Apple is quick to drop things it deems unnecessary and not add extraneous ports just for the sake of adding it. A multicard reader on a Sony product is expected; they?ve invented most card reader types than Bill Gates has dollars.
Frankly, I?m surprised they even added the SD Card slot, so I have to imagine they have some future use for it beyond the current, normal use. After all, they?ve expected people just to buy USB readers until earlier this year, so why now?
I wish they'd add an eSATA port, but that's another argument.
SD cards are pretty common in mass market digital cameras, but when my parents come over and want to show their photos an SD reader wouldn't do much good. My Mother has a little camera which uses XD or something like that, and my Father's DSLR uses CF. They don't own any SD card devices at all.
At least my PS3 can read CF cards. (but not XD cards)
It's not really any of my business, but I think you need new friends. People who come over to your house and laugh at your hardware choices are just dreadful assholes.
Fortunately I am not so thin-skinned that I have to lose friend each time they laugh at my stuff. Some of us think laughing is a good thing.
But, I just checked again now, and delivery date is now back to just "November".
Hmm, as I wrote earlier, I even called Apple and verified the Nov. 3 - 6, but now they changed it back.
Guess I'll have to wait just as long as you guys then
Now that's just not on!
It's one thing to have been given 'November' but quite another to have had a delivery date changed back to it! I'd get back onto Apple and find out what's going on.
The primary question I have about this is that the computer screen and material a billboard is made of don't display color the same way and they don't reflect light the same way. Attempting to color a billboard on a computer under the same lighting conditions as the billboard would be displayed is useless. With typography your are not working with color so the work environment doesn't matter.
When we do color for a movie that will be projected in a theater we are also doing it for television broadcast and DVD. People watch televisions in all types of lighting environments. But the color work is still done is subdued lighting.
The reason in film we do color work in subdued lighting is so that there is no corruption of the picture irrespective of what environment the movie or TV show is watched. Each viewing environment has its own color rules and standards that software compensate for.
We use what are called "look up tables" and "color profiles" that establish the rules and limitations of what can be done for each situation. For example the way a film print displays yellow is different from the way a television displays yellow. There is a look up table for both that keeps the color yellow within the range that can be displayed for that medium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebelmusik
It is true that I need to be able to work in a dark room with very little light, but it is also true that I need to work in a bright room with a lot of light. Basically, as a general rule, it is always good to be working in a space that resembles the space that your product will be used/consumed (that is partly why film people work in dark spaces; they are optimizing the product in the same environment in which it will most often be consumed). Because I work primarily with type ? and by extension I design books ? I often need to work in a bright space since books are very rarely used in the dark.
Same goes for people designing outdoor banners, posters, street signs, etc. These are all largely being viewed in the daytime, with natural sunlight, so it is imperative to work on them in a room with good natural lighting (lots of windows).
I wish they'd add an eSATA port, but that's another argument.
SD cards are pretty common in mass market digital cameras, but when my parents come over and want to show their photos an SD reader wouldn't do much good. My Mother has a little camera which uses XD or something like that, and my Father's DSLR uses CF. They don't own any SD card devices at all.
At least my PS3 can read CF cards. (but not XD cards)
It seems to me that the market has already consolidated towards SD if there is any memory card at all. xD is a dead format, and Olympus (they and Fuji designed it) seems to admit it, there aren't any cards bigger than 2GB and Olympus' most recent camera uses SDHC instead. For cameras, that generally leaves Sony with Memory Stick, because they're Sony, and CF for older and higher end SLRs, it's still a faster format. At least readers are inexpensive. Those things can't even bring themselves to eliminate Smart Media, which is a long obsolete format. They still have a tall slot for the thicker CF II cards and MicroDrive, which I've never seen either actually used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123
Though I hate to admit it, the AppleTV is done. Not only did I not hear any mention about it with Apple's latest financial results, the analyst really didn't care to ask anything about it. At the Apple store, it sits on the corner that everyone avoids. Just like at my house, in the corner that is never used. They only play it gets is when friends come over and laugh at it.
Downloadable means Youtube. Not a money maker.
