The ultrathin new iMac lost a lot more than size, like USB-A ports(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
The ultrathin new iMac lost a lot more than size, like USB-A ports
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/16/apple-imac-thin/
41 comments
iMacs stood for clean desktops with little hazzle. Now you need basically a docking station and tons of wires to connect your "legacy USB-A" equipment such as a goddamned printer or your goddamned Arduino board.
A simple USB hub is fine for those, and kind of preferred for most low throughout stuff.
I don’t want to have to reach behind the device to plug stuff in. The main issue I have with that is running into power or bandwidth problems for more power hungry things like rgb keyboards.
I don’t want to have to reach behind the device to plug stuff in. The main issue I have with that is running into power or bandwidth problems for more power hungry things like rgb keyboards.
This is a flaw that has been present in iMacs for a long time: there are no easily accessible ports of any kind. Having to use a hub with something that is supposed to be an all-in-one desktop feels like a category error. The chin would be a perfect place for a few ports, but Apple design is very much form over function.
Indeed I always glue a usb hub to the foot of my iMac at work. The ports at the back are too annoying to use. Apple forgets that people need to use these things rather than just admire them
Neither a printer nor an Arduino is likely to have a captive USB cable. USB-C to USB-B/micro-B/etc cables exist.
The only situation where USB-C ports on a host are an issue is for devices with captive cables, like USB mice. For those devices, inexpensive adapters are readily available.
The only situation where USB-C ports on a host are an issue is for devices with captive cables, like USB mice. For those devices, inexpensive adapters are readily available.
Except USB C to B or micro-B are not free and need to be purchased typically. A ton of devices still come with just USB A cables even if one end is USB C. A thin desktop gets you very little.
We're talking about a computer that costs several hundred times the price of the cable you're complaining about
That's not an excuse to spend even more, or create more waste. And such an expensive device should cater to typical consumers.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Eventually, you won't have to because USB-C will be the accepted standard for all these things.
And the impetus was Apple having the courage to leave USB-A in the past.
And the impetus was Apple having the courage to leave USB-A in the past.
It will be another 5 years out if even true -- and my MBP has had useless USB-C ports since what - 2016? So many dongles...I hate it. So that's 5 years + 5 more years. Yuck! And for what? Other manufacturers include both...because that's what customers WANT.
Apple tried to leave USB in the past in 2015. To date that hasn't worked. Any correlation is specious at best.
It's worth noting that Apple has been trying to leave USB in the past ever since USB has existed. FireWire and Thunderbolt are more or less the same thing with the same advantages (over USB) for the same reasons, and with the exact same downsides (security implications of DMA on external ports, extra cost and complexity).
[deleted]
By what standard has that not worked? I haven't used a hub in over a year
USB-B to USB-C cables cost a few dollars.
Most people don't have an Arduino board, and most printers these days are wireless.
My non-tech parents, siblings, and friends connect very little to their desktops — typically just a mouse and a keyboard (and half the time those are wireless too).
My non-tech parents, siblings, and friends connect very little to their desktops — typically just a mouse and a keyboard (and half the time those are wireless too).
Then why do they need an iMac?
Why does anyone need anything? The iMac is a stationary computer with a large screen that runs macOS and looks pretty. I don't think most people's primary consideration for desktop vs laptop is port selection; it's whether or not they want the computer to move around with them. If you don't need it to move and will keep it in one place, a desktop makes sense. If you want to cart your computer around, a laptop makes sense.
The iMac is especially nice as a stationary computer for most people: the monitor and computer are integrated into the same housing, so it's one less cable to deal with. With a wireless keyboard and mouse, the only cord coming off your desk is the power cable for the iMac. In comparison a laptop + external display will feel a bit clunky, and will come out to be more expensive anyway. If you never move it, it's a waste.
The iMac is especially nice as a stationary computer for most people: the monitor and computer are integrated into the same housing, so it's one less cable to deal with. With a wireless keyboard and mouse, the only cord coming off your desk is the power cable for the iMac. In comparison a laptop + external display will feel a bit clunky, and will come out to be more expensive anyway. If you never move it, it's a waste.
Raspberry pi's actually don't come with cables- so you'd just buy the right cable when you pick it up. And my low-end printer from 6 years ago is wireless.
