The new iMac: symbolic of what is wrong in technology

By: Dietcoke

So that is the new iMac?

While someone at Apple apparently has determined that the garage-sale lamp
idea was a good one, if I was thinking about getting an Imac before I wouldn't
be now.

Besides the fact that the iMac hasn't broken 1ghz, it's ugly. Throw
into that the realization that MacOS X isn't robust enough to handle a real
utilitarian, and the choice here is simple, and it's not me loving an iMac.

Here's the crux of my point: this industry has had enough VC and manpower
poured into it in the past 15 years to allow any of these innovations to happen.
Apple came along with some style - now that is an innovation, but at a certain
point it becomes a distraction. Apple has become distracted in this
way: focusing more on what their product looks like instead of focusing
on becoming a beacon of innovation in the industry.

The PC sector isn't immune to this. A generation of coding really
came to market fruition about 5 years ago, and out of that we rode a tremendous
booming economy through to the end. It seemed like every month or so,
an amazing breakthrough in software or hardware would come out.

This occurred for about 3 years, and many of us (myself included) really
enjoyed those years - it was more challenging to those of us that used computers,
and it drew an enormous flow of capital into the industry as a result.

However, in the past two years (and some would argue earlier,) something
changed. No longer was the focus on breaking new ground - it became
a process of slap-coded, out-sourced, stick-to-the-version's predecessor,
screw-the-quality-testing method of getting the gold CD shipped.

No longer is software and hardware quantified by the possibilities which
manufacturing and programming can provide. "New" and "Hasn't been done
before" are phrases that make our industry cringe now. The very core
of our industry has become more concerned about skimping on R&D, and then
doesn't understand why the public isn't buying their product like they used
to. Why? It's simple.

Why buy the same thing twice?

If I have a software that will perform a task under the OS I've been using,
why would I want to buy the most recent version - if it did the same job,
plus a few bells and whistles, and a slick interface? Unless a company
is using a subscription-based model, adopting this attitude equates to intellectual
and financial suicide. Staking your company on the belief that incremental
changes equal one point release is a quick way to become outmoded.

Invent something. Bring tangible improvements to the table, not just
a slick GUI. Break new ground. Screw the packaging, let the marketing
and branding people do that.

But for christ sakes, don't bring a computer that looks like a table lamp
to a computer trade show and expect me to be wowed. It's still basically
the same equipment as previous Apple stuff, and it's insulting to the people
that actually take technology seriously to think that we'll be awed by the
fact that Apple contracted a case manufacturer that can mold plastic like
a lamp. (See next week's issue: Who drugged the focus group?
)

We want results, not a makeover.

It'd be nice if computer makers realized that we'd like tangible improvements
more than a bit of window dressing. Here's a quick list of things that
have GOT to go:

1. Stop making ISA slots on new motherboards. They're old, and
anyone with ISA cards has had long enough to find a suitable replacement.

2. For that matter, hose the PCI's as well. Those have been
around for quite a while. True, I'd have to get new cards, I'd still
prefer it if it meant improved performance.

3. Bus speeds. Can't anyone figure this out? Hell, why
not establish a seperate processor simply for bus management? I'm no
expert, but I'd spring for that. Oops, forgot. That would require
re-programming.

4. CRT reductions. Ok, it is true that LCDs are dropping in
price, but the truth is that few if any LCD displays are equal or superior
dp-wise to CRTs. So why not figure out a way to cram the parts into
a smaller case, folks? Does a 17" monitor really need to be over
a foot long from front to back?

5. Static desktops. By now we should have 3d-accelerated desktops.
Come on, this can't be that hard. Nothing fancy, I don't need Matrix-action,
but that'd be pretty sweet.

6. Last, but not least: an OS that is "always on." That
means I hit a button, it's up and running. I'll be fair on this one
- I'd think 15 seconds would be reasonable. But Apple, Microsoft and
the major *nixes are still dismally failing in this area.

This is a rant about the new iMac, yes. But it's also a rant about
the industry - an industry that can re-vitalize itself by restoring it's role
as innovators, instead of imitators.

1.) Design Concept for a Strictly Anomally Based Web Intrusion Detection System - spoonfork
2.) The 2nd Annual 20 Worst People, Places and Things on the Internet 2001 - Archfiend
3.) NetStat - An overlook at market locked out commands - Kn¿ght
4.) The Acorn PC - logik
5.) The new iMac: Symbolic of what is wrong in technology - Dietcoke
6.) Interview: The Womb - A digital rebirth of sound - L33tdawg
7.) Review: Return to Castle Wolfenstein - L33tdawg
8.) Two years and still kicking - L33tdawg
9.) Of broadband gimmicks and the like - biatch0
10.) The Real McCoy - Dinesh Nair