You're kidding, yes? Industrial design is one of the major things that distinguishes Apple from the rest of the dull, clunky pack. And they know it, too, which is why they have tried to match Apple in style. Look at how many PC makers have tried to copy the look and feel of the TiBook!

And Gateway just released an ad that is running in the new issue of PC World touting the death of beige. Hey, that's a novel idea.

Apple's industrial design is the best in the business.

i think thats absolutely absurd. make the computer more dull? encourage dull? dull will sell? thats ridiculous.

part of what sets apple apart is the different approach they take to computing. the pc seems like something that was designed from the processor up, while the mac is from the user down. that approach is responsible for the elegant feel, and the industrial design is the physical manifestation of that approach.

if you wanted to sell more of a certain model car, would you make it look more boring? practically speaking, a car is only there to get you from one place or another. might as well just be a box that fits you and x # of family units. obviously, there are certain cars that fit this approach. they're called ford escorts, kia sophias, dodge caravans. then there are cars that are made for people to enjoy... mercedes, bmws, ferraris. its an entirely different approach. apple's approach is more along the lines of "don't just use your computer... enjoy it."

relatively speaking, the computer industry is still young. its not too late for an alternative approach to computing. personally, i prefer the notion that i should enjoy the time i spend using a computer. i also like that i can look at my computer and think its actually attractive. it looks like something i'd want to use. form following function. no reason to change that.

The is a small point to Jeff comment. Business who don't deal with clients in their offices don't what to pay for looks, example iMac. They just want a good solid inexpensive computer. That is exactly what the eMac gives.

I think you underestimate Ive's abilities there.
the original iMac was iconic. That is what almost all industrial/product designs strive for, and it only befits few products. iMac, the Walkman, Swiss Army Knife are among the elite.
And don't tell me businesses wouldn't touch coloured computers. I can't tell you how many businesses (from law firms to accountants etc.) that have iMacs on their front desk - this is the one that gets seen the most by clients.

current macs are designed with form follows function firmly intact. Look at the new iMac - that screen is all about user interface. The fact that it now conforms to the user rather than the other way around is a fantastic paradigm - and the clear plastic around it serves a purpose - it encourages touch (true - original prototypes didnt have it and people were hesitant to move the screen, but when Ive's added the plastic, people moved the screen a LOT more)

What is the problem is the price difference, and far to many people think that the reason macs are slightly more expensive is because of the design (fair enough, porshes cost more than falcons, b+o costs more than palsonic, etc.)

There's something similar between Apple Computer and Klein Bikes (getting into summer- sorry): Both companies produce beautiful products, Klein with eye-popping paint jobs, Apple with the Quicksilver and the TiBooks. However, whereas nearly any biker can agree that Kleins, while expensive due to excessive engineering and flawless finishes, are among the fastest and lightest bikes around, not all computer users can agree that Macs give that extra performace for the cost. Without the performance edge (megahertz myth not withstanding), many PC users will, in fact, percieve Apple products as just good computers to look at. Basically, its a "who cares how great looking your Jaguar XK8 is? My ugly-duckling Viper can out-accelerate, out turn, and out stop the Jag, all for about $15,000 less."
I think my point kinda got lost in there... anyway, what I'm saying is, a computer that looks good and costs a lot should be able to back it up with what's under the hood- the B&Ws could when they came out, the Quicksilvers, frankly, can't.

Deinhard - Interesting analogy, and you're an SEC fan I'll bet!

My primary beef with Apple isn't the enclosure designs specifically, but the lack of choices available as a potential customer. The only choices for desktop systems are either: 1) buy into the eMac/iMac(CRT)/iMac(LCD) concept, or 2) buy a pro model (Quicksilver). The eMac and iMacs may be eye-catching designs, but not everyone is interested in all-in-one systems. Apple needs to give these potential customers other options, or risk losing sales.

If Apple can sell the eMac for $1100 with integrated 17" CRT, why not make a scaled-down desktop (eMac without the CRT) and sell it for $800? Give the buyer a choice concerning the monitor. Many will buy an Apple flat-panel monitor.