>iMacs stood for clean desktops with little hassle
Yes, but that's always, ever since the original G3 iMac, come with the caveat of "as long as the only things you're using the computer for was covered in those 2007-era ads". Besides, if you have the money for the iMac experience, you also have the money for a printer that sits on the network (though admittedly that's not something that the iMac's target audience understands) as well as devices that use the new ports (or for the people who understand that it's just the connector that changed, conversion cables).
If you don't want to pay for the aesthetic, or have the foresight to realize that you can't use the aesthetic (because you need your computer as an appliance more than you need it to be an art piece), it turns out that Apple makes a computer that's functionally identical to the iMac for literally half the price (this was less true pre-2006, but the point still stands). Yeah, you have to bring your own screen, but if you need to save money that badly then buying a new screen every time you replace your computer was already a non-starter, right?
(Note that this rebuttal is in no way defending the fact that the 2 extra USB 3 ports are gated to the model that costs $200 more than the base price, which is an insane markup on ports that cost a fraction of a cent each, or in other words, the USB hub that Apple sells is built into the machine at 100 dollars a port.)
Yes, but that's always, ever since the original G3 iMac, come with the caveat of "as long as the only things you're using the computer for was covered in those 2007-era ads". Besides, if you have the money for the iMac experience, you also have the money for a printer that sits on the network (though admittedly that's not something that the iMac's target audience understands) as well as devices that use the new ports (or for the people who understand that it's just the connector that changed, conversion cables).
If you don't want to pay for the aesthetic, or have the foresight to realize that you can't use the aesthetic (because you need your computer as an appliance more than you need it to be an art piece), it turns out that Apple makes a computer that's functionally identical to the iMac for literally half the price (this was less true pre-2006, but the point still stands). Yeah, you have to bring your own screen, but if you need to save money that badly then buying a new screen every time you replace your computer was already a non-starter, right?
(Note that this rebuttal is in no way defending the fact that the 2 extra USB 3 ports are gated to the model that costs $200 more than the base price, which is an insane markup on ports that cost a fraction of a cent each, or in other words, the USB hub that Apple sells is built into the machine at 100 dollars a port.)
You can buy USB A to C adapters that are just a plug. No docking station or cables needed. That’s what I did with my 16” MacBook Pro. Big deal.
I wish they sold a version that's just the display, no computer inside.
So you can hook it to a Mac Pro or a Mini and get a nice matching display without going into Pro Display XDR territory (Price is a little steep, plus most folks don't really need color calibration anyways).
So you can hook it to a Mac Pro or a Mini and get a nice matching display without going into Pro Display XDR territory (Price is a little steep, plus most folks don't really need color calibration anyways).
Would you buy one for $599?
That would be about the minimum price for the iMac without all the computer inside, just display, speaker, some USB4 plus Apple's usual hardware margin.
It is only one tenth the price of Pro XDR, but it is still really expensive for a Consumer Display. And the lesson from HomePod ( they are still selling stocks made in 2018 ), the market may be smaller than we like.
Edit: Although I think the HomePod failure was partly because Apple. HomePod Should have a pair option by default instead of targeting Smart option. i.e It should have been a really great Speaker Pair with Smart features, rather than selling it a Smart Assistant with really good sound quality.
That would be about the minimum price for the iMac without all the computer inside, just display, speaker, some USB4 plus Apple's usual hardware margin.
It is only one tenth the price of Pro XDR, but it is still really expensive for a Consumer Display. And the lesson from HomePod ( they are still selling stocks made in 2018 ), the market may be smaller than we like.
Edit: Although I think the HomePod failure was partly because Apple. HomePod Should have a pair option by default instead of targeting Smart option. i.e It should have been a really great Speaker Pair with Smart features, rather than selling it a Smart Assistant with really good sound quality.
Ya, probably, if it was 30".
That price was specific to iMac aka 23.5". At 30" it would be a 5.7K screen, at least $1099.
These are just calculated with BOM cost and Apple's margin. Ignoring yield issues at 30" which would likely bump it to $1299 if not a lot higher.
