This feels like a critique that doesn’t understand people, and instead is trying to consider the product by itself.
Who is it for? Well, why not see the actual places buying them.
- Reception/lobby/greeting desks because they’re an aesthetic entry point.
- families who don’t want to deal with a computer. That’s a lot of people who upgrade once in a blue moon, don’t want to deal with shopping for different components like a display/mouse/keyboard. Over the last decade, ever single friend I know has had their parents transition to an iPad or an iMac.
For the last point, it’s not even that they’re technically illiterate. My dad records music in his retirement. My friends dad used to be a software engineer. They just don’t want to futz with stuff anymore.
I wish they still had target display mode. Then I could connect my work laptop to a “home” iMac. Was a good setup when I could use my iMac as a gaming computer back in the x86 days.
While not as versatile as Target Display Mode, you can use AirPlay over a wired connection from Mac to Mac: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/06/09/airplay-mac-to-mac-exte...
Weird it's still called AirPlay, but at least it's possible. The video will be compressed, though unlike Target Display Mode
It's clear to me both from the reviewer and some of the comments here on HN that some people don't understand that their bubble is a bubble inside of a bubble. most people I know who aren't technical would like a simple, no-nonsense computer.
I hope those people who only want a "simple, no-nonsense computer" don't get scammed out of $1700 for an iMac when they'd just as easily be satisfied with a computer that costs less than a fifth of that price.
Places that have a need for work stations, like offices and academic environments. Creative workers that have dedicated work areas and favor an uncluttered environment. It might not make as much sense for individual consumers, but I still see offices full of iMacs out in the world. Not every company wants to issue personal laptops for workers.
But the iMac is not a workstation. It's even less of a workstation that the Mac Mini, which is available with a faster processor, more RAM, bigger SSD and faster networking.
It's basically the lower-tier Mac Mini that's permanently attached to a (relatively small) monitor that cannot be repurposed, and you'd probably be better off getting a separate monitor for a Mini to allow upgrading those separately.
It's not your definition of a workstation, but for many businesses/locations, it is.
They're deployed by the hundreds, in one or two configurations, then are replaced after 3/5/7 years. They never get repurposed, they just get recycled/refurbished when they reach end of life or the value has been depreciated to zero.
It feels strange to say this though, because a setup where external monitors can be hooked up into laptops is a better UX for everyone involved for a typical workstation. The company can amortize and maintain the the display’s lifecycle separately from the machines, the employees get dynamic mobility and can take their laptop into meetings and home. About the only use case outside of the already-mentioned reception desk is the one where you don’t want employees taking their laptop home AND everyone is on a Mac which is… a kind of niche market. It’s not like companies want these for their computing power - there are other, more cost effective form factors and designs for that.
I think the iMac is kind of a relic from a bygone age where it was more difficult to fit desktop computing power into a laptop form factor. Now that laptops have gotten pretty beefy, the difference in compute between them and something like this is small enough that it probably makes more sense to opt for the mobility most of the time.
Both you and the person you’re replying to are thinking of workstations in the colloquial sense of “powerful computer to work on” instead of a literal station where someone works.
For 90% of people , an iMac is less fuss than other devices.
This thread reminds me of the Microsoft cloud 365 PC they just launched where everyone was confused by the market for it and really just cemented the fact that a lot of engineers aren’t very in touch with the actual workforce out there.
Is there still no easy way to use it as a target display? I'd consider an iMac as my personal computing device, but I'd like to use the display to plug into my work Macbook.
I remember reading a comment on HN about text rendering being bad in MacOS on external monitors because of a lack of anti-aliasing, so perhaps the new iMac is a better-working alternative to the Mac mini because of the first-party ultra-Hi-DPI screen that comes with it?
This is a good summary of the pathos Apple aims for. Good enough computing. Unique form. Occasionally they nail both, not not often enough to say it’s even often.
Such a silly framing for a review. The iMac is for someone who just wants a good simple desktop computer. Ah but what if you want customize? Don't. That's not what it's for. Sure, if you're a tech reviewer and you're all jazzed about HDR and mechanical keyboards then this product isn't for you. But then... your job as a tech reviewer is kind of to understand what different customers will want and "I just want a computer" I would say is literally the most obvious market.
Who is this for? Someone who wants a computer. Ah, but take away the people who want multi-monitor, take away the people who want mechanical keyboards, a bigger fancy monitor, and what are you left with? Still basically everyone!
And it's not like this is the only computer Apple makes. They have 1 basic hardware platform based on the M4, they give you the laptops for portability, the iMac as the basic desktop, the mini for if you want to do all the things that the iMac isn't configured for, and they have the Mac Pro to taunt professionals. It's an incredibly coherent product line up. No one is confused about which one they want.