Did they even mention how well iTunes' video options are going? It was an early hit but I don't recall them talking about their video successes in the recent year or so, they tend to talk about their music/audio business and then move on.
Have you tried Boxee? I know a guy that's pretty happy with it. But you're right, Apple seems to be out of ideas on what they're willing to do. Other than YouTube, they're not making deals with competitors, and I think that might be what is needed. I'm thinking Hulu and Netflix streaming here. They probably put YouTube on there because it doesn't have much catalog similarity, YouTube is largely amateur video as well as low quality recordings from TV.
The primary question I have about this is that the computer screen and material a billboard is made of don't display color the same way and they don't reflect light the same way. Attempting to color a billboard on a computer under the same lighting conditions as the billboard would be displayed is useless. With typography your are not working with color so the work environment doesn't matter.
When we do color for a movie that will be projected in a theater we are also doing it for television broadcast and DVD. People watch televisions in all types of lighting environments. But the color work is still done is subdued lighting.
The reason in film we do color work in subdued lighting is so that there is no corruption of the picture irrespective of what environment the movie or TV show is watched. Each viewing environment has its own color rules and standards that software compensate for.
We use what are called "look up tables" and "color profiles" that establish the rules and limitations of what can be done for each situation. For example the way a film print displays yellow is different from the way a television displays yellow. There is a look up table for both that keeps the color yellow within the range that can be displayed for that medium.
True. I have dozens (if not hundreds) of different colour profiles that I use on a regular basis, depending on the medium as well as the printer that will be used.
The reason for working on outdoor projects in a naturally lit room is not so much for colour matching but more for the environment matching. A lot of design work is playing a mental game of connect-the-dots: What you see on your screen ? even if the screen colours are near-perfectly matched to the final printed colours ? is almost always not how you will see it in the real world. So it is often helpful to be looking at your in-progress, on-screen projects in a similar environment as it will eventually be displayed in the "real world."
Another point I wanted to bring up is that designers' health should be considered when choosing an environment to work. It is much less strain on the eyes to be working in a naturally lit room for 8 hours than in a dark room in front of a computer screen. Likewise, it is much less strain on the eyes to be looking at a matte screen that does not reflect light than to be looking at a glossy screen with glare and reflection.
There are even regulations in some European countries that ensure the computer screens for people working on computers all day are matte. I don't know how Apple will get around that if they want to continue selling their glossy-only products to design firms in Europe. Those peel-on anti-glare covers don't cut it.
Btw, I'm perplexed by your assumption that typography doesn't deal with colour! I can assure you I need to be as meticulous with colour in my typographic work as I am with any other kind of design work.
Interesting discussion. Bottom line, for me (and most designers), I hope that Apple will finally re-introduce a matte option for their iMacs just like they did for their 15" and 17" macbook pros recently. I would definitely pay even $100 more for the option.
Went to the Apple Store in University Village tonight to check out the iMacs. My thoughts.
iMac 21.5 inch - Great screen upgrade. The image pops better than the last screen. Good size as well..the extra 1.5 inches of screen makes a difference.
iMac 27 inch - WOW nice large screen that is crisp! Perfect resolution for the size of the screen.
I like the Magic Mouse though I think it's a tad too flat for my liking. The scrolling action was very nice and smooth.
Went to the Apple Store in University Village tonight to check out the iMacs. My thoughts.
iMac 21.5 inch - Great screen upgrade. The image pops better than the last screen. Good size as well..the extra 1.5 inches of screen makes a difference.
iMac 27 inch - WOW nice large screen that is crisp! Perfect resolution for the size of the screen.
I liked the Magic Mouse though I think it's a tad too flat for my liking. The scrolling action was very nice and smooth.
Same here, went by an Apple Store tonight and also dug the new iMacs.
Liked the Magic Mouse more than I thought I would, have been wary of Apple mice since, um, well, always.
But scrolled nice, two fingered left/right swipe has been nicely implemented in the stock apps (for instance you can flip through iCal weeks, Safari history or Finder paths), I didn't have any trouble with the mouse moving around under my hand while executing touch gestures and right click is much more reliable than with the Mighty Mouse.
