or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Briefly: On last minute iMac and iPhone design changes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Briefly: On last minute iMac and iPhone design changes - Page 3

post #81 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

It may be true that the audience may be different for the MBP versus the MB or iMac, it's just that the MBP is the only line that gives the consumer the chocie of matte or glossy.

AND...

Melgross, are we arguing and bickering like a bunch of old ladies? I thought we were having a point - counterpoint conversation?

To those who say Glossy is not bad, I am not debating regarding that issue. I am however, griping, bickering like an old lady, if you care, with regards to the loss of what once was and no freedom of choice. What if Ford put a 4 cylinder, no make that 2 cylinder in their "muscle" car the Mustang and said it's what the people want, a greener environment and no car enthusiast was given the choice to BTO with a V-8! Bet you'd hear a bunch of old ladies bickering on some muscle car auto enthusiast board!

It's getting late ya'll, Good night!

I guess you can read this tomorrow.

Bickering is a way of life here. Imagine how boring it would be if everyone said, "Yes, you're right", and then the other said, "Yes, you're right too" all the time.

Well, we can look at it this way, we didn't have a choice before, it's no different now. Except that those who may have preferred glossy had no choice. Now those who may prefer matte have no choice.

It's almost fair, don't you think?
post #82 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's a matter of having two shunts off the assembly lines, two different boxes, or at least two labels slapped on that wouldn't needed, or someone smacking something on the box to designate which was which.

Then there must be the stocking of two different units, without knowing how many of each will sell, etc.

Apple went through this with Best Buy with the original colored iMacs. Two colors were selling well, and the others weren't. BB wanted to order whichever models were selling better, and order less of the ones that weren't. Apple insisted of buying equal numbers of each color. BB said "No thanks", and stopped selling Apple products.

As warehouse and shelf space costs money, how would you allocate space for each model? What if you were wrong?

If some damage that glass front, Apple will have to carry two versions, taking up more space, and costing more.

This costs money up and down the entire line.

It could cost MORE than $50.

Considering that Apple only have ONE consumer computer with a built-in display, I hardly think it would break the bank or eat into their 30% profit margins to offer a matte option as well.. Hell, they can keep the standard configuration for stores as glossy and offer matte as a BTO. I'd even pay an extra $50 or $100 bucks for the BTO choice.
post #83 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I guess you can read this tomorrow.

Bickering is a way of life here. Imagine how boring it would be if everyone said, "Yes, you're right", and then the other said, "Yes, you're right too" all the time.

Well, we can look at it this way, we didn't have a choice before, it's no different now. Except that those who may have preferred glossy had no choice. Now those who may prefer matte have no choice.

It's almost fair, don't you think?

No, because matte displays don't cause headaches, eyestrain, or pre-mature fatigue. They provide much better off angle viewing, and they significantly reduce glare and reflections from windows and lighting.
post #84 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't have those numbers. Possibility one of the companies that analyse sales has estimates, because Apple doesn't break those figures out. The argument would be better for either one of us, depending on how it went.

But the audience for the MBP is mostly different from most of the iMac audience. I'm not sure we could compare a laptop customer to a desktop cone that directly, or one buying a much more expensive device.

I can say that by going from those here who have bought the new iMac, at least those who have posted, the glossy screen isn't a problem. The only review that had a problem was MacWorld in their brightly lit offices, though even they said that the glossy models images looked better.

There is no doubt that some people like glossy displays. On the other hand there is also a very large group who prefer matte..

Here are three separate online polls with one common outcome. Matte is the winner by a large margin. Scientific results? No. But neither is your comment: " ...... by going from those here who have bought the new iMac, at least those who have posted, the glossy screen isn't a problem."

http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=527

http://macslash.org/pollBooth.pl?sec...qid=192&aid=-1

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061018-8022.html
post #85 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by solsun View Post

Considering that Apple only have ONE consumer computer with a built-in display, I hardly think it would break the bank or eat into their 30% profit margins to offer a matte option as well.. Hell, they can keep the standard configuration for stores as glossy and offer matte as a BTO. I'd even pay an extra $50 or $100 bucks for the BTO choice.

Still costs extra.

Look, I'm giving a reason why Apple might do this, not that I would.