Oh and by the way, it works really well for Apple too, because they are literally just taking the guts from their other products and sticking it in the same design desktop they've had for years. Do you really think that'll be improved by redesigning it and therefore charging 50% extra due to all the bespoke costs?
I will hasard that the amount of people who would like a desktop computer with no customisability whatsoever and wouldn't be better served by actually pluging a laptop to a monitor is basically zero.
And well, that's what the article is pointing. That and the uter irrelevance of the base model and how extremely marked up the actually useful model is, all par for the course with Apple.
I think you're massively over-estimating what the average consumer wants from their computer. I need a computer but you're saying I shouldn't buy a computer I should buy a laptop and then a separate monitor? Why!? What a weird thing to do. Call me crazy, but people will just buy a computer when they need a computer.
I know, I know, we could get them a laptop and a fancy display and a mechanical keyboard and we could load Ubuntu onto it for them too while we're at it so that they aren't locked in to Apple's walled garden.
That's just not what an average consumer is going to do, they're going to need a computer and buy one.
Because you then also have a laptop for the same price and as a bonus you can upgrade the monitore and computer separately.
It's so obvious I don't understand what you are missing there. Why do you think the market for desktop literaly cratered outside of the gaming segment?
I don't understand your rambling about mechanical keyboards and Ubuntu. You can simply buy a Macbook Pro (or god forbid a Mac mini) and an Apple screen for a cost which is roughly equivalent to this iMac and a net gain of functionality.
Average consumers stopped buying desktop two decades ago by the way.
I think you’re the one missing the “obvious” part as you call it. The other person even spelled it out.
The market for these doesn’t care about any of the stuff you mentioned. It’s really that simple.
They don’t care about the portability because they have their phone or tablet. They don’t care about upgrading because they’ll keep their device for a decade+, or they don’t own it themselves.
They don’t want to buy a separate computer and display because they don’t want that hassle.
The desktop market has cratered, sure, but that’s largely because the less complex devices have won out. This is one such device.
Try stepping outside of your own shoes before you start telling other people they’re missing obvious things.
The difference between your opinion and theirs is that theirs is based on observation, experience, and anecdotes from people who fill that market, and yours is based on speculative extrapolation from a narrower version of observation, anecdotes, experience, generously. The people who know it to be true will read their thoughts about the market you think doesn't exist, and will agree, and the ones who haven't and don't think it should be rational will agree with you.
It does exist. Schools, kids, various platform independent in-office work computers, old people, all kinds; even introducing one layer of complexity and going down one step in prettiness just isn't worth it sometimes.
No kidding. I got my mom to buy a laptop and external display since it wasn't much more than a mini/monitor but for some reason she hates the laptop. It's not rational, she just wants the "simplicity" of a desktop.
The most important part of my comment is "and wouldn't be better served by actually pluging a laptop to a monitor" and your reply about cable unplugging (really?) lets me think you know it is.
I am not even commenting about the ecological disaster than gluing all this together is because, well, it's Apple and Apple never cared anyway. Still disappointing.
Desktop is pretty niche these days. Most of those people would buy a laptop and it’s likely that a significant proportion of people buying desktop have specific needs
That’s the genius of the iMac. It’s a MacBook with a nice screen. They deliver the form factor while simultaneously taking advantage of the massive economies of scale brought by their laptops.
Because they ship so few models, Apples individual SKUs are typically #1 or #2 in a category despite smaller share. Dell sells 10x computers with 50x SKUs.
This feels like a critique that doesn’t understand people, and instead is trying to consider the product by itself.
Who is it for? Well, why not see the actual places buying them.
- Reception/lobby/greeting desks because they’re an aesthetic entry point.
- families who don’t want to deal with a computer. That’s a lot of people who upgrade once in a blue moon, don’t want to deal with shopping for different components like a display/mouse/keyboard. Over the last decade, ever single friend I know has had their parents transition to an iPad or an iMac.
For the last point, it’s not even that they’re technically illiterate. My dad records music in his retirement. My friends dad used to be a software engineer. They just don’t want to futz with stuff anymore.
Try to find an external monitor with the same high quality inbuilt webcam, microphone, speakers and USB hub. I'm waiting...
I wish they still had target display mode. Then I could connect my work laptop to a “home” iMac. Was a good setup when I could use my iMac as a gaming computer back in the x86 days.
While not as versatile as Target Display Mode, you can use AirPlay over a wired connection from Mac to Mac: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/06/09/airplay-mac-to-mac-exte... Weird it's still called AirPlay, but at least it's possible. The video will be compressed, though unlike Target Display Mode
AirPlay certainly isn't as snappy as a physical connection but it's not bad for just a secondary monitor with secondary materials on it.