My only concern would be having to curl your fingers fairly sharply to execute those gestures, and what that would do to your hand over the long haul.
The Netflix CEO has stated that streaming is increasing fast while DVD rentals are dropping and expects that streaming content will overcome optical rentals within 2 years.
That's funny, because in this article he is quoted as saying DVD rentals are increasing, and they expect to be renting them for another 20 years...
The only thing that is “funny” is that you can’t understand how technologies can co-exist and how you assume an increase in DVD rentals somehow negates a much faster increase in internet streaming rentals.
Did you even read the whole thing?
Quote:
One year ago, approximately 22% of our subs instantly watched a TV episode or movie in Q3 […]. For Q3 of this year, that figure has grown to about 42% of subscribers. When you consider there our sub base is 28% larger than a year ago, this means that the raw count of subscribers engaged in streaming has more than doubled over the last year. Eventually, there will be seasonality in this number as there is a DVD usage, but in the near term, it is a good marker of increasing streaming adoption.
The only thing that is ?funny? is that you can?t understand how technologies can co-exist and how you assume an increase in DVD rentals somehow negates a much faster increase in internet streaming rentals.
Did you even read the whole thing?
yes I did, the important thing I got from it was you were wrong, you stated that their DVD rentals were decreasing, when in fact they are increasing, that is the most important piece, the piece that proves you are wrong.
yes I did, the important thing I got from it was you were wrong, you stated that their DVD rentals were decreasing, when in fact they are increasing, that is the most important piece, the piece that proves you are wrong.
Yes, I did, I meant it in relation to Netlfix streaming. It could have been worded better. What I wrote 5 days earlier is more clear: "Note that even CEO of Netflix stated that within 2 years digital streaming will beat out optical media in their business.” (source)
It’s also rumoured that a streaming-only option for Netflix is in the works. I hope Apple licenses them for their next AppleTV device otherwise I don’t see how they will be able to make strides in the living room.
PS: If you enjoy a Sunday morning of going through my old posts to see if I may have misquoted someone or even made a grammatical error (heaven forbid!), knock yourself out. It’s not how I like to spend my time, but to each their own.
PS: If you enjoy a Sunday morning of going through my old posts to see if I may have misquoted someone or even made a grammatical error (heaven forbid!), knock yourself out. It?s not how I like to spend my time, but to each their own.
Well to be truthful, it is actually late Sunday night
Apple's play does seem a little muddled, here. They've just released iMacs that seem to want to replace your TV, but are actually engineered to stick pretty close to being computers.
Then they have Apple TV, which seems to want help your TV be more like a computer, but remains stubbornly limited much less than that.
I know its like the iPhone as originally shipped. Each so much more potential that others see, but Apple hasn't quite figured out yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Either a new device or licensing out iTunes Store access to other vendors. They can’t forego the living room to other media extenders. It would be suicide and total destroy an important front to Apple’s future iTS business.
Look at the new iTunes LP. It specifically makes mention of HDTVs and uses 1280x720 resolution making it a true 16:9 ratio.
The best solution would to make ATV an embedded platform and have PA semi sell hardware to electronics manufacturers to use in TV, DVD/Blu-Ray players, and DVRs. However I think their unwillingness to play with others means they're going to keep going it alone though.
Apple's play does seem a little muddled, here. They've just released iMacs that seem to want to replace your TV, but are actually engineered to stick pretty close to being computers.
Something to keep in mind is that computers with computer displays don't make cost-effective TVs. Just because of that, any use as a TV-like device should be as a secondary use, it's top dollar for a relatively small screen, the cost of an 27" iMac probably gets you a very nice 50" screen these days.
It looks like the video input is only for attaching another computer, the DP input may well just be exposing a feature that's built into a chip just for that purpose. I agree there is plenty of missed potential, it might have only required another chip to offer conversion from other types of connections.
I will say that the iMac is getting closer to what I want from a computer, maybe next year it will be close enough to jump on it.
nice update, except NO MATTE / ANTI-GLARE OPTION!!!!!!