There's no point in arguing it with me. You have to argue it with them.
post #86 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by solsun View Post

No, because matte displays don't cause headaches, eyestrain, or pre-mature fatigue. They provide much better off angle viewing, and they significantly reduce glare and reflections from windows and lighting.

I've never heard that under proper lighting conditions that that would happen. I used glossy screen Barco monitors for years doing color reproduction work, and never had eyestrain from them.

What you're saying is true sometimes, but not all the time.

You still get washed out pictures from a matte screen under the same conditions though. You can easily see the difference on a matte screen if you move the screen so that the light doesn't shine directly on it. That's why even matte monitors intended for color work had a hood.
post #87 of 115
Just to repeat something I've posted earlier:

All over Mac discussion boards, there are people talking about how a glossy display is a "deal breaker". That they are not going to buy the new iMac, even though they had planned to, because they just can't hang with the display.

Have you ever heard anyone say that a matte display is a deal breaker? Do you think if the new iMac had exactly the same screen as the old iMac there would be a wave of indignation because Apple had failed to make it glossy, and many, many people stating that they simply wouldn't buy it?

Apple must know this-- they must have feedback that tells them that while there are people who want a glossy screen, there are also people who absolutely can't stand them, or for whom the problem of "dealing with" reflections is impractical.

But go back to the design of the thing-- to make the front surface flush with the aluminum frame, their had to be glass. To achieve Steve's synergy with the iPhone, there had to be glass.

I think the glossy is a byproduct of other design considerations, and they just figured they would inform us that it was better, and prove it by not give us a choice.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #88 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by solsun View Post

There is no doubt that some people like glossy displays. On the other hand there is also a very large group who prefer matte..

Here are three separate online polls with one common outcome. Matte is the winner by a large margin. Scientific results? No. But neither is your comment: " ...... by going from those here who have bought the new iMac, at least those who have posted, the glossy screen isn't a problem."

http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=527

http://macslash.org/pollBooth.pl?sec...qid=192&aid=-1

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061018-8022.html

I don't know how accurate those polls are, because I'd be willing to bet that most people polled never used a glossy screen monitor as they disappeared from the scene years ago. They've just been coming back on laptops. I don't see that as a fair comparison.

And as has been pointed out in the Ar's article polls are often self selecting, with the people who care the most voting, and those who don't care, not voting. Like primary voting. Only the most motivated bother.

Also, do those polls prevent one from voting more than once, or are they relying on those voting to restrain themselves. That's another problem with online polls.

Let's get more people here who have used them to speak up.

I trust out members more.
post #89 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWvr View Post

He also claimed that the glass is highly recyclable (which I'm sure was to please the nature-protection groups).

Nature-protection groups?

post #90 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by britwithgoodteeth View Post

Nature-protection groups?


They wander the woods with hand whittled pistols.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #91 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Just to repeat something I've posted earlier:

All over Mac discussion boards, there are people talking about how a glossy display is a "deal breaker". That they are not going to buy the new iMac, even though they had planned to, because they just can't hang with the display.

Have you ever heard anyone say that a matte display is a deal breaker? Do you think if the new iMac had exactly the same screen as the old iMac there would be a wave of indignation because Apple had failed to make it glossy, and many, many people stating that they simply wouldn't buy it?

Apple must know this-- they must have feedback that tells them that while there are people who want a glossy screen, there are also people who absolutely can't stand them, or for whom the problem of "dealing with" reflections is impractical.

But go back to the design of the thing-- to make the front surface flush with the aluminum frame, their had to be glass. To achieve Steve's synergy with the iPhone, there had to be glass.

I think the glossy is a byproduct of other design considerations, and they just figured they would inform us that it was better, and prove it by not give us a choice.

It didn't have to be glossy though. My current Sony CRT 24" is matte. It has an anti-reflection coating, but it does scratch if you're not careful.
post #92 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It didn't have to be glossy though. My current Sony CRT 24" is matte. It has an anti-reflection coating, but it does scratch if you're not careful.

Ah, but now aren't we in the "costs more money" territory that prevents them from offering both?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #93 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Ah, but now aren't we in the "costs more money" territory that prevents them from offering both?

It doesn't prevent it. It just cuts down on margins, and remember in the analysts call they expected margins to be down substantially this quarter, partly due to "product revisions". This is one of those products. It's possible they wanted to keep those margins as high as possible.

