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 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%.
> 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.
Agreed, and I noticed it too, but I'm on the fence on that one.
Given the attention to detail in the design phase, I'd argue the apparent thinness was part of the spec, and since component space leads to a bump, the resulting angle value towards the bump comes from the design+engineering following the spec. From there, the marketing shots could very well follow the actual design and showcase what you will feel of the device most of the time. That is design => marketing, not marketing => design.
Where they dropped the ball is that they could really have put a nice side shot in the gallery. That's where I really expected to find one, and it's not like the thing is thick either so I fail to see the harm.
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.
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.
Serviceability has nothing to do with reliability, for one.
They're designed to not be serviced by anyone - not customers, not retail staff. So, they have better quality parts that reduce return rates, and get replaced by new or refurbished units if they are lemons. Nothing wrong with the advances of mass production.
If the machine is as unserviceable as you claim, then the increased reliability is indeed an advantage (or at least a mitigation). I'm not sure I see the irony.