All I want (actually not just me, but A LOT of design professionals) is the option to purchase an iMac with a matte/anti-glare screen.
Apple is continuously insulting design professionals by not giving us the option to choose a different screen finish.
No matte = no sale. Sorry.
I have a matte screen and I don't like it. Give me a glossy, they are stunning! Seriously, u can get glare on any screen if you have it positioned right (or wrong). What happened to glare protectors that u put over the screen. What's wrong with using that if glare is the problem.
What happened to glare protectors that u put over the screen. What's wrong with using that if glare is the problem.
It would mean certain people can?t bitch and moan anymore. You can take the glossy glassy cover your iMac and see the LCD directly, without any screws. It?s held in by magnets.
It would mean certain people can?t bitch and moan anymore. You can take the glossy glassy cover your iMac and see the LCD directly, without any screws. It?s held in by magnets.
Alas, underneath the glossy glassy cover is a glossy screen. This has been confirmed by myself as well as countless others who have documented their experiments on the web.
Also, glare protectors don't work very well. For the average user they may be fine, but they are not in any way an appropriate or adequate solution for a professional designer.
I am very open to solutions, and still to this day continue to search for alternatives to a matte screen. I would love to buy an iMac, I just can't until either Apple offers a matte screen option or a 3rd party manufacturer offers some kind of matte solution that is adequate for a graphic designer.
Alas, underneath the glossy glassy cover is a glossy screen. This has been confirmed by myself as well as countless others who have documented their experiments on the web.
Also, glare protectors don't work very well. For the average user they may be fine, but they are not in any way an appropriate or adequate solution for a professional designer.
I am very open to solutions, and still to this day continue to search for alternatives to a matte screen. I would love to buy an iMac, I just can't until either Apple offers a matte screen option or a 3rd party manufacturer offers some kind of matte solution that is adequate for a graphic designer.
The iFixit images look pretty matte to me. At the very least the LCD panel considerably less glossy than the glass panel, according to the pics below.
Comments
Apple is quick to drop things it deems unnecessary and not add extraneous ports just for the sake of adding it. A multicard reader on a Sony product is expected; they?ve invented most card reader types than Bill Gates has dollars.
Frankly, I?m surprised they even added the SD Card slot, so I have to imagine they have some future use for it beyond the current, normal use. After all, they?ve expected people just to buy USB readers until earlier this year, so why now?
I wish they'd add an eSATA port, but that's another argument.
SD cards are pretty common in mass market digital cameras, but when my parents come over and want to show their photos an SD reader wouldn't do much good. My Mother has a little camera which uses XD or something like that, and my Father's DSLR uses CF. They don't own any SD card devices at all.
At least my PS3 can read CF cards. (but not XD cards)
It's not really any of my business, but I think you need new friends. People who come over to your house and laugh at your hardware choices are just dreadful assholes.
Fortunately I am not so thin-skinned that I have to lose friend each time they laugh at my stuff. Some of us think laughing is a good thing.
Delivery date...
But, I just checked again now, and delivery date is now back to just "November".
Hmm, as I wrote earlier, I even called Apple and verified the Nov. 3 - 6, but now they changed it back.
Guess I'll have to wait just as long as you guys then
Now that's just not on!
It's one thing to have been given 'November' but quite another to have had a delivery date changed back to it! I'd get back onto Apple and find out what's going on.
When we do color for a movie that will be projected in a theater we are also doing it for television broadcast and DVD. People watch televisions in all types of lighting environments. But the color work is still done is subdued lighting.
The reason in film we do color work in subdued lighting is so that there is no corruption of the picture irrespective of what environment the movie or TV show is watched. Each viewing environment has its own color rules and standards that software compensate for.
We use what are called "look up tables" and "color profiles" that establish the rules and limitations of what can be done for each situation. For example the way a film print displays yellow is different from the way a television displays yellow. There is a look up table for both that keeps the color yellow within the range that can be displayed for that medium.