Remember, as I keep saying, the glass is easily removable, possibly, sometime in the future, they will add a matte screen. Possibly when margins are back up.

You know Apple does some strange things.

I've been saying that I'd rather they had both.
post #94 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It doesn't prevent it. It just cuts down on margins, and remember in the analysts call they expected margins to be down substantially this quarter, partly due to "product revisions". This is one of those products. It's possible they wanted to keep those margins as high as possible.

Remember, as I keep saying, the glass is easily removable, possibly, sometime in the future, they will add a matte screen. Possibly when margins are back up.

You know Apple does some strange things.

I've been saying that I'd rather they had both.

No, I get you, and I personally expect to be able to work something out with the glass, because I fully intend to get a 24" in a few months.

I just wonder what was going through Apple's mind when they decided to go all in with this, since, as I say, they must have been aware that there is some pretty hard-core glossy antagonism out there.

And I think, unfortunately in a way, that at least some of what was going through their mind was "PC people like and expect glossy screens, at this point, and they look punchy in the stores".

Which is really not exactly the same as Jobs' claim that all the design decisions arise from putting themselves in the customers shoes.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #95 of 115
Ok. As I have to get up before 7:00 am, I have to get to bed, so I'll state my position for the last time tonight, and will get back sometime tomorrow evening.

1. Two SKU's will bring up the cost slightly. It's possible that Apple had reason to want to keep the price to $1799. Possibly market research showed that sales would be better at $1799 than $1849. That may account for the modest (yes, I'm being nice!) gpu's offered.

2. Under MOST circumstances, glossy won't offer a problem, and there are advantages to it as well. We've discussed that.

3. I'm NOT saying I agree with not offering a matte model as well, or as a special upgrade.

I think that Apple should have done so.

That's it. I don't know how better to express it quickly.

Nitey nite all.

post #96 of 115
Shhhhh......

While Mel's sleeping, I can now reveal that's he completely wrong about everything, all the time.


And when he wakes up, he'll have to live with the fact that this statement stood unrebutted for some number of hours!

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #97 of 115
Ohlala, the black apple logo on the silver casing is looking sexy as hell to me!

This could be a great differentiator with a white Apple logo for the new aluminum Macbook and a black Apple logo for the new aluminum Macbookpro.
post #98 of 115
Glossy surfaces are not a bad thing. They give us alotof mental energy according to Feng Shui.

It is also refreshing, like water which has similar properties of glossiness.
post #99 of 115
If a glossy screen is that much of a problem and the glass is easily removable with a suction cup then there is a business opportunity for a third party to manufacture a matte polycarbonate drop in replacement.

Shouldn't be too hard to set up.
post #100 of 115
Hmmmm...for those with new iMacs...did you get the Apple stickers? If so, what colour are they?

And for those that think the new black logo looks stuck on, why not just put one of the white stickers over it?
post #101 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yes, as hard as it may be for you to believe, it does add to the cost. You just don't want to think it through. It's a joke to you. But, if you do think of what happens, from the first designs, to the stocking of the stores, you would understand that the more SKU's the higher the price.

That doesn't mean that prices won't come down with new designs. Technology moves ahead, and so prices do come down. But multiple SKU's prevent it from coming down to what it might.

First of all that first paragraph is SO condescending its unbelieveable.

Second of all, if MORE SKUs mean an overall cost increase then why is it that other companies can produce a seemingly endless variety of MP3 players (for example) that almost always manage to cost LESS than an equivilant iPod? more SKUs costing less.
It's about the bottom line, Apple margin, thats what it comes down to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Look, I'm giving a reason why Apple might do this, not that I would.

There's no point in arguing it with me. You have to argue it with them.

Ok then if you arn't in control of it and you wouldn't do what Apple have done, why are you so insistent on defending them?
If theres no point in anyone arguing with you, does that also mean there is no point in you arguing with others? If so then please stop and give everyone else a chance

Re SKUs the glass can be taken out with a suction cup type tool, yes? Then ship ALL the iMacs with Glossy if you must and simply stock the matte screen ONLY then in the Apple store, give the customer the option to swap it out and explain what it involves, 3/4 mins should do it, and it ONLY involves stocking some screens, which pack a LOT tighter in warehouses than the vast sea of unwanted matte screen iMacs that you invision. There are various options for making glass non-glossy at the factory, or if need be use a matte plastic, but the CUSTOMER gets the option, and last time I checked the customer was always right. unless of course Apple have changed this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I've never heard that under proper lighting conditions that that would happen. I used glossy screen Barco monitors for years doing color reproduction work, and never had eyestrain from them.

