wouldn't have dared with my more conventional sense of aesthetics.