Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Apple Businesses

Time Canada Shows New iMac 987

Kira-Baka writes "Okay, Time Canada screwed up big time. They have pictures of the new iMac which will be released tomorrow during the Mac World Expo keynote on their front page. it is likely that they will be getting a letter soon so though..." I'll be posting a full report on the keynote and other MacWorld goodness tomorrow as it happens. Time Canada seems a bit slow, but in short, think little pod of iMac with superdrive and flat panel screen. Update: 01/07 13:22 GMT by T : Several readers have pointed out that the story can (for now) still be found mirrored here, though it's been pulled from the Time site.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Time Canada Shows New iMac

Comments Filter:
  • (Score:4, Informative)

    by orque ( 516523 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @12:25AM (#2796130) Homepage
    #appleinsider if you want to talk about it now
  • The date (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tuzanor ( 125152 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @12:25AM (#2796136) Homepage
    The story date is set at January 14, 2002. This must have been one really bad accident. Either way, somebody is in deep shit.
    • Re:The date (Score:2, Informative)

      by bigpat ( 158134 )
      nah... Magazines pre date their issues, so I'm betting this was okayed by apple for release, but probaly is a few hours early.
    • Re:The date (Score:4, Funny)

      by daeley ( 126313 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @01:56AM (#2796601) Homepage
      The story date is set at January 14, 2002.

      That's the problem with the Metric system. I know it's all 'logical' and stuff, but you can never tell what day it actually is. Frickin' Canadians.

      Oh and by the way..... ;-D
    • Re:The date (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's the biggest mistake to come out of Canada since Celine Dion.
  • by Calimus ( 43046 ) <> on Monday January 07, 2002 @12:28AM (#2796151) Homepage
    I've had to give it to Apple in the past, they have come out with some damn nice looking machines. However, this time, I looks like they have run out of idea. To me this thing looks like a blob of clay with a flat screen LCD jammed on it by a stick.

    While I am very impressed with the lack of footprint this design brings, It's just not very appealing to me. To top it all off, I thought the Imac was a PIA to upgrade the ram in, I can't imaging how careful you must have to be with that LCD monitor wavering about above it. Maybe it has a nice access door so you don't have to flip the thing over or something.

    In closing, I know I'm gonna get the stamp of flamebait, but this thing just really isn't eye appealing. Bring back the mac cube, at least it was a shape geeks could get into.
    • The original imac, and this as well, were never invisioned as something that geeks could get into. Neither their shape or their technical specs were meant to inspire awe and praise from the likes of the slashdot crowd. Eye appealing is a fairly subjective thing. I also think that the couple small pictures on that site aren't really fair to judge it by. It doesn't give much of an idea about how input/keyboard/mouse is handled, among other things.

      That being said, it reminds me too much of the light that the dentist puts in my face. I hate the dentist.
    • The iMac only Jobs could love.


      This is not a computer for geeks. It's certainly not the computer for schools. And I can't imagine most households wanting something like this when room is plentiful and 18" LCDs (or 21" CRTs) are cheaper than ever. Even die-hard Mac fans are unimpressed.

      So, who is Apple targeting? I feel this may set them back *much* further than the Cube.

      I wish Apple good luck, they need it.

    • by Chasing Amy ( 450778 ) <> on Monday January 07, 2002 @05:45AM (#2797336) Homepage
      I know looks are subjective, but there are some basic principles of aesthetics. Most people will agree that something gorgeous is at least attractive, or that something heinous is at least unattractive. And this flat-paneled thingie is pretty heinous.

      I say this as someone who has liked Apple's aesthetics a lot. Visuals do mean something to me, which is why I chose my PC case based on both functionality and aesthetics. The original iMac had a great aesthetic--it was different and new, and yet it could blend in pretty seamlessly in almost any environment. It wouldn't look out of place in your living room or home office whether the decor were ultra-modern or quite old-fashioned. It looked at home in offices and schools and computer labs. And it looked good doing it.

      But this flat-paneled monstrosity looks like a refugee from the movie *2001: A Space Odyssey*. In other words, it looks like a 1960's conception of a futuristic 21st century design. Looking at that film now, it's a wonderful film, but all the design elements look so conspicuous as to be almost laughable. And so does this new flat-panel presumed iMac. Whereas the old iMac dsign took a few moments to get used to but then blended right in naturally as if the design were obvious, this thing will always look conspicuously out of place unless your decor is 60's ultra-modern. I can't picture this is an old-fashioned office at all. And aesthetically, it just isn't attractive. It's an LCD on a stalk with a clunky base. It looks rather like a ladies' cosmetic mirror, actually--from the 60s.

      And the flaws are functional, too. An awful lot of iMacs go into the educational sector--but not these. Why? Because, with the small LCD and smallish base and the mobility of the swiveling stalk, one of these could easily be slipped into a backpack or duffel bag. Public schools won't want them because they'll be easy to steal. Libraries won't want them because they'll be easy to steal. College labs won't want them because they'll be easy to steal. Basically, anything fairly public would be a bad place to put these things. It's a laptop on a stick. It's just begging to get stolen. And it kinda ruins the whole aesthetic--not that it was a good one in the first place--when such public places as do buy them start putting big ugly bicycle chains around the stalks.

      What does this ugly, gangly design have that others don't? It offers greater mobility for swiveling your LCD screen since it's attached to that weird stalk instead of to the base just as most (far better looking) rumor site concept art had it. Now, even though half a dozen Mac zealots and one or two PC guys who are a lot closer to their computers than any average home users are, are going to dispute this, the fact is that most people sit their monitors (or iMacs) where they want them, adjust once, and leave everything be. Even in multi-user environments, tilting the monitor a little takes half a second and is even easy for a young kid--I just nudged my gigantic 20 inch CRT monitor around with ease, and it's a lot more heavy and bulky and crowded on all sides than most monitors will ever be. There's just not a need for the average user to have a swiveling stalk, which will only contribute to people thinking it looks really stupid. I think this is a case of Apple having graphic designers in mind more than home users and average guys and educational institutions--which is a mistake since graphics professionals are more likely to shell out for the extra horsepower of a more expensive Mac, not an iMac. The design here is just very, very poorly targeted to its demographic. Average home users--the bread and butter of the iMac market segment--are going to think this thing looks ugly.

      What they should have done instead of this gangly monstrosity is to use the Cube design, but for the new LCD iMac. It was a gorgeous, award-winning design. Many, many people said they would have bought it if they could afford it. Instead of plopping an LCD atop a stick attached to an oversized AirPort unit (which is what this new design looks like), Apple should have redesigned the Cube, packaged it with an LCD monitor, and that should have been the new flat panel iMac. It's not quite as integrated as connecting the central unit to the LCD with a stick, but methinks even the most lame of home users know how to stick a wire from the LCD into the Cube. If they were too dumb to even do that, then how could they even plug in their modem wire from an old iMac to the wall plate?