What you're saying is true sometimes, but not all the time.

YOU haven't heard of it so it doesn't exist..

Likewise what YOU are saying is true sometimes, but not all the time.

Re lighting conditions and my opinions of Apple.

Apple is up against other PC manufacturers and M$ they offer a choice.
Apple has its design goals it offers a better aesthetic choice.
People who choose the iMac are making a decision in part based on aesthetic choice.

Part of ones aesthetic choice in life is ones surroundings, lighting, window size, workspace placement etc.

Prior to the introduction of the glossy screen, one could place the iMac where it made sense from an aesthetic standpoint without the screen dictating placment choice. One could have a window to ones back for example, or other light source placed to enhance the room and user comfort within the workspace.

This is I'm sure something his Steveness is aware of on at least a subconscious comfort level, if its not more in his front brain

But now with the Glossy screen, one has to make sacrifices to the aesthetic comfort one has grown accustomed to. Which I feel rather jars against "The Apple Way"

This is MY opinion, but I won't feel the need to endlessly defend it or keep proving my point over and over again, it is enough for me to state it and know that, for me, it is true.
I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

nagromme - According to Amazon: "SpongBob Typing Tutor" is outselling Windows
Reply
I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

nagromme - According to Amazon: "SpongBob Typing Tutor" is outselling Windows
Reply
post #102 of 115
I'm struggling to understand why Melgross is being so misunderstood here

It's pretty obvious:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe View Post

First of all that first paragraph is SO condescending its unbelieveable.

Condescending? Perhaps. True? Definitely.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe View Post

Second of all, if MORE SKUs mean an overall cost increase then why is it that other companies can produce a seemingly endless variety of MP3 players (for example) that almost always manage to cost LESS than an equivilant iPod?

That proves nothing. It's just a good explanation as to why no-one else makes as much money from mp3 players as Apple. They all have much lower margins than Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe View Post

It's about the bottom line, Apple margin, thats what it comes down to.

Um, that's exactly Mel's point.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe View Post

why are you so insistent on defending them?

He isn't defending them. What he is defending is his assertion that adding SKUs increase costs and therefore reduce margins. His point is that Apple probably don't offer a screen-finish choice, because they don't think the associated margin reduction would be worth it. At no point has he said that he thinks that that is a good idea. In fact, he has stated the contrary.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe View Post

Re SKUs the glass can be taken out with a suction cup type tool, yes? Then ship ALL the iMacs with Glossy if you must and simply stock the matte screen ONLY then in the Apple store, give the customer the option to swap it out and explain what it involves, 3/4 mins should do it, and it ONLY involves stocking some screens, which pack a LOT tighter in warehouses than the vast sea of unwanted matte screen iMacs that you invision. There are various options for making glass non-glossy at the factory, or if need be use a matte plastic, but the CUSTOMER gets the option

I can't believe that you've obviously given this more than a few seconds' thought, but haven't realised the fact that everything you've talked about would increase Apple's costs relative to offering no choice.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #103 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yes, as hard as it may be for you to believe, it does add to the cost. You just don't want to think it through. It's a joke to you. But, if you do think of what happens, from the first designs, to the stocking of the stores, you would understand that the more SKU's the higher the price.

Apple has so few stock product variations, and sells such a huge quantity of them, that it's hard to believe it would be a very expensive problem, in terms of cost per unit. If they had several dozen major products, then I would agree.
post #104 of 115
For you anti-glossers, a quick two-second Google search solves your issue:

http://www.powersupportusa.com/produ...hp?category=pb

And there's plenty more where that came from. That is what the after market and 3rd party developers are for after all. Apple typically leaves improvements and accessories to the 3rd party developers to give them a shot at some cash and to build a community for Apple products.

