The Tech Behind Apple’s Impossibly Thin New iMacs

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/10/imac-tech/

by ishake • 14 years ago

30 50 14 years ago

SenorWilson2• 14 years ago

This is interesting, but I have no idea why they're spending money making a desktop thinner. Using the old thickness(which was fine) and todays technology could produce a better computer. Why do people want thin desktops(or why does Apple?).

w1ntermute4• 14 years ago

It's good advertising/branding. Form over function.

GuiA• 14 years ago

Form IS function.

arrrg• 14 years ago

Because it looks great.

I really don’t understand why some people are completely mystified how that could be an argument. So you don’t care about looks? Fine. Others do. And computers are a part of the furniture.

Some people buy those really nice looking but functionally identical faucets that cost three time as much, some don’t. That’s all.

There is nothing ridiculous about that, it’s just a difference in taste.

colmvp• 14 years ago

Indeed.

Why is it crazy to think that people just want something to work and look nice? It's an argument that I see people have to make on HN all... the... time.

megablast• 14 years ago

I see your point, but when you consider you are rarely even going to see it, since it is all behind the monitor. From the front, these new machines do not even look different.

rimantas• 14 years ago

There is another amusing point. Take cars (again!)—aesthetics are very important there and design of a car is one of the main talking points. However you don't even see it when you use. On the other hand we stare at the computers all day long and some still say that looks of it do not matter.

Osmium7• 14 years ago

Not to mention no mess of cables.

brusch• 14 years ago

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think it looks really ridiculous with it's hump. But you don't see the hump on the normal Apple pictures.

89a2• 14 years ago

Power and heat distribution are more valuable in a desktop than how it looks.

I love the look of the last iMac, no idea why they did this stupid design and removed ram upgradability for the sake of it looking thinner (from some angles).

I predict it will fatten up again when they go retina

SenorWilson2• 14 years ago

The older iMacs looked great. At least in my opinion, thinner doesn't make them look better. Not worse either... just different.

Detrus• 14 years ago

They're practicing for thin iPhones? It is pretty weird. They could probably release something thicker than the old model and market that just as well.

hrktb• 14 years ago

For apple it means less raw materials, perhaps less parts, less volume to move around, and they must have other secondary benefits in other areas that we don't know.

The older parts might also get more difficult to get from the supply chain as time goes by (a bit like the old processors that drop off the manufactory chains after a few years), and you don't get much in not using a recent/smaller version of the components.

iMacs are already a very good value proposition I think, and you wouldn't have your better computer without bumping the price point way over what an average consumer would buy I think.

commanderkeen08• 14 years ago

I used to think this too. I was the guy that thought DVDs were unnecessary and that VHS was fine. But then I got a DVD player and of course there was no going back after that. Likewise, when I caved and bought an Air, there was no going back.

I'm not trying to compare Apple products to DVDs (except that I am) but this whole obsession with thinness is another great example of Apple giving us something we didn't know we wanted.

And on another note, which I have zero evidence to support, I'm sure there's a psychological effect of thinner feeling "faster."

da_n4• 14 years ago

I too find that design decision perplexing. Personally, it is ongoing choices like these which have pretty much made me decide to build a hackintosh instead and in the long run move away from Apple to Linux (only Photoshop holding me back now Adobe!). I have been using Apple computers for more than a decade so it has not been an easy choice. If I continue to stick with Apple however my hardware choices are:

1. Mac Pro - gouging prices, several generation old tech. 2. iMac - a Macbook Air in a monitor, practically zero expansion options. 3. Mac Mini - poor expansion options, poor graphics, expensive once you start adding the ram you need etc.

Seem to me Apple is now almost entirely focused on iOS and iDevices, which is understandable as that's where the money is. I don't see them investing anything much into the desktop computer line at all going forward. Time to move on.

Osmium7• 14 years ago

Mac Pros are due for a significant update. That aside, I think it's disingenuous to say that they're not investing anything into their desktop line. These are the most powerful, most power efficient, computers they've ever released. How different do you really think they'd be if the iPhone/iPad didn't exist? The iMac has never had good expansion options, all the way back to its inception, so this should come as no surprise.