      Yes, the Cube design should have been harvested for Apple's new LCD iMac. Everyone loved it. The design was practically universally praised, (except the mould lines) and the only reason it didn't succeed was that it was priced way above the iMacs but very close to the full, powerful G4 towers. Opinion is clearly mixed at best on this new thingie, however. a Cube with LCD design for the new iMac would still be compact and relatively light and hence suffer from the same "stealability" factor which I mentioned may deter public schools and such from upgrading to the new iStalks, but at least it wouldn't look ugly and stick out in almost any decor, it would look gorgeous and complement any environment. Either way, if public schools and libraries upgrade to a newer lighter iMac, they'll have to chain them down with a vengeance whereas the old iMac was better suited thanks to its CRT bulk and heft. Flat panels in general are a poor choice for such environments thanks to stealability and the relative ease of damaging an LCD's more delicate screen.

      At any rate, I think I've made it obvious that while I liked the old iMac design and the G4 Cube design and even the Apple tower designs, I hate this new "iStalk" design. It truly looks like a piece of set dressing from *2001: A Space Odyssey*, and hence just too bizarre to fit in here in the real world. The primary advantage of having the LCD on the swiveling stalk, ease of moving the screen, is also an advantage few of the iMac's target demographic will really use--oh, and it also makes the LCD prone to get repositioned too frequently for comfort, if you're the type of person who likes to get his monitor or TV just-so.

      And finally--it wouldn't take a clumsy person to knock one of these off a desk and break it; it would only take a quick accidental arm movement. I'm sure the base is extra-sturdy with just this in mind, but you just know several people will knock these things down by accidentally hitting the LCDs.

      My final, final word: Yep, Apple should have just put the Cube together with an LCD monitor and branded it the new imac, instead of creating this ugly beast. the Cube had aesthetic splendor, while this is aesthetic squalor...
    • by overunderunderdone ( 521462 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @10:53AM (#2798110)
      I've had to give it to Apple in the past, they have come out with some damn nice looking machines. However, this time, I looks like they have run out of idea.

      This is exactly what I thought when the original iMac first came out. I thought it looked like an ugly cheap plastic joke and I was sure I was witnessing the end of Apple Computer. At the time the initial reaction of many geeks was the same as mine. Of course as it turns out that the target audience loved the look, it looked better in person than it did in pictures and it sold like hotcakes singlehandedly bringing Apple back from the financial grave. It just goes to show why Steve Job's net worth is counted in hundreds of millions and mine is $3.67 after taxes.

      Now I see the *new* iMac and my initial reaction is the same - what an ugly (not so)cheap plastic joke. But this time I'll reserve my judgement until I get a chance to see it in person and see the reaction of the people who are it's intended audience (not me, or people like me.) Don't get me wrong I'm not deferring all sense of aesthetic tast to Steve Jobs. He and Apple have certainly gotten it wrong before both with looks (the original iBook) and with price (the Cube) But I hope as I look at this thing that despite my initial reaction that they have again hit it out of the park in a way that I wouldn't have dared with my more conventional sense of aesthetics.
  • SuperDrive (Score:2, Insightful)

    by skroz ( 7870 )
    It has probably been said before, but when I hear "SuperDrive" in association with a macintosh, I still think of the first line of Mac 3.5" floppy drives that could read both Mac and PC formatted media. Of course, the filesystem wasn't supported in the OS of the first few machines with the drive, but eh.
    • It has probably been said before, but when I hear "SuperDrive" in association with a macintosh, I still think of the first line of Mac 3.5" floppy drives that could read both Mac and PC formatted media. Of course, the filesystem wasn't supported in the OS of the first few machines with the drive, but eh.

      The ones I thought of were internal hard drives that came in some Mac SEs. They were pretty cool at the time, though they were only 20 or 30 megs. I remember being very envious of a friend who had one when I was stuck with a Mac Plus with two floppy drives and an external HD.
      • Re:SuperDrive (Score:3, Informative)

        by Dahan ( 130247 )
        The internal hard drive in Mac SEs was never called a SuperDrive... as skroz said, the SuperDrive was the 1.44MB floppy drive (aka. FDHD). An upgrade from the standard GCR-only 800K double-density floppy drive to the SuperDrive was available for some Macs; I think it involved replacing the IWM floppy controller chip with the SWIM, as well as installing a HD floppy drive.
  • by cygnus ( 17101 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @12:29AM (#2796155) Homepage
    ...i wonder if they'll be able to countersue for medical expenses related to removing Steve Jobs' foot out of their ass.
  • by lunchm3at ( 262427 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @12:29AM (#2796158)
    Umm.. Its ugly as sin people... cmon
  • Wow. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by SuperRob ( 31516 )
    You know, I really can't deal with Macs. It's mostly the software. I've always admired the hardware design.

    This is really nice. It's low-profile, technologically "edgy".

    I'm sure Slashdot is going to cruicfy Jobs, and probably me for saying this ... but I like it. And if I could stand OSX ... I'd probably buy one.
  • Nice (Score:2, Interesting)

    by abahta ( 257353 )
    Wow, looks nice. That's the first iMac I would love to have on my desk. I'd still need to see the specs first, though.

    Also, check this out: 1fd0dd8256bd428a175b4f4e&postid=3565275&t=6786#pos t3565275
  • by CokeBear ( 16811 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @12:32AM (#2796169) Journal
    If you're a webmaster at, I suggest you start cleaning out your desk now.

    ooohhhh shit... Steve is gonna be pissed.
    Heads will roll because of this.
    • "...the dazzling, never-seen-anything-like-it, ultra-top secret computer perched before him."

      What a complete screw-up! Yeah - I'd say Steve's gonna get just a little peeved over this one. Isn't this the 2nd time that Time's done this in the past few months? IIRC, Time was the one who blew the whistle on "Ginger" too...

      • Re:ooohhhhh shit... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ahde ( 95143 )
        news sources used to try to "get the scoop" instead of "sell the product", so in a twisted, antiquated way, did *good*.
    • Au contrair. . . (Score:4, Interesting)

      by "Zow" ( 6449 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @02:06AM (#2796658) Homepage
      If you're a webmaster at, I suggest you start cleaning out your desk now.

      On the contrary - when Chris posted the story he said, "Time Canada seems a bit slow", but when I went there, it seemed just fine. That can only mean that this Webmaster not only survived a /.ing, but improved performance of their system in the process. Maybe some heads will roll, but they'd be idiots to fire whoever's running that shop.


    • Oh well (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fm6 ( 162816 )
      I think everybody's overestimating the importance of an Apple product release. This might be front page news to Mac enthusiasts, but to other techies it's only mildly interesting, and to the mundanes...

      Consider: why is there even a separate from Because Canada is struggling desperately to maintain some kind of distinct identity for its media. So TW-AOL is forced to provide a certain amount of Candadian content in Canadian editions of its magazines. And 30 million Canadians don't generate that much news!

      • Re:Oh well (Score:3, Interesting)

        Thats why real canadians dont by time "canada", they read there own news magazine: Maclean's Magazine []

        If your not a Canadian youve probably never heard of it - almost every Canadian does.

        Besides, as a post states below, saying Time-Canada is really a cop out for reselling commercial propaganda.

    • by enkidu ( 13673 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @02:39AM (#2796795) Homepage Journal
      After all, it *is* January 7, 2002 EST.

      Perhaps if the embargo agreement said "do not release until January 7, 2002" instead of "January 7, 2002 1100a.m. PST." Time-canada could claim that they released it January 7, 2002.

