He did turn it full sideways to the camera and revealed its bulging back. You can't show off its full thickness any more than that.
It wasn't on screen that way for as long as the "ooo!" moment of the brightly lit knife edge, but it was there for all to see.
Unrelated random thoughts on iMac thickness:
It is really just an aesthetic. The foot print of the machine can't be thin because it would be too easy to knock it over backwards. You can't stick it to a wall because there would be no place for your legs. That leaves aesthetics.
Consider the angles from which you see an iMac. Generally you are mostly in front. As you move off axis beyond the screen perimeter, the edges become visible. These are indeed thin, and deliberately visible in their glorious thinness. If your desk is against a wall you will never see the bulge. If you are in an office with the desk facing the door (always my preference) the bulge is not readily apparent to people entering because of its gradual edges, it is only from about a 30 degree angle of view around the rear sides that you can really see it, and that is the region where you are walking around your desk to sit down, not one visitors inhabit.
You end up with a computer that looks thin. Does it really matter if it isn't?
I'm sure there were marks on the table showing exactly where to position it at each pause. (Yep, as axx points out, you can see him check the base on the table before turning.) It's that kind of production. People physically present in the audience obviously get varying angles, but unless he is panning it around for everyone you can be sure it is planned for the camera.
Ok, got the keynote downloaded. My memory is off. He doesn't pause at exactly a side view. He passes through it twice, and the split screen shows the bulge pretty well, when they are showing the side, but obviously a viewer's attention could be on the other half of the split.
To my additional surprise, the first glory shot of the thin edge does show about half of the bulge. He could easily have stopped a few degrees sooner and shown no bulge. I wonder if that gives the viewer the belief that the bulge is much smaller than it is. That may be reading too much in.
yes, pretty sure there where predefined marks to place it perfect for the video. if you look closely you'll see how Schiller looks to a monitor and corrects the angle slightly.
It's just a little detail in opinion, but it shows how staged all those presentations are and you can't blame amazon for doing the same.
He did turn it full sideways to the camera and revealed its bulging back. You can't show off its full thickness any more than that.
It wasn't on screen that way for as long as the "ooo!" moment of the brightly lit knife edge, but it was there for all to see.
Unrelated random thoughts on iMac thickness:
It is really just an aesthetic. The foot print of the machine can't be thin because it would be too easy to knock it over backwards. You can't stick it to a wall because there would be no place for your legs. That leaves aesthetics.
Consider the angles from which you see an iMac. Generally you are mostly in front. As you move off axis beyond the screen perimeter, the edges become visible. These are indeed thin, and deliberately visible in their glorious thinness. If your desk is against a wall you will never see the bulge. If you are in an office with the desk facing the door (always my preference) the bulge is not readily apparent to people entering because of its gradual edges, it is only from about a 30 degree angle of view around the rear sides that you can really see it, and that is the region where you are walking around your desk to sit down, not one visitors inhabit.
You end up with a computer that looks thin. Does it really matter if it isn't?