Unfortunately high PPI LCD screen are not getting investment anymore. All of them are going to OLED. You will need 8K TV at 40" to get 218PPI. I seriously doubt that will come anytime soon. Which means there isn't any projection of these Display getting cheaper.
These are just calculated with BOM cost and Apple's margin. Ignoring yield issues at 30" which would likely bump it to $1299 if not a lot higher.
Unfortunately high PPI LCD screen are not getting investment anymore. All of them are going to OLED. You will need 8K TV at 40" to get 218PPI. I seriously doubt that will come anytime soon. Which means there isn't any projection of these Display getting cheaper.
I don't think they'd need to get that much cheaper. Apple sold 30" displays at that price 15 years ago. I have a Dell that I bought 6 years ago for around $1100 and it's great. If you're buying something that isn't shit, you pay for it.
That said, at ~24 inches there's no way I'd buy it at any price, unless I was in a pinch somehow.
That said, at ~24 inches there's no way I'd buy it at any price, unless I was in a pinch somehow.
I think, they are comparative. i.e 30" at the price 15 years ago make sense because all LCD screen were expensive. These days LCD screen are cheap, especially those with low PPI. And in the whole industry only Apple is fixed on the 218PPI ( Which is a good thing from quality PoV, but Bad thing from BOM PoV ). So the only conclusion is the market aren't willing to pay that much for a 24". Or at least not without other substantial upgrade like MiniLED backlight.
So yes, very unfortunate economics. Although one could argue Apple lower than margin, but generally speaking that I not how business works.
So yes, very unfortunate economics. Although one could argue Apple lower than margin, but generally speaking that I not how business works.
Yes me too. It would last a lot longer that way and be much more useful. I always use my displays with multiple computers. And the panels are is great quality. But Apple no longer makes displays for consumers.
I doesn’t have a floppy drive or a CD-ROM either. Apple have form for dropping “standard” components and usually the rest of the industry catches them up
Don't see the benefit of foregoing USB-A ports, especially in a desktop computer.
I'm not seeing USB-A ports going away any time soon.
It's just the better port format for a lot of things that need sturdy, large, cheap plugs.
It's just the better port format for a lot of things that need sturdy, large, cheap plugs.
The usb-A standard is rated for 15% of the plugs as usb-c. Large is not a feature. And the cost differential vs A is a rounding error on the price of a mac
As it stands I've had way more issues with USB-C plugs, ports and cables breaking, going faulty, accumulating dirt or shorting; issues I've never had with USB-A cables and plugs.
So congratulations on having a good standard, but if in practice my USB-C ports and cables get messed up because they're physically fragile then it means squat to me.
So congratulations on having a good standard, but if in practice my USB-C ports and cables get messed up because they're physically fragile then it means squat to me.
> As it stands I've had way more issues with USB-C plugs, ports and cables breaking, going faulty, accumulating dirt or shorting; issues I've never had with USB-A cables and plugs.
The only difference I’ve seen is with the plugs/ports, where USB-C has beem slightly worse than USB-A but about an order of magnitude better than USB-B; since for most real uses of USB-A, there is either a USB-B or a USB-C on the other end, this isn’t much of a vote for USB-A, though I guess if you aren't space constrained and don’t need the speed modes only available on USB-C to USB-C, a USB-A to USB-C can be ideal for some applications. (Cables are all over the map in durability, but I haven't noticed any correlation between the plugs on the end and quality, though plenty of other factors seem to matter.)
The only difference I’ve seen is with the plugs/ports, where USB-C has beem slightly worse than USB-A but about an order of magnitude better than USB-B; since for most real uses of USB-A, there is either a USB-B or a USB-C on the other end, this isn’t much of a vote for USB-A, though I guess if you aren't space constrained and don’t need the speed modes only available on USB-C to USB-C, a USB-A to USB-C can be ideal for some applications. (Cables are all over the map in durability, but I haven't noticed any correlation between the plugs on the end and quality, though plenty of other factors seem to matter.)
Strange I've had numerous issues with USB-A cables and plugs over the years. Not saying USB-C is any better because only time will tell, but let's not pretend USB-C was the pinnacle of reliability.
If there'd been a USB port in the power brick it could have solved this issue. Like the Ethernet port they put there.
Paywall