Also it's pretty common sense that adding more options costs more money, whether real or in financial terms such as margins and what not. You can't make something for free. Yes, would it be nice if all of Apple products came with extensive BTO options, of course, but then again it would complicate the ordering process for novice users which turns into a no sale, it increases the amount of staff and work required to get and fulfill an order, and at most Apple makes a marginal if any profit from offering the option. Let's face it, this is a business, and Apple is looking to make some dough, they could care less if your 100% happy with the product, they know 1) you're going to buy it anyways or 2) someone else will.

Just look at what it takes to order a Dell computer these days, you have to go through like 50 screens to configure a computer just to see if all the options you want are worth the price they want for it. On the Apple store you have one page of options and you have the price in a minute or less. There's something to be said for minimalization.

Oh and by the way, that old rule "The customer's always right" has been obsolete since big corporations took over the world in the '70s. These days "store policy" rules the transaction.
post #105 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe View Post

if MORE SKUs mean an overall cost increase then why is it that other companies can produce a seemingly endless variety of MP3 players (for example) that almost always manage to cost LESS than an equivilant iPod? more SKUs costing less.
It's about the bottom line, Apple margin, thats what it comes down to.

You probably don't remember when Apple had dozens of different desktop computers in their line up. It nearly killed them back in the mid 90's. At that time everyone was screaming for them to simplify the line to just a couple models which they did and it helped return them to profitability.

m

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #106 of 115
While I'm here I'll also throw out my experience with a glossy MacBook...

I bought a Black MacBook maxed out with all the options about a month after they first came out. I choose the glossy screen because I saw it in the Apple store and liked how it looked.

I work in a direct mail print house (www.supercoups.com) as the Network Administrator and therefore have lots of experience with various display types and the effect they have on color output.

I brought in my MacBook shortly after purchase to do some testing under the Intel environment with the applications we use. We have mostly fluorescent lighting and lots of windows which wreck havoc with color profiling. Overall I felt the glossy screen didn't create any more issues with color reproduction over any other display type. CRTs are still easier to color correct. My preference between the glossy and anti-glare LCDs is the glossy due to the colors matching more on screen to the printed product. The anti-glare tended to dull down the colors causing mismatches between similar shades of color, which increases production time due to corrections for picky customers. Proofing is ultimately done on color corrected CRTs to catch errors at the last minute before press. Neither LCD type is 100% in color correctness. Most of the hardcore artists insist on CRTs over LCDs, only the newer artists ask for LCDs, and that is mostly to save space in our little cubes.

So in summary, those who are in the know choose CRT, all others, it's an aesthetic personal choice.
post #107 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Most of the hardcore artists insist on CRTs over LCDs, only the newer artists ask for LCDs, and that is mostly to save space in our little cubes.

How long will you be able to accomodate requests for CRTs, especially high quality ones? Last I heard, CRT studio monitors are no longer made, so they are on borrowed time, the ones in service now may last a long time but doesn't their quality degrade over time too?
post #108 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

How long will you be able to accomodate requests for CRTs, especially high quality ones? Last I heard, CRT studio monitors are no longer made, so they are on borrowed time, the ones in service now may last a long time but doesn't their quality degrade over time too?

Well we have an entire upstairs temperature controlled storage area filled with about 50 of them. With around 10 - 15 artists, they should last awhile!

I would agree that they are on borrowed time, and eventually for many reasons they will become impracticable. Quality wise though, with the constant calibrating we do - every production run - I don't believe degradation will be an issue, at least I have not seen any indication of that. But then again, like I said, we have plenty of spares.

Unfortunately we haven't evaluated any affordable LCD product that would make a good replacement for our current CRTs. Kodak supposedly makes a perfect color match LCD, but it's like $10,000. Our profits are fairly slim with the slow advertising market, so that currently is not affordable for us and we have other purchasing priorities (like a new phone system to replace our aging Nortel PBX). But we also rely more on proofing sheets, and known color values. Every artist has a color sheet with printed values that are actually printed off our presses so they know what colors will reproduce like.

The best comparison I can make is that our artists are going to need to learn to fly by instrument (IFR), as opposed to visual flight conditions (VFR). They'll have to learn to trust the values instead of the on-screen product. As I'm sure any pilot can attest, this is a difficult thing to teach, you have to trust the computer like the force!
post #109 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

The best comparison I can make is that our artists are going to need to learn to fly by instrument (IFR), as opposed to visual flight conditions (VFR). They'll have to learn to trust the values instead of the on-screen product.

