>iMacs stood for clean desktops with little hassle Yes, but that's always, ever since the original G3 iMac, come with the caveat of "as long as the only things

>iMacs stood for clean desktops with little hassle 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.)