The ultrathin new iMac lost a lot more than size, like USB-A ports
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
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.
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).
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.
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.)
And the impetus was Apple having the courage to leave USB-A in the past.
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.
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).
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.
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.
That said, at ~24 inches there's no way I'd buy it at any price, unless I was in a pinch somehow.
So yes, very unfortunate economics. Although one could argue Apple lower than margin, but generally speaking that I not how business works.
It's just the better port format for a lot of things that need sturdy, large, cheap 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.
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.)