There you go. That has always been the most reliable method, because even the best CRTs cannot display accurate color since the display is RGB and the press is CYMK. Now, with excellent target curve calibration of highend inkjets, you can quickly get a very accurate proof.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #110 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Shhhhh......

While Mel's sleeping, I can now reveal that's he completely wrong about everything, all the time.


And when he wakes up, he'll have to live with the fact that this statement stood unrebutted for some number of hours!


Ah, my sneaky parrot!

Well, I bought the new Apple keyboard, and iWork 08.

Can't speak for iWork yet, but the keyboard is pretty good so far.

I haven't had time to investigate it yet, but the brightness, Exposé, and Dashboard keys don't work, though the other placements do. I did install the new software, which you can't do unless the keyboard is plugged in, if you are doing it through Software Update.

It feels very different to be sure.
post #111 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe View Post

First of all that first paragraph is SO condescending its unbelieveable.

I don't know why you got involved in that.

I was responding to his:

"Originally Posted by Rot'nApple

So instead of the $200.00 and $300.00 price break you'd be getting a $150.00 or $250.00 price break instead?!"

He knew what I meant. It rightly didn't upset him.

Quote:
Second of all, if MORE SKUs mean an overall cost increase then why is it that other companies can produce a seemingly endless variety of MP3 players (for example) that almost always manage to cost LESS than an equivilant iPod? more SKUs costing less.
It's about the bottom line, Apple margin, thats what it comes down to.

You're not understanding the process. It has nothing to do with the price per se, it has to do with a small added cost to whatever it is.

If a player costs $50, then it might add 25 cents. If the product costs $500 it might add $2.50. If it costs $5,000, it might add $25.

It might not even be percentage related, in that it depends on what is being done.

It doesn't prevent Apple or any others from making less expensive products. It just adds a small "fee" to the top.

Quote:
Ok then if you arn't in control of it and you wouldn't do what Apple have done, why are you so insistent on defending them?
If theres no point in anyone arguing with you, does that also mean there is no point in you arguing with others? If so then please stop and give everyone else a chance

You really have this entire thing wrong. At no time did I "defend" Apple. I simply gave one reason why they might have done this.

When I said to argue with Apple about this, as I DID explain, it's because I'm just giving a reason why Apple might have done this, and as I have no control over what Apple does, it doesn't change anything to argue with me about it, because I don't agree with what Apple has done either.

Your paragraph is condescending, as is the rolleyes when used in that context. so, you certainly have no right to comment on my statements as you have. I suppose you are one of those who don't recognize the error of your own ways while commenting on those of others.

I'm not cutting off the opinions of anybody else. We are having a discussion about this. Sometimes we have agreed, and sometimes not.

I'm not forcing you to post to me, that's your choice.

Quote:
Re SKUs the glass can be taken out with a suction cup type tool, yes? Then ship ALL the iMacs with Glossy if you must and simply stock the matte screen ONLY then in the Apple store, give the customer the option to swap it out and explain what it involves, 3/4 mins should do it, and it ONLY involves stocking some screens, which pack a LOT tighter in warehouses than the vast sea of unwanted matte screen iMacs that you invision. There are various options for making glass non-glossy at the factory, or if need be use a matte plastic, but the CUSTOMER gets the option, and last time I checked the customer was always right. unless of course Apple have changed this?

Have you been a manufacturer? You don't want your customer removing a glass object like that and replacing it, due to the liability you will incur.

Is Apple responsible for giving (lending) you the tool? Do you have to find, and buy your own?

I had thought about the possibility of the Apple genius doing that for the customer, which would remove that liability. But, I can't see Apple wanting to do that either. It's an uncontrolled situation which could result in damage to the glass, the computer it's being put into, or injury to the worker.

Quote:
YOU haven't heard of it so it doesn't exist..

Likewise what YOU are saying is true sometimes, but not all the time.

Proper lighting conditions means exactly that—proper. Pretty simple, no?

Quote:
Re lighting conditions and my opinions of Apple.

Apple is up against other PC manufacturers and M$ they offer a choice.
Apple has its design goals it offers a better aesthetic choice.
People who choose the iMac are making a decision in part based on aesthetic choice.

Part of ones aesthetic choice in life is ones surroundings, lighting, window size, workspace placement etc.

No argument there.