      In which case, the Apple doofus who signed the agreement for Apple should get in nice and early tomorrow and start cleaning out his/her desk.

    • by Sentry21 ( 8183 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @03:23AM (#2796960) Journal
      I disagree totally. Consider the following points.

      1. If Steve Jobs were an idiot, he wouldn't have asked when the article would hit shelves. Jobs is not an idiot, ergo he knew, as does C|Net [] , that this is also in this week's Time (US) magazine - which hit newsstands on Sunday in New York.
      2. Jobs probably had a tough debate with himself. Either he could deny a story for Time until after the launch - meaning waiting until next Sunday when it would've been to late - or he could let Time put it on shelves and websites, and let a few people see it (but not as many as will see it tomorrow), and have their new product front and centre on every newsstand on the continent come Monday morning. I'd hate to leak it early, but I'd hate more to sensationalize late. I'm sure Jobs felt the same.
      3. What could Apple possibly do, other than deny interviews from Time Magazine? Unless they had a contract (which I doubt), then this is perfectly acceptible reporting. It's not slander or libel, it's an article as true as can be accepted. If Apple doesn't like it, they can lump it.
      4. I sincerely doubt there's a single webmaster that controls this sort of thing. Likely the webmasters write/debug the scripts that drive the page, and the editors and so on are the ones that actually do the posting/managing.

      Time isn't in trouble, and Apple will be more glad than not. Jobs knows how to work the media - and people in general - and I'm sure that Time/Warner will be happy - people are probably going to snap up Time Magazine like it's going out of style.

    • Blame Caa-nadaaa! Blame Caa-nadaaa!

  • I don't seem to be seeing the pictures. If you are talking about the cover page of Time - it's not big enough.

    I want 1024x768 resolution pictures of this thing inside and out. I guess I'll have to wait for the manual.
  • by ehintz ( 10572 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @12:34AM (#2796179) Homepage
    Somebody braver than I can mirror photographic evidence... ;-)
    Remember when computers used to be cool? Deep inside One Infinite Loop, the Silicon Valley address of Apple Computer's Industrial Design Lab, they still are. Never mind that the Valley is a grim place these days and that the gold rush has given way to the deep funk. Forget that the Internet bubble has burst, and that Ma and Pa investors are wearing a what-were-we-thinking? grimace of fiscal remorse. Right here, right now, sitting on a butcher-block table, bathed in the sunlight that pours in through spyproof frosted-glass windows, is-repeat after Steve Jobs now-the quintessence of computational coolness, the most fabulous desktop machine that you or anyone anywhere has ever seen.

    O.K., maybe that's overstating it somewhat. Maybe that's overstating it a lot. But it's hard to remain impassive when you're sitting within the reality-distortion field that surrounds Apple's evangelical CEO when he's obsessing about the dazzling, never-seen-anything-like-it, ultra-top secret computer perched before him. This is the new iMac, the long-awaited successor to the best-selling, candy-colored, all-in-one computer that revived Apple's consumer sales and signaled that the boss and co-founder was back and badder than ever. This new iMac, Jobs says, "is the best thing we've ever done."

    Of course, this is Steve Jobs talking, and he says that about every new product when it's ready to launch. With him, it's always a revolution. But even when he's wrong, you can be pretty sure that whatever he and Apple are doing will quickly be copied by the rest of the PC world. So what if you don't have a Mac? Pay attention: what Jobs does is often the shape of things to come.

    Besides, this time he really means it. This time we need a revolution. This time the computer industry is in free fall and, all around, the makers of desktops and laptops are frantically cutting one another's throats even as they cut costs, vying to be the cheapest box on the block.

    Not Apple, though.

    Jobs is betting the company that what consumers most want from technology is control of their digital lives. And what better way to do that than with the smartest-looking, easiest-to-use, best-engineered computer there is? The time is right, he says. We are wallowing in digital cameras and camcorders and MP3 players that get harder to use, not easier. The thing that will connect us to our gadgets needs to be a digital hub, a computer designed to simplify our lives. This, Jobs says, is what Apple was meant to do-and it's what no one else in the PC world is doing.

    So damn the recession! Build it, and they will come. "Victory in our industry is spelled survival," says Jobs. "The way we're going to survive is to innovate our way out of this."

    Now before you leap to your feet and shout amen, consider this: Apple, which has been innovating and rebounding since Jobs' return in 1997, has nevertheless been struggling to retain the small market share it still enjoys. This time Jobs and the company he built and nurtured and adores really, truly need a hit.

    The new iMac, which Time took for an exclusive test run recently and which will be unveiled at the annual Macworld convention in San Francisco this week, could be just the thing. Like many PCs today, the new iMac is built around a flat-panel display. But instead of taking up precious desk space like a typical flat monitor, the iMac's screen floats in the air, attached to a jointed, chrome-pipe neck. It's also rimmed by a "halo," a translucent plastic frame that makes you want to pull it toward you-or push it out of the way. Jonathan Ive, chief of Apple's ID lab, says he designed it so that you would want to touch it, want to "violate the sacred plane of the monitor." The chrome neck is articulated and bends while maintaining the angle of the screen; it connects to the computer, an improbably small hemisphere at 26.4 cm in diameter-somewhat bigger than a halved cantaloupe. The machine bears an uncanny resemblance to Luxo Jr.-the fun-loving, computer-animated swing-arm lamp that starred in a short film by Pixar, the fabled computer-animation studio that Jobs runs. (Pixar creative chief John Lasseter has also made the first new iMac ad.) "It looks a little cheeky," says Ive. It looks alive.

    Can it make Apple's fortunes grow, though? The original iMac, which was launched in May 1998, sparked a 400% Apple-stock surge during the next two years, and has sold more than 6 million units. It was also Jobs' first home run since his return to the company the previous year after 12 years in exile. Now that Apple's stock has fallen back to earth and retail stores are clamoring for something new to stimulate sales, Jobs needs to swing for the fences again.

    The situation is far from dire. Apple has more than $4 billion in the bank-enough to wait out the recession-comparatively little debt and millions of fanatically loyal users who will give up their Macs only when you pry their one-button mice from their cold, dead fingers. But Apple's annual revenues have dropped from $8 billion to less than $6 billion, and the company continues to lose market share to the Microsoft-Intel-dominated world. A little more than 4% of new PCs sold in the U.S. are Macs. (Don't ask about worldwide sales, where Apple has actually slipped to less than 3% of the market, from 5.2% five years ago.) With Microsoft's antitrust troubles tabled for now and a new operating system, Windows XP, that's stabler and simpler to use than ever, Apple will be hard pressed to attract converts.

    A misstep can be fatal in the fast-moving computer business. And Jobs, a perfectionist when he settles on a project, tends to get his ideas from his gut rather than, say, focus groups. Some analysts argue that Apple should abandon innovation in favor of building a cheaper box; a $500 iMac would fit the bill. Others say the company should have pursued the post-PC dream and started turning out Internet appliances, tablet PCs or personal digital assistants, as competitors have done. Instead, Jobs' gut tells him that the PC isn't dead at all. It tells him, in fact, that what people really want is a better PC. That what they really want is a Mac.