It's clear to me both from the reviewer and some of the comments here on HN that some people don't understand that their bubble is a bubble inside of a bubble. most people I know who aren't technical would like a simple, no-nonsense computer.
I hope those people who only want a "simple, no-nonsense computer" don't get scammed out of $1700 for an iMac when they'd just as easily be satisfied with a computer that costs less than a fifth of that price.
The guy actually answers his own question quite effectively:
> It really only makes sense if you’re buying a computer for a reception desk or lobby area
That's the market. Reception desks.
Places that have a need for work stations, like offices and academic environments. Creative workers that have dedicated work areas and favor an uncluttered environment. It might not make as much sense for individual consumers, but I still see offices full of iMacs out in the world. Not every company wants to issue personal laptops for workers.
But the iMac is not a workstation. It's even less of a workstation that the Mac Mini, which is available with a faster processor, more RAM, bigger SSD and faster networking.
It's basically the lower-tier Mac Mini that's permanently attached to a (relatively small) monitor that cannot be repurposed, and you'd probably be better off getting a separate monitor for a Mini to allow upgrading those separately.
It's not your definition of a workstation, but for many businesses/locations, it is.
They're deployed by the hundreds, in one or two configurations, then are replaced after 3/5/7 years. They never get repurposed, they just get recycled/refurbished when they reach end of life or the value has been depreciated to zero.
It feels strange to say this though, because a setup where external monitors can be hooked up into laptops is a better UX for everyone involved for a typical workstation. The company can amortize and maintain the the display’s lifecycle separately from the machines, the employees get dynamic mobility and can take their laptop into meetings and home. About the only use case outside of the already-mentioned reception desk is the one where you don’t want employees taking their laptop home AND everyone is on a Mac which is… a kind of niche market. It’s not like companies want these for their computing power - there are other, more cost effective form factors and designs for that.
I think the iMac is kind of a relic from a bygone age where it was more difficult to fit desktop computing power into a laptop form factor. Now that laptops have gotten pretty beefy, the difference in compute between them and something like this is small enough that it probably makes more sense to opt for the mobility most of the time.
This.
Especially true with the Mac Studio being available too.
Both you and the person you’re replying to are thinking of workstations in the colloquial sense of “powerful computer to work on” instead of a literal station where someone works.
For 90% of people , an iMac is less fuss than other devices.
This thread reminds me of the Microsoft cloud 365 PC they just launched where everyone was confused by the market for it and really just cemented the fact that a lot of engineers aren’t very in touch with the actual workforce out there.
Is there still no easy way to use it as a target display? I'd consider an iMac as my personal computing device, but I'd like to use the display to plug into my work Macbook.
I love that they have affilate links in the article for a product that "wasn’t built for this world".
To my surprise it’s actually not easy to get a Mac mini, keyboard, mouse and a comparable screen for the price of an iMac.
My friend is buying one so his kids can Facetime with their grandparents.
I asked him why not get a $500 Mac Mini and a webcam to save half the cost, and he said he thought his wife would like the color.
Raccoon coats, I guess.
I remember reading a comment on HN about text rendering being bad in MacOS on external monitors because of a lack of anti-aliasing, so perhaps the new iMac is a better-working alternative to the Mac mini because of the first-party ultra-Hi-DPI screen that comes with it?
> TouchID is great, and it’s frustrating that Apple put it on the keyboard instead of the power button
Or the trackpad. TouchID works well on iPad Air power button.
“a beautiful object and a good computer”
This is a good summary of the pathos Apple aims for. Good enough computing. Unique form. Occasionally they nail both, not not often enough to say it’s even often.
ethos, surely, not pathos
I was thinking authority on taste but pathos works too.
Such a silly framing for a review. The iMac is for someone who just wants a good simple desktop computer. Ah but what if you want customize? Don't. That's not what it's for. Sure, if you're a tech reviewer and you're all jazzed about HDR and mechanical keyboards then this product isn't for you. But then... your job as a tech reviewer is kind of to understand what different customers will want and "I just want a computer" I would say is literally the most obvious market.
Who is this for? Someone who wants a computer. Ah, but take away the people who want multi-monitor, take away the people who want mechanical keyboards, a bigger fancy monitor, and what are you left with? Still basically everyone!
And it's not like this is the only computer Apple makes. They have 1 basic hardware platform based on the M4, they give you the laptops for portability, the iMac as the basic desktop, the mini for if you want to do all the things that the iMac isn't configured for, and they have the Mac Pro to taunt professionals. It's an incredibly coherent product line up. No one is confused about which one they want.