Quote:
Prior to the introduction of the glossy screen, one could place the iMac where it made sense from an aesthetic standpoint without the screen dictating placment choice. One could have a window to ones back for example, or other light source placed to enhance the room and user comfort within the workspace.

This is I'm sure something his Steveness is aware of on at least a subconscious comfort level, if its not more in his front brain

But now with the Glossy screen, one has to make sacrifices to the aesthetic comfort one has grown accustomed to. Which I feel rather jars against "The Apple Way"

This is MY opinion, but I won't feel the need to endlessly defend it or keep proving my point over and over again, it is enough for me to state it and know that, for me, it is true.

Goody for you.

Few people here are interested in your opinion if they want to discuss it with you and question it, with you refusing to explain yourself, of give further explanation. That's what the forum is all about.

If we all simply stated our positions, and never discussed, or even argued the points, AI would soon become a very lonely place.
post #112 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Apple has so few stock product variations, and sells such a huge quantity of them, that it's hard to believe it would be a very expensive problem, in terms of cost per unit. If they had several dozen major products, then I would agree.

It wouldn't be very expensive. But, if it adds $50 (that's just a very rough estimate, of course), Apple might figure that the numbers don't look right. They might feel that $1849, simply isn't as inviting at $1799.

We know that the reason why Apple didn't add a better gpu, such as the 2600XT was because it would have added $40 to the cost of the machine. going to the 8600GTS would have added $65.

With all their emphasis on gaming lately, with gaming people onstage, why wouldn't they have put a better gpu in?

Cost. Above all, Apple considers cost.

If they figured that the machine would sell with what is definitely a poorer gpu in the eyes of their customers, while lessening the quality of the game play, why wouldn't they do what they did with the screen?

It's also possible that glossy glass, even with the anti-reflection and anti-scratch coatings is cheaper than the matte version.

After all, a matte screen would alsobetter match the matte surface of the case.
post #113 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

While I'm here I'll also throw out my experience with a glossy MacBook...

I bought a Black MacBook maxed out with all the options about a month after they first came out. I choose the glossy screen because I saw it in the Apple store and liked how it looked.

I work in a direct mail print house (www.supercoups.com) as the Network Administrator and therefore have lots of experience with various display types and the effect they have on color output.

I brought in my MacBook shortly after purchase to do some testing under the Intel environment with the applications we use. We have mostly fluorescent lighting and lots of windows which wreck havoc with color profiling. Overall I felt the glossy screen didn't create any more issues with color reproduction over any other display type. CRTs are still easier to color correct. My preference between the glossy and anti-glare LCDs is the glossy due to the colors matching more on screen to the printed product. The anti-glare tended to dull down the colors causing mismatches between similar shades of color, which increases production time due to corrections for picky customers. Proofing is ultimately done on color corrected CRTs to catch errors at the last minute before press. Neither LCD type is 100% in color correctness. Most of the hardcore artists insist on CRTs over LCDs, only the newer artists ask for LCDs, and that is mostly to save space in our little cubes.

So in summary, those who are in the know choose CRT, all others, it's an aesthetic personal choice.

Absolutely!
post #114 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

There you go. That has always been the most reliable method, because even the best CRTs cannot display accurate color since the display is RGB and the press is CYMK. Now, with excellent target curve calibration of highend inkjets, you can quickly get a very accurate proof.

What he said is very true. Often when correcting, I would go by the numbers, and not even care about what colors I saw on the screen. Sometimes there simpy is no neutral to go by. We then have to use our knowledge and experience to correct.

In one of his excellent books (Professional Photoshop) on Photoshop correction, Dan Margulis, one of the most well recognized experts in the field, said that he taught a color blind person to color correct using the numbers. I believe him.
post #115 of 115
Actually I think it looks really sharp in black. Especially in person, it has a slightly evil and subversive presence, which I think is just perfect, as the day's of Apple being just a quirky goody-goody fluff company are changing. This is just the thing.

I've also spent some time using the new iMac glossy screen, as well as the glossy screen on my new little MacBook (or maybe I should call is the BlackBook... Guess what? It works just great! Love it. Was very worried after using the matte screens of the MacBookPro and previous PowerBook, but it's really quite usable, and very sharp. Get over it!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Briefly: On last minute iMac and iPhone design changes