    There comes a time in every important Jobs project, usually when the thing appears to be finished, that he sends it back to the drawing board and asks that it be completely redone. Some people say this trait is pathological, a sign of his control-freak perfectionism or his inability to let go. "It's happened on every Pixar movie," Jobs confesses. It's also what he did when Ive presented him with a plastic model of what was to be the new iMac. It looked like the old iMac on a no-carb diet, a leaner iMac in the Zone. "There was nothing wrong with it," recalls Jobs. "It was fine. Really, it was fine." He hated it.

    Rather than give his O.K., he went home from work early that day and summoned Ive, the amiable genius who also designed the original iMac, the other-worldly iPod music player, the lightweight but heavy-duty titanium PowerBook and the ice-cube-inspired Cube desktop, to name but a few of his greatest hits. As they walked through the 1,000-sq-m vegetable garden and apricot grove of Jobs' wife Laurene, Jobs sketched out the Platonic ideal for the new machine. "Each element has to be true to itself," Jobs told Ive. "Why have a flat display if you're going to glom all this stuff on its back? Why stand a computer on its side when it really wants to be horizontal and on the ground? Let each element be what it is, be true to itself." Instead of looking like the old iMac, the thing should look more like the flowers in the garden. Jobs said, "It should look like a sunflower."

    This might have irritated some people. But Ive synchs with Jobs, readily playing Sullivan to his Gilbert. Ive, the son of a silversmith, likes to talk about industrial design "as product narrative. My view is that surfaces and materials and finishes and product architecture are about telling a bigger story." The story the new iMac wanted to tell, he says, was about a flat display so light, fluid and free that it could almost fly away.

    He had a good working sketch of the new design within a day. But engineering the machine-squeezing all the gear into the little box that Jobs wanted-took nearly two years.

    There are some things in the world of Jobs that you can rely on. On warm days, he will always appear at work shoeless and in hiking shorts. The rest of the time, he will always wear Levi's jeans, no belt and one of the hundreds of black, mock-turtleneck shirts a clothing-designer chum made for him many years ago. (Not having to worry about what to wear to work every day allows him to concentrate more on work, he says.) And he will always take any opportunity he can to lay out the wider context, the framework-and how Apple fits in. Pull up a chair, because Jobs is about to paint you the big picture.

    The way Jobs sees it, the world is entering the third phase of personal computing. (For those of you who haven't been following along, the first era was all about utility-folks using their thinking machines to do word processing, run spreadsheets, create desktop graphics and the like. The second phase was about wiring all those machines together on the Internet.) Now that we're all interconnected and productive, we're ready for the next great era: people using computers to orchestrate all the new digital gear that has steadily crept into their lives.

    At this point, Jobs likes to draw a diagram, which begins with an outer ring; he draws gadgets on that ring. "We are surrounded by camcorders, digital cameras, MP3 players, Palms, cell phones, DVD players," he says. Then he draws a computer in the center of the ring. "Some of these things are plenty useful without a personal computer. But a personal computer definitely enhances their value. And several are completely unusable without a PC-a PC meaning a Mac, in our case."

    Now he fixes you with his famous pay-attention-here stare and furrows his Salman Rushdie eyebrows: "We believe the next great era is for the personal computer to be the digital hub of all these devices."

    Here's how it works. Take digital cameras, which sold even better than retailers expected in 2001, despite the recession. "The problem is," says Jobs, "the minute you plug them into your computer, you fall off a cliff. It's just a complete mess on the computer. We decided that this was our calling-a place where we can really make a difference."

    If the new iMac functions as well as it's supposed to, it will simplify your digital life like no other machine can. You can buy a PC with a flat-panel display and a built-in DVD burner for around $1,800, the same as the equivalent iMac. But it won't work as well. In part, that's because Apple gives away a number of core programs (iTunes, iMovie, iDVD and, starting this week, iPhoto) that allow you to control your creative life. They do what other PC software does. But they do it better.

    Apple's secret, which doubtless comes from Jobs' early flirtation with Zen Buddhism, is knowing what to leave out, understanding that in the complex world of computers, less is way more.

    For instance, iPhoto, a program for handling those digital pictures, is superior to anything else out there for the amateur. How? When you connect your camera to the iMac, archiving pictures happens automatically-the pictures are uploaded and organized by "roll" and archived together as thumbnail images laid out on one endlessly scrolling digital contact sheet. A slider on the side of the contact sheet lets you instantly enlarge and examine hundreds of pictures at a glance, the better to find the one you're hunting for. This works far better than the PC alternative, which would have you manually labeling each picture you archive ("Joe at the Beach") or accepting a meaningless default name, like A2393745. (Best feature of the new program: point-and-click together a 10-page photo album of your favorite pics, pay $30 and an online publisher will print and mail you your own hardcover book.)

    Manipulating video-distilling those 90-min. tapes of mind-numbing music recitals and awards banquets into amusing, fast-moving 3-min. shorts-is almost as simple on the new iMac, which features a fast G4 chip, just like Apple's top-of-the-line machines. When you're done creating your masterpiece (with iMovie), you can copy it onto a DVD (with iDVD, of course). A DVD burner is squeezed into the high-end $1,800 model. While it's hard to come up with a perfect Apple-to-PC comparison, a top-of-the-line Dell Dimension 8200, with a flat-panel monitor and DVD burner (plus a faster Pentium 4 processor and much larger hard drive), costs $2,200 and will occupy much of your desktop and part of the floor.

    But if PCs are clunkier than Macs, they have the great virtue of being ubiquitous. While Jobs' Apple may indeed make the most innovative, easy and fun-to-use computers, most consumers want what everyone else uses-big, cheap PCs that run Windows. A case in point: the ice-cool-looking Cube, introduced in July 2000, was a disaster for Apple, partly because no one, not even the Mac faithful, wanted to spend $1,799 on it (monitor not included), no matter how gorgeous and cutting-edge it was. That was probably a pricing mistake as much as anything else-Apple's gross profit margins (the difference between what it costs to make and market a thing vs. how much you charge) have been huge under Jobs. This time, however, with the new iMac, Apple is really keeping the costs down-something it can do because it controls much more of what goes in the box than the typical PC competitor, which buys virtually all its components from third-party sellers.

    Still, at $1,299 for the entry-level iMac, the product could be priced too dearly to attract many converts from the PC world. "It's unlikely that any specific product announcement by Apple will have any immediate impact on the company's position in the market," says Al Gillen, an analyst who tracks Apple for IDC. While he hadn't yet seen the new iMac, in Gillen's view, the battle over the desktop standard was won long ago by the Windows-Intel forces.

    And Apple's operating systems aren't helping. In fact, they are steadily losing market share, he says, pointing to recent data that suggest Apple OS's accounted for only 3.6% of new license revenue in 2000. Worse, IDC projects that they will amount to even less in 2001. By contrast, Microsoft's share of Windows licenses has increased during the same period.

    Forget innovation, some analysts tell Apple. The most important thing Jobs can do is embrace the Dark Side and find other bridges to the Windows-Intel world. Says Gillen: "It's no longer a matter of which product is better but rather which world do you need to work in." That is, if you use Windows at work, you will use it at home. Instead of packaging cool, creative applications in each iMac, critics say, Apple should give people a Windows emulator so they can run PC programs if needed.

