Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Tech Behind Apple’s Impossibly Thin New iMacs

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 52 posts

Re: The Tech Behind Apple’s Impossibly Thin New iMacs

#21

Post by culturestate »

megablast wrote: post #20
arrrg wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Not everyone's desk is positioned against a wall.

Re: The Tech Behind Apple’s Impossibly Thin New iMacs

#22

Post by hrktb »

SenorWilson wrote: post #2

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?).

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.

Re: The Tech Behind Apple’s Impossibly Thin New iMacs

#23

Post by ryannielsen »

w1ntermute wrote: post #17
ryannielsen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So… you'd rather carry around a briefcase with an attached external handset as a cellphone, rather than a somewhat modern cellphone? What about carrying around a laptop with a tethered cellphone vs. a smartphone? If you prefer the latter options, as many do, then I really do believe that's a solid signal that form is function.

Strawman, I never claimed any of those things. Stop putting words in my mouth.

If I'm arguing a straw man, you're arguing a red herring. There is no "RDF" at play here. Form absolutely does impact function. In fact, form distinctly defines function.

Please, state a cogent argument otherwise.

Re: The Tech Behind Apple’s Impossibly Thin New iMacs

#24

Post by lloeki »

fudged71 wrote: post #18
wmf wrote: post #3

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.

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

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

Re: The Tech Behind Apple’s Impossibly Thin New iMacs

#25

Post by rimantas »

arrrg wrote: post #5
SenorWilson wrote: post #2

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?).

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.

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.

Re: The Tech Behind Apple’s Impossibly Thin New iMacs

#26

Post by lloeki »

wmf wrote: post #3

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.

> 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.

Re: The Tech Behind Apple’s Impossibly Thin New iMacs

#27

Post by cromwellian »

GuiA wrote: post #7
w1ntermute wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Form IS function.

Nonsense. People buy desktop computers often to get work done. Function in that case relates to productivity, and productivety often derives from better performance.

I just moved from a Mac Pro to a Linux Box precisely because none of Apple's current lineup can make the power per $ I can buy from a PC box. I just bought a PC that absolutely destroys the best Mac you can buy, and my personal work, be it compilation, digital content creation, or even playing Battlefield 3 @ 2500x1600 on a 30" monitor at great framerates, will be vastly improved. Can you buy a 4.2Ghz i7 from Apple? Can you get a liquid cooled iMac with Dual GeForce 680 GTXs?

If I were to buy an iMac, it's form would absolutely deliver less function. I have ample desktop space, the look of the monitor/CPU combo has zero effect on the function of the software or how I interact with it.

However, the constrained geometry does have a large effect on the thermal/cooling solutions you can pack into it, or whether you can put something like a GeForce 690GTX into it.

Mobile computing, you can make an argument about form and function, since the ergonomics and weight of the device matter a lot. For getting work done on the desktop, its completely irrelevant unless you're trying to show off.

If the iMac were a stand-in for an Apple TV, and the computer needed to be hung on the wall, then by all means, make it a flat panel. But desktop boxes in tower configurations in no way inhibit most people, often the desktop sits under the table anyway, and only the monitor, keyboard, and mouse are above the desk.

Now, I realize this is going to insult a lot of iMac owners, but I am a power user, I've owned nothing but top of the line boxes, until I got my 2006 Mac Pro. I stuck with it for along time, hoping Apple was going to get seriously about keeping up with top-end PCs on the GPU and CPU front, but they never caught up after being briefly ahead. And so, I finally got frustrated with Apple's lack of attention to professionals who want to buy Formula-1 machines. I am not interested in desktop machines that are not much different than laptops.

Re: The Tech Behind Apple’s Impossibly Thin New iMacs

#28

Post by lloeki »

w1ntermute wrote: post #8
GuiA wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Form IS function.

No, it isn't. But getting people to believe that is the RDF's power.

> But getting people to believe that is the RDF's power

Crap "design" doesn't mean that good design doesn't exist, and cannot be used to waive the latter away.

https://www.vitsoe.com/us/about/good-design

Re: The Tech Behind Apple’s Impossibly Thin New iMacs

#29

Post by fudged71 »

lloeki wrote: post #24
fudged71 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

It's not featured anywhere is my point. It's not in the gallery, it's not in any of the big shots, it's a small shot in a sequence.

The number of angle shots of the computer effectively make it appear as though the computer is 100x thinner than it is.

Re: The Tech Behind Apple’s Impossibly Thin New iMacs

#30

Post by commanderkeen08 »

SenorWilson wrote: post #2

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?).

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."

Post reply on HN