It is true that I need to be able to work in a dark room with very little light, but it is also true that I need to work in a bright room with a lot of light. Basically, as a general rule, it is always good to be working in a space that resembles the space that your product will be used/consumed (that is partly why film people work in dark spaces; they are optimizing the product in the same environment in which it will most often be consumed). Because I work primarily with type ? and by extension I design books ? I often need to work in a bright space since books are very rarely used in the dark.
Same goes for people designing outdoor banners, posters, street signs, etc. These are all largely being viewed in the daytime, with natural sunlight, so it is imperative to work on them in a room with good natural lighting (lots of windows).
I wish they'd add an eSATA port, but that's another argument.
SD cards are pretty common in mass market digital cameras, but when my parents come over and want to show their photos an SD reader wouldn't do much good. My Mother has a little camera which uses XD or something like that, and my Father's DSLR uses CF. They don't own any SD card devices at all.
At least my PS3 can read CF cards. (but not XD cards)
It seems to me that the market has already consolidated towards SD if there is any memory card at all. xD is a dead format, and Olympus (they and Fuji designed it) seems to admit it, there aren't any cards bigger than 2GB and Olympus' most recent camera uses SDHC instead. For cameras, that generally leaves Sony with Memory Stick, because they're Sony, and CF for older and higher end SLRs, it's still a faster format. At least readers are inexpensive. Those things can't even bring themselves to eliminate Smart Media, which is a long obsolete format. They still have a tall slot for the thicker CF II cards and MicroDrive, which I've never seen either actually used.
Though I hate to admit it, the AppleTV is done. Not only did I not hear any mention about it with Apple's latest financial results, the analyst really didn't care to ask anything about it. At the Apple store, it sits on the corner that everyone avoids. Just like at my house, in the corner that is never used. They only play it gets is when friends come over and laugh at it.
Downloadable means Youtube. Not a money maker.
Did they even mention how well iTunes' video options are going? It was an early hit but I don't recall them talking about their video successes in the recent year or so, they tend to talk about their music/audio business and then move on.
Have you tried Boxee? I know a guy that's pretty happy with it. But you're right, Apple seems to be out of ideas on what they're willing to do. Other than YouTube, they're not making deals with competitors, and I think that might be what is needed. I'm thinking Hulu and Netflix streaming here. They probably put YouTube on there because it doesn't have much catalog similarity, YouTube is largely amateur video as well as low quality recordings from TV.
Fortunately I am not so thin-skinned that I have to lose friend each time they laugh at my stuff. Some of us think laughing is a good thing.
Not me. I hate laughter. My heart is stoney.
The primary question I have about this is that the computer screen and material a billboard is made of don't display color the same way and they don't reflect light the same way. Attempting to color a billboard on a computer under the same lighting conditions as the billboard would be displayed is useless. With typography your are not working with color so the work environment doesn't matter.
When we do color for a movie that will be projected in a theater we are also doing it for television broadcast and DVD. People watch televisions in all types of lighting environments. But the color work is still done is subdued lighting.
The reason in film we do color work in subdued lighting is so that there is no corruption of the picture irrespective of what environment the movie or TV show is watched. Each viewing environment has its own color rules and standards that software compensate for.
We use what are called "look up tables" and "color profiles" that establish the rules and limitations of what can be done for each situation. For example the way a film print displays yellow is different from the way a television displays yellow. There is a look up table for both that keeps the color yellow within the range that can be displayed for that medium.
True. I have dozens (if not hundreds) of different colour profiles that I use on a regular basis, depending on the medium as well as the printer that will be used.
The reason for working on outdoor projects in a naturally lit room is not so much for colour matching but more for the environment matching. A lot of design work is playing a mental game of connect-the-dots: What you see on your screen ? even if the screen colours are near-perfectly matched to the final printed colours ? is almost always not how you will see it in the real world. So it is often helpful to be looking at your in-progress, on-screen projects in a similar environment as it will eventually be displayed in the "real world."
Another point I wanted to bring up is that designers' health should be considered when choosing an environment to work. It is much less strain on the eyes to be working in a naturally lit room for 8 hours than in a dark room in front of a computer screen. Likewise, it is much less strain on the eyes to be looking at a matte screen that does not reflect light than to be looking at a glossy screen with glare and reflection.