    Yet the Internet, which was engineered so that every kind of computer could connect, has gone a long way toward making Apple computers compatible with everyone else's. And while it's true that most computer programs come out for Windows machines first and Macs second (if at all), that's not so important as it once was. All bread-and-butter programs, such as Microsoft Office, are available for the Mac. And in the entertainment category, the trend is to do one's video gaming on dedicated consoles like the GameCube, Xbox and PlayStation2, not on the computer.

    Indeed, Carl Howe of Forrester Research believes the Internet has helped Apple make headway in the platform wars. "I think Apple doubling its market share is entirely possible," he says, citing a Forrester report that shows Apple had the highest satisfaction and buying index among large companies in North America. The premium they paid to own an Apple (one that is now shrinking) didn't seem to matter much. "Price is the last refuge of the marketer. It's what you sell when you don't have anything else to differentiate you," says Howe. "If prices were all that we cared about, we'd all be driving Hyundais." As Jobs likes to point out, BMW and Mercedes-Benz occupy a similar niche in the automobile market, but no one dismisses them as niche players.

    "Every time we've brought innovation into the marketplace, our customers have responded-strongly," Jobs says, claiming that it might not be so hard as it sounds. "We only have to attract 5 out of the other 95 people who use PCs to switch, and Apple doubles its market share." That, of course, would buy the company that much more breathing room.

    The original iMac did bring converts into the Apple tent. Besides, if all goes according to plan, merely by surviving Apple could grow into other areas. Jobs believes the shake-out in the computer industry will result in Apple's being one of four computer makers left standing. The other three? Compaq and/or Hewlett Packard, Dell and Sony. The rival he's pursuing most aggressively is Sony, which not only makes stylish computers ("They copy us like crazy!") but also makes plenty of digital lifestyle products. "I would rather compete with Sony than compete in another product category with Microsoft," he says. That's because Sony has to rely on other companies to make its software. "We're the only company that owns the whole widget-the hardware, the software and the operating system," he says. "We can take full responsibility for the user experience. We can do things that the other guy can't do."

    One example is the iPod, Apple's stylish music player and its most recent foray into the consumer-electronics business. Jobs says Apple is on track to break analysts' best estimates and sell $50 million worth in the last quarter of 2001 alone. The cigarette-pack-size MP3 player is so popular that people have been coming into Apple stores to buy their first Macs, just to use the iPod, he says. (The company launched its own retail stores last year-Jobs redesigned the floor plan at the last minute, of course.)

    Are other noncomputer appliances on the horizon? "We have some ideas," says Jobs, adding that Apple would enter the marketplace "where we think we can make a contribution." For instance? Jobs sits back, smiles and declines to elaborate. Clearly, he's already working on something new. You can bet it's the best thing that Apple has ever done. -With reporting by Rebecca Winters/New York


    FEATURE Create your own DVDs, just like the pros. Copy movies or slide shows of pictures onto a disc, and mail it off to Grandma. Any DVD player can play it

    ADVANTAGE A DVD burner is built into the high-end iMac. That and the iDVD software make the whole process push-button simple


    FEATURE Organize your digital pictures, and easily crop and edit them. Or create a 10-page photo album, which Apple will turn into a hardcover book for $30

    ADVANTAGE Takes the pain out of archiving photos. Scalable thumbnail pictures are organized by "roll" during each upload. Find what you want at a glance


    FEATURE Play your CDs, or quickly convert them to MP3s, which are cleverly organized. Comes with an excellent, built-in selection of Net radio stations too

    ADVANTAGE Automatically synchs with the iPod, the stylish portable music player that holds more than 1,000 songs


    FEATURE Turn a 90-min. home videotape of tedious music recitals and birthday parties into a dazzling 3-min. film. The software makes anyone a Spielberg

    ADVANTAGE "Firewire" connection ports and the G4 chip work with the software to let you manipulate video clips as easily as pushing peas around on your plate


    From the beginning, Jobs tried to bring computer power to the people. Even when exiled from Apple, he was obsessed with finding ways to make technology friendlier and easier to use

    1976 Steve Wozniak builds the Apple I, a circuit board that Jobs sells for $666.66

    1983 The first low-cost mouse appears on a personal computer, Apple's Lisa. While Lisa is an expensive flop, the mouse survives

    1984 The first Macintosh, at $2,495, has a mouse, a keyboard and a small beige case

    1985 Jobs, ousted from Apple, founds NeXT, a maker of Unix machines known for their sleek cubic design. But the company fares poorly and is purchased by Apple in 1996

    1986 Bailing out a brilliant band of computer animators who worked for George Lucas, Jobs buys Pixar, makers of Toy Story and Monsters, Inc.

    1997 Jobs is brought back to a shriveled Apple as "interim CEO." He cleans house, streamlines the product line and jumps on the Internet bandwagon

    1998 The low-cost computer for the masses called iMac is launched. The i is for Internet. More than 6 million are sold, making Jobs a hero and boosting Apple's stock price 400%

    1999 The iBook arrives, a bulletproof laptop for the school market. Critics say it looks like a toilet seat

    2000 The PowerMac G4 Cube sets a new high-water mark for cool. But at $1,799, not including the monitor, Cube sales sink

    2001 The introduction of the iPod, an elegantly simple digital music player, signals Apple's move into consumer electronics
    • uuencoded image (Score:3, Informative)