Osmium7• 14 years ago

Consider the contrary: what do you get with a thicker computer? These iMacs already have performance (top-end: 3.4 GHz i7, 32 GB RAM, GTX 680MX with 2 GB GDDR5, thunderbolt and USB 3). If they said, "okay, instead of making it thinner, let's keep it the same size and make it better," what exactly do you expect?

The only improvements you could get with a thicker computer are things that would also negatively affect the amount of power it requires. Thinness is just a pleasant consequence of power-concious design.

wmf2• 14 years ago

Of course it looks thinner if you take care to only photograph it from angles where the hump isn't visible. It's also interesting that the cover glass was a challenge, since monitors don't need cover glass; it's purely an aesthetic addition.

taligent2• 14 years ago

It's not just as aesthetic addition it makes the iMac more durable.

Given that families are a big market for iMacs it seems to be common sense that you would make it as kid friendly as possible. Last thing you want is an errant toy to destroy your screen.

konstruktor• 14 years ago

How ironic that you mention reliability as an advantage of a mostly unserviceable all-in-one.

ryannielsen3• 14 years ago

It doesn't just look thinner. It is thinner. Yes, there is a hump around the base's hinge, but it is still significantly, noticeably thinner – per the article, the machine's volume was reduced by 40%.

maggit• 14 years ago

I believe the reference thickness the parent was referring to was the thickness of the same iMac, not the previous one. In other words:

If you take pictures from the right angle, the computer looks thinner than if you take pictures from the side showing the entire bulge and stand.

fudged712• 14 years ago

This was absolutely the first thing I noticed on the Apple website. Where is the profile shot? http://i.imgur.com/OvNJO.jpg

lloeki4• 14 years ago

Here, with the full iMac history for the sake of comparison: http://www.apple.com/imac/design/#evolution

lloeki4• 14 years ago

> It's also interesting that the cover glass was a challenge, since monitors don't need cover glass; it's purely an aesthetic addition.

Screens don't need it, but that's not purely aesthetic. Having glass upfront means you can use whatever you want and clean that stuff, as the material is resilient and there's no leak around the seams. Also it's more robust against people poking their fingers into the screen, and more rigid overall. In D.Rams parlance, "good design has a purpose", and here it's a blend between form and function.

demallien• 14 years ago

I disagree, I don't think this is purely aesthetic.

What follows is just an opinion:

The smaller you make the package, the harder it is to do active heat management with fans and big heat sinks. Apple spends a lot of R&D dollars on reducing the power usage of their computers - Macs are way more power efficient than their competitors.

Thinness is the authentic, unfakeable, consequence of all of that power management engineering. Competitors can't copy the look of an iMac without also investing heavily in design work to reduce power consumption.

In an ideal world, Apple could just publish power usage figures, but that doesn't really sell computers outside of the data center universe. Thin computers on the other handle are much more marketable, so Apple is using thinness as a marketing proxy for power efficiency.

Osmium7• 14 years ago

Colours look better under glass too, though obviously it has its downsides (glare).

wmf2• 14 years ago

An LCD is already glass; I'm skeptical that adding another layer improves contrast.

jtsagata• 14 years ago

Why someone want to buy something like this? Just to have an unrepairable PC? And if something inside breaks you have to just buy a new PC? I like to mess with my PC internals, upgrade it and fix it if I can with my poor electronic skills.

MrScruff• 14 years ago

Which puts you in a very small niche among computer users. Most people want an appliance, like their TV.

Osmium7• 14 years ago

If something inside breaks, you can get it fixed. For free, if it's under warranty. Most people have neither the time nor the technical ability to fix something themselves anyway, so this is a non-issue.

For me, I've had an iMac for 5 years and I upgraded both the RAM and the HDD (to an SSD) myself with no issues. And it shows no signs of slowing down and is better than the day I bought it, and is probably one of the best investments I've made. Hell, at the time, and this is still true, buying a monitor of comparable quality would've cost half what I paid for the entire computer.

89a2• 14 years ago

I'd rather it stay the same thickness and put more power inside.

It's not like I ever see the back anyway

The Tech Behind Apple’s Impossibly Thin New iMacs

Related Stories