There are even regulations in some European countries that ensure the computer screens for people working on computers all day are matte. I don't know how Apple will get around that if they want to continue selling their glossy-only products to design firms in Europe. Those peel-on anti-glare covers don't cut it.
Btw, I'm perplexed by your assumption that typography doesn't deal with colour! I can assure you I need to be as meticulous with colour in my typographic work as I am with any other kind of design work.
Interesting discussion. Bottom line, for me (and most designers), I hope that Apple will finally re-introduce a matte option for their iMacs just like they did for their 15" and 17" macbook pros recently. I would definitely pay even $100 more for the option.
iMac 21.5 inch - Great screen upgrade. The image pops better than the last screen. Good size as well..the extra 1.5 inches of screen makes a difference.
iMac 27 inch - WOW nice large screen that is crisp! Perfect resolution for the size of the screen.
I like the Magic Mouse though I think it's a tad too flat for my liking. The scrolling action was very nice and smooth.
Went to the Apple Store in University Village tonight to check out the iMacs. My thoughts.
iMac 21.5 inch - Great screen upgrade. The image pops better than the last screen. Good size as well..the extra 1.5 inches of screen makes a difference.
iMac 27 inch - WOW nice large screen that is crisp! Perfect resolution for the size of the screen.
I liked the Magic Mouse though I think it's a tad too flat for my liking. The scrolling action was very nice and smooth.
Same here, went by an Apple Store tonight and also dug the new iMacs.
Liked the Magic Mouse more than I thought I would, have been wary of Apple mice since, um, well, always.
But scrolled nice, two fingered left/right swipe has been nicely implemented in the stock apps (for instance you can flip through iCal weeks, Safari history or Finder paths), I didn't have any trouble with the mouse moving around under my hand while executing touch gestures and right click is much more reliable than with the Mighty Mouse.
My only concern would be having to curl your fingers fairly sharply to execute those gestures, and what that would do to your hand over the long haul.
The Netflix CEO has stated that streaming is increasing fast while DVD rentals are dropping and expects that streaming content will overcome optical rentals within 2 years.
That's funny, because in this article he is quoted as saying DVD rentals are increasing, and they expect to be renting them for another 20 years...
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1684...script?page=-1
That's funny, because in this article he is quoted as saying DVD rentals are increasing, and they expect to be renting them for another 20 years...
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1684...script?page=-1
The only thing that is “funny” is that you can’t understand how technologies can co-exist and how you assume an increase in DVD rentals somehow negates a much faster increase in internet streaming rentals.
Did you even read the whole thing?
One year ago, approximately 22% of our subs instantly watched a TV episode or movie in Q3 […]. For Q3 of this year, that figure has grown to about 42% of subscribers. When you consider there our sub base is 28% larger than a year ago, this means that the raw count of subscribers engaged in streaming has more than doubled over the last year. Eventually, there will be seasonality in this number as there is a DVD usage, but in the near term, it is a good marker of increasing streaming adoption.
The only thing that is ?funny? is that you can?t understand how technologies can co-exist and how you assume an increase in DVD rentals somehow negates a much faster increase in internet streaming rentals.
Did you even read the whole thing?
yes I did, the important thing I got from it was you were wrong, you stated that their DVD rentals were decreasing, when in fact they are increasing, that is the most important piece, the piece that proves you are wrong.
yes I did, the important thing I got from it was you were wrong, you stated that their DVD rentals were decreasing, when in fact they are increasing, that is the most important piece, the piece that proves you are wrong.
Yes, I did, I meant it in relation to Netlfix streaming. It could have been worded better. What I wrote 5 days earlier is more clear: "Note that even CEO of Netflix stated that within 2 years digital streaming will beat out optical media in their business.” (source)
It’s also rumoured that a streaming-only option for Netflix is in the works. I hope Apple licenses them for their next AppleTV device otherwise I don’t see how they will be able to make strides in the living room.