      by krogoth ( 134320 )
      I don't know any other easy way to ASCII-encode a file, so here it is. Copy everything between the '-----' lines to a file with no spaces before, after, or in the lines (after the first) and run 'uudecode -o timecover.jpeg [filename]'
      begin 664 /dev/stdout
      M_]C_X``02D9)1@`!`@``9`!D``#_[``11'5C:WD``0`$``` `' @``_^X`(4%D
      M;V)E`&3``````0,`$`,"`P8```/A```'!@``$]S_VP"$`!` +" PL,"Q`,#!`7
      M*RXG)RB::9FP@RU*'WTCKP4@S$`0&UG)M,ST6Y>%>?H $U/K"NCHF=:
      MI'R?_]H`"`$!``$%`)%Y&:$XC"U:CI4Q4(8CNK&V-ZRIU/V TE UYEZG[ZR2=&
      M*C(0>S0C44MSF#)N$U'D6]E"K[LUS2K2S2)UU:FN"_\`4* A%K=MDL+BY:@MO
      M:%SR7AK)C+8DX>O[C?%67C\M>SAOC0$_M;6F9+ML^/; ]L7?[&/:E?#)":3'(
      MI*QR-97]QOBK+Q^6O9PWQHOZ#_7A,DM;]B#*A]+O"\!Q#J& _B O=EVPB/GED9
      M7]QOBK+Q\M39#MG%-/B97FOGD%+*%(@E"'^NR6Q7N_1NI1[ 1$ :=;7+$TJSB@
      MY8C&[)YX[*YG8PU"&R#;I9[B@K^XWQ4;HLBS[-M.[Z]*8^M ^P (M9Q-S#6P!$),;Z-52V%A>.6WQ1FJ"E6-A'*T
      MJPCF@L+1K3"[A7/'FK\,D"J6?7Q*17VZJLJTIW;>OH5DLM S0CM/*86FK#E4>ZMLH=U5FK=YTFCM\4;57?.WGI//
      M"3/S8FVVUH+W:)-*FE12QU,K9M/V)-!#N:1^B&SZ(M'L[F6 .T ";9G7*NG,/8:_'*YVCM[.CM[.CM[.CM[.CM[.CM[.CM[.CM[.C M[.CM[.CM[((J%)$2'VW__:
      M``@!`@(&/P":SHD1049JPHCM(6O(=*@H61R'>*UJ&6`1:3 H1WBI",UHLU('M
      M6E$`K__:``@!`P(&/P![:=0,:V[`%P;^T'.BU]1K7-$2+[2 86 V)C'OFZ!@+K
      MI.3V^9\+G-]YC8R.>5J\F\!4C"Z6MMZK$0:M*(C+^N,EAJ L??_STJD?Y1)C!
      M5/!PA/W6!>,(P[)(N(;$L\O/\-G7DB4'AK8F4XR/7F6&Y2 EM530WA&0Z,A"LA
      M=FL-RE+:JG@X1DLR1"A`S6&Y2EM53P_G\RD;W9:5Z;"?B]J ]- A/Q>U>FPG=3A^A7I\-]#ON7I\/\`2[[E
      MVIX^W5QC99N=&^U-M-"/7J0F')(BL9/[8C8""PW=/2X&E$R 8^ 4+V"WQB+$FP
      M_/KPIGFQ\I4'YCCE0.D$U)?]XV\>E%HL;*D53M8I`6`-MU C9N;6@GV^5O)50
      MNC.!;8@L6=')%E'YD!-9*=V"2>(2`2]G$CW9U#*2-IY(QX O+4D>0YCF5E,BM
      M&B2H\87T+^$'_K]PTK'4(&"HAWECMC3L/E-.-CB^OR\A=+& gt ;!K7YJDRN[,E\G'4%S"6*3
      M*HN>C;HO8#DL?!6V1B]CI'[@INJ*;^K'Z'KM,K$R,>( "YDDA=5
      M`N%O=@.5@/+4/VV)DN"K/&1"["15VJS*5OT8R(M]3YQ63F8 P6 =%8\R.=C_R
      ML:[SQ3K\DRISEH?F#S[*?O&RR/)&8XX"Q5BA+'I`^2E(CE( :X D+/OUVJV[4#CNM8-I6&M[[2
      MFU;WT/.*[F[V7#AB7)[1,C&5!V3$PRLAV>KT6C/)S%9RP( L4I'[@INJ*PY9#9(\W&=B>0*S$UD+E-)!`F-&RS(`1N%D() ;3D;S5_
      MHUEAR'.G@WKYZ.6+[QV39&?FJ-S$1EK`]$$\:R(4@?[J?(& gt ;V.1\P,[%M
      M`,"Q`4Z6X68U+O(+2BPL-H'#CS\*[VQ+79(5RX_`R$8[0L; 'Q \AYLD.6@4(FC%6C+>K:VUC>^@XU/#
      MA3#)[[R21G]Z):R%O6BQK`6\+;P9^"Q"]E(DZ^'M5[,^;8* [N [P0_5A:+9'9N"+"5N"NI]6[WBL4%V_/ZHYZER$R.](ED01MV^, A(D
      M76)&/1!#/(W`#B.-9$K2]ZO)D,B,[X:D]E$%4L49C9@^FGE U. AF7)[RW98[2
      M`T!U^Z@DC4?Q+:4'S(:6##C[7)Q\@.J"P)1E8-:Y'.*(D[M R2 "+76)F'\H-?
      M/:-K]G&>\$9NT&XN\AN/6NHTMP/+6,F7!GQN#G_`&T5A40 KD,&(12-MX89#\P^N?F6UU``\
      M%JQL]06^WD5RH-BR@]);^%;BI$D?MI\G'-X)I-\1MMZ#*"N AX :4W5%;RHWG.OVR,5B3P,RV9CXB!XZ[+$A2"/]R)0@\R@48%EO* !N*@WTN
      M1Q&E[CAQHC,Q8Y2?SVVR#Q.EF_73Y?=S-D8B#=)&WUHU'%M +! U'.-1S6UJZ,
      M0GQ@()EN%DC1487%C8A:Z65,?&;UTW9O&`?V5TD4^-%^&OI )_ P!:_#6D:C_@
      MOPUT2%',(T/I6OJ?_)/]*ML0:_\`XQ\.;U:]1/\`IC^&N"_ ], 7P5'>YL>-@N
  • by PeterClark ( 324270 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @12:35AM (#2796186) Journal
    Did anyone's eyebrows raise at this quote? In regards to the "halo," the plastic frame around the screen, we read:
    Jonathan Ive, chief of Apple's ID lab, says he designed it so that you would want to touch it, want to "violate the sacred plane of the monitor."
    Err...I don't exactly think I like the idea of "violating the sacred plane of the monitor." Kinky.


  • Yeah, looks ugly but you have to give them something for the display.

    Lets put it this way, if its quiet (fanless) it may replace the laptop I usually have sitting on the corner of my desk for email, webbrowsing, etc.
  • There is an article here: That talks about apples possible announcement that they will move to Intel chips, dumping motorola. Might be vaporware, but if not, well, you heard it here first folks. Worth a read, and it makes sense anyways.
    • "They" have been saying that since the Gil Amelio days. That is how the Mac rumor mill works: come up with as much outrageous bullshit as possible, and repeat it in a tight loop. If ANY of it EVER comes true, they will shout "SEE. We TOLD you so!".
    • Yes!

      But I heard they were going to only make MacOS for Intel [x86] chipsets.

      Actually I heard it first... um about 7 years ago.
    • Won't happen.

      First, it would mean ostracising all those old-school, "megahertz means nothing" PowerPC addicts with MacClassics hot-rodded to run OSX. It would really be a bad scene, as well, having to maintain 2 versions of their code. Yes, Darwin is portable to i386, but big deal; NT4 was portable to PowerPC too. Didn't see many Blue-And-White's running NT4. (look on your NT4 disks to see the MIPS, PPC, etc. directories!)

      Second, one of the nice things about the Mac platform is the integration between hardware and software. Software can control the bootloader and nvram dynamically. I have not seen anything on x86 that lets you, for example, change the boot device. This may seem like a trivial example, but it means a lot when dealing with hardware, drivers, etc.

      I had the notion that, perhaps, there is nothing unique about x86. It's a processor. Perhaps Apple has contracted with someone to build an x86-based mobo, that uses OpenFirmware? In other words, bring all the coolness of the Mac hardware to the PC world. The problem is, of course, its not a PC anymore, except that you will be able to swap cards between machines without flashing the BIOS of the card. It's possible, but I would think someone would have mentioned it.

      Although clever wording "it's not a PC" could really be useful here. It's an Intel based machine, with more-or-less commodity hardware, that's not a PC. Might be interesting, but I doubt it'll happen.
  • by davebo ( 11873 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @12:38AM (#2796206) Journal
    The Time Canada article also spills the beans about iPhoto - long-rumored "digital photo management" software for the Mac.