Oh and by the way, it works really well for Apple too, because they are literally just taking the guts from their other products and sticking it in the same design desktop they've had for years. Do you really think that'll be improved by redesigning it and therefore charging 50% extra due to all the bespoke costs?
> Still basically everyone!
I will hasard that the amount of people who would like a desktop computer with no customisability whatsoever and wouldn't be better served by actually pluging a laptop to a monitor is basically zero.
And well, that's what the article is pointing. That and the uter irrelevance of the base model and how extremely marked up the actually useful model is, all par for the course with Apple.
I think you're massively over-estimating what the average consumer wants from their computer. I need a computer but you're saying I shouldn't buy a computer I should buy a laptop and then a separate monitor? Why!? What a weird thing to do. Call me crazy, but people will just buy a computer when they need a computer.
I know, I know, we could get them a laptop and a fancy display and a mechanical keyboard and we could load Ubuntu onto it for them too while we're at it so that they aren't locked in to Apple's walled garden.
That's just not what an average consumer is going to do, they're going to need a computer and buy one.
> Why?
Because you then also have a laptop for the same price and as a bonus you can upgrade the monitore and computer separately.
It's so obvious I don't understand what you are missing there. Why do you think the market for desktop literaly cratered outside of the gaming segment?
I don't understand your rambling about mechanical keyboards and Ubuntu. You can simply buy a Macbook Pro (or god forbid a Mac mini) and an Apple screen for a cost which is roughly equivalent to this iMac and a net gain of functionality.
Average consumers stopped buying desktop two decades ago by the way.
I think you’re the one missing the “obvious” part as you call it. The other person even spelled it out.
The market for these doesn’t care about any of the stuff you mentioned. It’s really that simple.
They don’t care about the portability because they have their phone or tablet. They don’t care about upgrading because they’ll keep their device for a decade+, or they don’t own it themselves.
They don’t want to buy a separate computer and display because they don’t want that hassle.
The desktop market has cratered, sure, but that’s largely because the less complex devices have won out. This is one such device.
Try stepping outside of your own shoes before you start telling other people they’re missing obvious things.
> The market for these doesn’t care about any of the stuff you mentioned.
Yes, that’s because this market basically doesn’t exist which is indeed the Verge point.
The difference between your opinion and theirs is that theirs is based on observation, experience, and anecdotes from people who fill that market, and yours is based on speculative extrapolation from a narrower version of observation, anecdotes, experience, generously. The people who know it to be true will read their thoughts about the market you think doesn't exist, and will agree, and the ones who haven't and don't think it should be rational will agree with you.
It does exist. Schools, kids, various platform independent in-office work computers, old people, all kinds; even introducing one layer of complexity and going down one step in prettiness just isn't worth it sometimes.
In which case, both you and the article can’t be bothered to step outside and understand the market.
Or are you both claiming that Apple has an entire multi decade line of products it keeps refreshing without a market?
This just feels like hubris of not being able to envision other people.
No kidding. I got my mom to buy a laptop and external display since it wasn't much more than a mini/monitor but for some reason she hates the laptop. It's not rational, she just wants the "simplicity" of a desktop.
> the amount of people who would like a desktop computer with no customisability whatsoever
You’re massively overestimating both general computer literacy and shits given. Not having to customise anything is a sales pitch for many consumers.
> pluging a laptop to a monitor
You’re selling me on this iMac. “My computer is broken.” No, the monitor cable popped out when you moved the screen.
The most important part of my comment is "and wouldn't be better served by actually pluging a laptop to a monitor" and your reply about cable unplugging (really?) lets me think you know it is.
I am not even commenting about the ecological disaster than gluing all this together is because, well, it's Apple and Apple never cared anyway. Still disappointing.
> wouldn't be better served by actually pluging a laptop to a monitor
Yes. Lots of people don’t need nor want this. Getting two things to work together is more complicated than one.
> Still basically everyone!
Desktop is pretty niche these days. Most of those people would buy a laptop and it’s likely that a significant proportion of people buying desktop have specific needs
That’s the genius of the iMac. It’s a MacBook with a nice screen. They deliver the form factor while simultaneously taking advantage of the massive economies of scale brought by their laptops.
Because they ship so few models, Apples individual SKUs are typically #1 or #2 in a category despite smaller share. Dell sells 10x computers with 50x SKUs.
Nah, Dell sells less than 2x as many computers as Apple does (40 million in 2023 vs 22 million for Apple).
Are these for schools, or do most kids get laptops these days?
Most kids in affluent enough areas get iPads. Less affluent areas get Chromebooks.
My parents in their 70's.
Imagine your job being a "tech reviewer" and not being able to fathom the clear (albeit comparatively small) market for a product like this
16 GB is criminally under-specced.