PS: If you enjoy a Sunday morning of going through my old posts to see if I may have misquoted someone or even made a grammatical error (heaven forbid!), knock yourself out. It’s not how I like to spend my time, but to each their own.
PS: If you enjoy a Sunday morning of going through my old posts to see if I may have misquoted someone or even made a grammatical error (heaven forbid!), knock yourself out. It?s not how I like to spend my time, but to each their own.
Well to be truthful, it is actually late Sunday night
Apple's play does seem a little muddled, here. They've just released iMacs that seem to want to replace your TV, but are actually engineered to stick pretty close to being computers.
Then they have Apple TV, which seems to want help your TV be more like a computer, but remains stubbornly limited much less than that.
I know its like the iPhone as originally shipped. Each so much more potential that others see, but Apple hasn't quite figured out yet.
Either a new device or licensing out iTunes Store access to other vendors. They can’t forego the living room to other media extenders. It would be suicide and total destroy an important front to Apple’s future iTS business.
Look at the new iTunes LP. It specifically makes mention of HDTVs and uses 1280x720 resolution making it a true 16:9 ratio.
The best solution would to make ATV an embedded platform and have PA semi sell hardware to electronics manufacturers to use in TV, DVD/Blu-Ray players, and DVRs. However I think their unwillingness to play with others means they're going to keep going it alone though.
Apple's play does seem a little muddled, here. They've just released iMacs that seem to want to replace your TV, but are actually engineered to stick pretty close to being computers.
Something to keep in mind is that computers with computer displays don't make cost-effective TVs. Just because of that, any use as a TV-like device should be as a secondary use, it's top dollar for a relatively small screen, the cost of an 27" iMac probably gets you a very nice 50" screen these days.
It looks like the video input is only for attaching another computer, the DP input may well just be exposing a feature that's built into a chip just for that purpose. I agree there is plenty of missed potential, it might have only required another chip to offer conversion from other types of connections.
I will say that the iMac is getting closer to what I want from a computer, maybe next year it will be close enough to jump on it.
nice update, except NO MATTE / ANTI-GLARE OPTION!!!!!!
All I want (actually not just me, but A LOT of design professionals) is the option to purchase an iMac with a matte/anti-glare screen.
Apple is continuously insulting design professionals by not giving us the option to choose a different screen finish.
No matte = no sale. Sorry.
I have a matte screen and I don't like it. Give me a glossy, they are stunning! Seriously, u can get glare on any screen if you have it positioned right (or wrong). What happened to glare protectors that u put over the screen. What's wrong with using that if glare is the problem.
What happened to glare protectors that u put over the screen. What's wrong with using that if glare is the problem.
It would mean certain people can?t bitch and moan anymore. You can take the glossy glassy cover your iMac and see the LCD directly, without any screws. It?s held in by magnets.
It would mean certain people can?t bitch and moan anymore. You can take the glossy glassy cover your iMac and see the LCD directly, without any screws. It?s held in by magnets.
Alas, underneath the glossy glassy cover is a glossy screen. This has been confirmed by myself as well as countless others who have documented their experiments on the web.
Also, glare protectors don't work very well. For the average user they may be fine, but they are not in any way an appropriate or adequate solution for a professional designer.
I am very open to solutions, and still to this day continue to search for alternatives to a matte screen. I would love to buy an iMac, I just can't until either Apple offers a matte screen option or a 3rd party manufacturer offers some kind of matte solution that is adequate for a graphic designer.
Alas, underneath the glossy glassy cover is a glossy screen. This has been confirmed by myself as well as countless others who have documented their experiments on the web.
Also, glare protectors don't work very well. For the average user they may be fine, but they are not in any way an appropriate or adequate solution for a professional designer.
I am very open to solutions, and still to this day continue to search for alternatives to a matte screen. I would love to buy an iMac, I just can't until either Apple offers a matte screen option or a 3rd party manufacturer offers some kind of matte solution that is adequate for a graphic designer.
The iFixit images look pretty matte to me. At the very least the LCD panel considerably less glossy than the glass panel, according to the pics below.