    The "big feature" (besides easy management/sorting/viewing of digital photos): you can arrange your own photo album, doctor it up nice & pretty like, and with a click of a button, a $30 charge on your credit card, and a week or so for the mail, you'll get a hard-covered book of the selfsame album.

  • by michaelmalak ( 91262 ) <> on Monday January 07, 2002 @12:44AM (#2796240) Homepage
    The first iMac looked like a 1970's dumb terminal. This one looks like a 1950's television set []. Extrapolating, I can't imagine what the next iMac will look like, since TVs weren't prevalent in the 1930's. Oh wait...
  • Time did the same thing with the Segway. They posted the pictures and article the night before on their website.

    The only difference is that I doubt Apple/Jobs will give them any more exclusives from now on.
  • by Konster ( 252488 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @12:44AM (#2796244)
    Interesting to note that the concept sketch took only a day, but to squeeze the hardware into the small untit took almost two years. "He had a good working sketch of the new design within a day. But engineering the machine-squeezing all the gear into the little box that Jobs wanted-took nearly two years." But, it costs a LOT...even with a gee-whiz flat-screen. "You can buy a PC with a flat-panel display and a built-in DVD burner for around $1,800, the same as the equivalent iMac." also... " Still, at $1,299 for the entry-level iMac, the product could be priced too dearly to attract many converts from the PC world." So...$1200 - $1800 for an iMac? Don't get me wrong, I'm a PC user, but I do like Apple's hardware, and Mac OS X is OK, but $400 for an iPod, $1,800 for an iMac? Apple prices its products to high to make a convert out of me. Plus, it looks like a lamp. It lacks the OOH AAH factor that the original IMac had at launch.
  • by Dredd13 ( 14750 ) <> on Monday January 07, 2002 @12:46AM (#2796247) Homepage
    How is it "Screwing up" when they're reporting news, and doing it before other sites and news sources do it?

    Maybe it's not when Apple would have wanted it, but Time did "the right thing" from a journalist's perspective. They "broke the story", which is what journalists are paid to do.

    • by cygnus ( 17101 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @01:00AM (#2796342) Homepage
      How is it "Screwing up" when they're reporting news, and doing it before other sites and news sources do it?

      well, it's great for us. but they probably were given access to products and info based on their signing an NDA, which would preclude them from jumping the gun like this. so they screwed up in the legal sense.

      They "broke the story", which is what journalists are paid to do.

      er, no. they aren't paid to do that when they'll cost their company thousands of dollars in lawsuits.
  • Time Canada is owned by AOL-Time Warner. Who do both Apple and AOL-TW see as one of their biggest competitors? Microsoft.

    They are natural allies. Maybe Apple is letting them start the buzz a little early. Anyway, I doubt that such a major media outlet would post a big story like this early by mistake. And if they had, I think it would already have been taken down by now.
    • I Doubt It (Score:3, Insightful)

      by krmt ( 91422 )
      But what possible benefit could there be in letting it leak? It's not like they would have had to wait much longer, Macworld is tomorrow.

      Plus, Jobs is a total control freak who really loves the surprise his keynotes give every year. Given that, I'd say someone fucked up big time.
  • by TheBracket ( 307388 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @12:47AM (#2796262) Homepage
    Is it just me, or does anyone expect this thing to jump around the desk trying to find a ball? It really does look like a desk-lamp... I wonder how much light it produces?
  • Am I the only one that wishes Apple would dump Ive's "style" in favor of the classy NeXT machines?
    • Am I the only one that wishes Apple would dump Ive's "style" in favor of the classy NeXT machines?

      yes. those things were huge. they were the size of a small fridge. i rather have something like this, that i can push out of the way when i don't need it.
  • by krmt ( 91422 ) <therefrmhere@yahoo . c om> on Monday January 07, 2002 @12:50AM (#2796279) Homepage
    My number one rule with people is that they are generally lazy. People are often too lazy to even look at a Mac, let alone use it long enough to try and understand how to work it. No start button? My God! What do I do?!? It can't run my kid's games? Well, forget that! It takes a relatively rare kind of person to make the switch from PC to Mac, and a clever (albeit weird) new design isn't really going to matter much.

    The other thing I have issues with is the whole "digital lifestyle" concept that Jobs keeps pushing. Why is it that you have all these commercials, from Apple, Microsoft, HP, and others going on about how easy it is to create shit on your computer? I just don't understand. Yeah, plenty of people create with their computers (God bless 'em) but the majority of the people out there are still astonished that they can actually buy a device to copy their friend's CD's! Combine that with the fact that most people actually consider themselves far too busy to go about creating some stupid coffee table book or movie, there's no way this will fly. I like the iPhoto idea for actually organizing things, but I'm skeptical that it will matter in the long run, as people will just use the free (Windows) software that came with their camera.

    Apple could do very well, the possibility is always there so long as they keep up what they're doing, but it would take some serious serious blunders on Microsoft's part, the likes of which we've never seen before, to make people switch.
    • As some people pointed out about the iPod, they aren't trying to sell this to every single person (like Microsoft always does). They know their market is small.
    • Under the truly amazing VPC 6, you can run Linux, Windows, &etc. I had submitted this story a few days ago, but it was rejected -- there's just too much Apple news lately. FWIW:

      New for Mac OS X -- Virtual PC 6 from Connectix [] looks pretty incredible. As Wired [] says, "You can load DOS, Linux, OS 2, Windows 2000, 95, 98, ME, XP Home and Pro, and of course OS X and Mac OS 9. You can run any combination; RAM is the only limiting factor." Runs under MacOSX and MacOS9, though under MacOSX you can network different instances of VPC together, for filesharing or network programming. VPC 6 also allows you to "undo" -- revert to past sessions, including reboots (you can't do this in the real Windows). Apple [] and MacNet2 [] both review it warmly, and
      CreativePro [] says: "I installed Red Hat Linux 7.1 and 7.2 without difficulty, though the drag and drop functionality does not work in Linux." If you're upset because MS Access or MS FrontPage weren't included with Microsoft Office for the Mac, you can run them under VPC. Prices go from $80 to $200. It's also available for windows [].
      • Ah, but you are forgetting primary rule #1: People Are Lazy. They are so lazy that they will not bother to find out about VPC (great product that it is) and they will certaintly not pay extra just to run some software they could have run under windows for cheaper.

        Remember, even though Macs are easier and better designed in general than PC's with windows, they are alien to most people. In addition, they are meant to be easy, and how easy are they if you need to buy this virtual PC thing and run both Windows and MacOS at once? Why can't they just run one?

        VPC is a great product, but it's a niche product, especially the platform that's meant to be as simple and easy as possible.
    • I dunno. The description of going from my digital camcorder to a DVD, from my digital camera to a fairly organized set of photos (without having to come up with my own damn naming/organization scheme) or even a book of photos for $30, really make me drool. If I could get even roughly equivalent apps for my PC, I'd be running for them (feel free to make recommendations :-).

      So far my experience trying to do stuff with my camcorder just to get it to VCD has ended up with horrible quality crap, and I have more poorly organized digital pix than I can shake a stick at. Yeah, I can use tools like photoshop or paint shop pro to generate thumbnail pages, but I still have to come up with names for all that crap. If you believe the Apple hype, they have a scheme that lets you sidestep all that. I wish someone would port their software to the PC world. 'cos I ain't switching to a Mac at this late date--too much tied up in my windoze software (same argument goes for Linux btw, feel free to chastise me profusely).

    • by evand ( 2571 ) <> on Monday January 07, 2002 @01:12AM (#2796404) Homepage

      My mom is looking for a computer to call her own, and I've been trying to steer her toward a Macintosh. Why?

      First of all, her needs are simple. She needs to check her email, surf the web, and use a word processor. With, Internet Explorer/OmniWeb, and AppleWorks, her needs are fulfilled.

      Additionally, Macs really are easier to use than the alternatives. How did I install Office v.X on my iBook? I dragged the folder that had "Drag this to your hard disk" written next to it to... my hard disk! Uninstallation? Drag the folder from my hard disk to the Trash!

      I can definitely see one of these new iMacs sitting in our kitchen where the Audrey (shudder) is now, and I can see my mom writing email, surfing the web, writing letters, editing movies from our HandyCam, and burning DVDs on it, all without much intervention from me beyond teaching her the basics.

      That's truly a beautiful thing.

  • Whats interesting to me is how the 'hump' containing the guts of the machine was simply moved from the back to a new airport-esque base. The article says that Jobs hated the design of a bulge on the back of an LCD screen. What's really gained from moving it to a stand? The footprint shrinks by the width of the screen, but I would bet that the new design will tip backwards rather easily based on the photo. In addition, it looks like an LCD growing out of some sort of egg.

    However, for marketing purposes, the fact that it departs so radically from the OLD iMac probably will count in its favor. I'm betting that the machine, combined with (I'm sure) it's ease of setup and phenomenal software (I'm particularly a fan of iMovie for capture/printing) will be a success anyways. Just be careful when adjusting the screen. :-)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07, 2002 @12:52AM (#2796291)
    Imac image mirror []
  • by LionMan ( 18384 ) <leo,stein&gmail,com> on Monday January 07, 2002 @12:55AM (#2796315) Homepage Journal
    Come on, it's not bad for Apple that people see this a few hours earlier than they would.
    But, judging from all the flame the design is getting (clay blob ... bumbersome floating panel ... etc.) this is my current Conspiracy Theory (tm):
    1) Apple give Time Canada info about their new Mac in advance, but mock up the clay-blob-stick-panel design.
    2) Let Time Canada release this early. Naturally /. and/or other news sites will pick up the "blunder" ;).
    3) Reveal the /real/ new machine, far more slick and appealing than the old machine or the clay-blob-stick-panel (Apple has a good sense of aesthetics, why would they make something look silly?)
    4) News sites will catch the discrepancy. People like the real one. People will talk!

    As they say, there's no such thing as bad publicity. But I'm just a conspiracy theorist.
  • by Therlin ( 126989 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @12:56AM (#2796319)
    The article says it will cost $1800 which is kind of pricey for an iMac (even if it has a superdrive and an LCD).

    But the article is from Time Canada, so could the price be in Canadian dollars? This would bring the price down to about $1128 US.
    • If you read the article all the way, it says $1299... I don't know where they got the 1800 (CDN, maybe, i dunno... poorly written in my opinion).

    • $1299 US dollars for an entry level iMac, going up to $2400 US for a completely tricked out machine. Those prices include the flat panel display.

      The machine looks cool. If I could get a solaris X-windows display going on it, I would make one my main network management display machine. Blow away any visitors with how it looks. Out-geek everyone in the company.

      Of course, next month there will be a dozen PC clones from china with the exact same look. Within a year, 40% of all PCs sold will be lumps with flat panel displays poking out the top. Apple is the only company still left innovating. Good on them.

      the AC
  • Why it was early (Score:4, Insightful)

    by neier ( 103246 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @12:58AM (#2796331)
    Now we know why Jobs moved the keynote up a day. If Time is published on Monday, Apple would either have had to "debut" the iMac a day after everyone had read about it in print, or ask Time to change their whole publishing cycle. Moving the keynote to occur as the magazine was _supposed_ to be released made everyone happy.

    Now it makes sense....
  • Jobs' Reaction (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheGreenLantern ( 537864 ) <> on Monday January 07, 2002 @01:06AM (#2796375) Homepage Journal
    A lot of people seem to be assuming that Jobs is having a fit about this right now, and indeed he may be. But let's look at things from a business perspective, shall we?

    - When a small, independent Apple site leaks pics of an iCube, new iMac, possible iWalk, whatever, Steve can get pissed, threaten litigation, and call them all kinds of names.

    - When a major magazine publisher, backed by one of the worlds largest media conglomerates, leaks pics of the new iMac, Steve bites his tounge, smiles, and congratulates Time Canada on their "scoop".

    Or do you think he's willing to throw away millions of potential consumer eyes he could advertise to?
  • This is ugly. I hope this is a fake. Maybe even a joke on Steve Job's behalf with the aid of Time and some whacky canadians =).

    I want Newtons , N E W T O N S .. not some middle of the line iMacs. If I wanted a cool box that takes up little room I'd have bought a cube with a dvi LCD screen (imho a much more attractive proposition).
  • pictures (Score:5, Interesting)

    by oyenstikker ( 536040 ) <> on Monday January 07, 2002 @01:11AM (#2796402) Homepage Journal
    just some neat pictures i found on the web.
    i wonder what they are?
    i know nothing about them, just thought they looked cool, so i copied 'em to my hard drive.
  • by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @02:16AM (#2796699) Homepage
    Hmm.... add a magnifying lens and some motor oil, and you've got the computers from the movie Brazil []
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07, 2002 @02:29AM (#2796751)
    blame canada?
  • Mirror (Score:3, Informative)

    by zesnark ( 167803 ) <<zsn> <at> <>> on Monday January 07, 2002 @04:07AM (#2797096)
    Time appears to have removed it.

    [fnord] [/fnord]

    Oh well.
  • good lord! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dr. Awktagon ( 233360 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @04:27AM (#2797163) Homepage

    It's a shaving mirror!

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @06:07AM (#2797369)
    I just logged into Dell and configured a system roughly along the lines the article mentioned "A top of the line Dell Dimension 8200 with a flat panel display".

    Not altering any parameters apart from changing to a 15" flat panel display and switching to a DVD-ROM drive, a Dell Dimension 8200 running at 1.9GHz was quoted as being $2280 canadian (I selected Canada as my region on entering the site). That conforms pretty closely with what the article reported for the comparison price of the Dell system ($2200) so there is some reason to believe the $1800 for a DVD burning iMac might be a Canadian price.
  • by gsfprez ( 27403 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @07:26AM (#2797486)
    The time article has been backed up..

    But for sake of proof - ot o_140102.jpg still works.
  • by Bartmoss ( 16109 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @09:40AM (#2797816) Homepage Journal
    Scan of new iMac []. So I guess this is real.
  • by ToLu the Happy Furby ( 63586 ) on Monday January 07, 2002 @12:42PM (#2798711)
    I have to say, this thing looks a lot prettier when you have good photos of it []. It's definitely growing on me...

I've finally learned what "upward compatible" means. It means we get to keep all our old mistakes. -- Dennie van Tassel