How you do think they get from the ship to the Apple store?
Wouldn't it be safe to assume that they are shipped to the Apple store in a more secure fashion, like maybe several plastic-wrapped together on a pallet or something? That way they are less likely to bounce around as would one that is shipped as a lone item. Feel free to enlighten me if you have better information. I enjoy learning the learning process.
I could care less if you're foolish enough to want a high gloss computer screen. GO for it.
We just want our option for matte back. It will happen- the 17" then the 15' MBP unexpectedly got it. You shall see- in due time.
When it does happen we'll be old, gray, and riddled with glaucoma. So it won't matter. I'm already that way so maybe that's why I don't mind the glossy screen.
changing the subject cause you got caught in being wrong? least i'll admit when im wrong.
for the next time you spew a bunch of crap out of your mouth.
I don't mind being told I am wrong if it is done in a clear and more polite way. Being mean and nasty won't win any friends for you and may even run some off. Additionally, Mac memory is available at NewEgg.com and it appears that the price is pretty reasonable.
For the record, you are right regarding the processor, hard drive, optical drive and heat sink. However, I'm not clear with regards to the rest of it. I never intended to imply that none of the hardware in the iMac was usable in a p.c. case. Just the mobo, video card, and memory.
Never said that Apple had exclusive access to the i5.
As far as the hardware being universal have a look at this (http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac-...27-Inch/1236/1) and tell me how much of the "universal' iMac hardware you can put in a tower. Of course you can just leave the hardware alone then wipe out the Snow Leopard OS and install windows if you hate Apple so much. Then in two years, give or take, you will have an expensive crap MicroSuck machine that needs to have the o.s. reloaded just to restore it's optimum usability. The potential for longevity is much greater with the iMac and the Snow Leopard o.s.
How hardware is packed inside the unit doesn't change the fact that same processors, graphics, chipsets, memory chips... are used across whole industry today.
Worrying part is that Apples are sliding down the reliability charts, even their laptops - at present being behind Asus and Toshiba units. More worrying part is that other brands have low-cost cheap units - expected to be more defect-prone - watering down their reliability across the range, while Apple basically has high-cost end of market but still fails to top reliability charts, even without cheap crap in their range.
Only this year, Apple had problems with screens, graphics chips, super-drives, hard drives... and some of them, much as I am aware of, haven't really been sorted, even with all the firmware and other updates Apple has released.
I would expect that part of those problems is coming from Apple's ever-going attempts to differentiate their products from mainstream by choosing non standard form factors and questionable extras. As results, we have malfunctioning optical drives, overheating graphics/whole systems, conflicts between HDDs inbuilt shock sensors and Apple built ones...
Maybe it is only me, but I'd prefer Mac in decent tower box with standard, replaceable parts. Apple could still separate themselves with nice, smaller version of Mac Pro box. No one is expecting Apple to be cheap, so they should be able to find enough space within the price to build really good looking and good functioning box... \
Of other things... no, you don't have to clean reinstall Windows every two years. Not as a general rule. Being IT provider for a few big companies (for NZ standards, at least), I can say with good confidence that number of major software issues causing BSODs, instability or noticeable performance loss (without underlying hardware issues) is remarkably low. Of course, individual can crap software installation in a few minutes if completely out of mind, but on average users we come across go through the lifetime of a PC - 3 to 5 years - without reinstalling OS short of hardware faults.
Rest seems to be part of effective, if questionable marketing from Apple...
How hardware is packed inside the unit doesn't change the fact that same processors, graphics, chipsets, memory chips... are used across whole industry today.
Worrying part is that Apples are sliding down the reliability charts, even their laptops - at present being behind Asus and Toshiba units. More worrying part is that other brands have low-cost cheap units - expected to be more defect-prone - watering down their reliability across the range, while Apple basically has high-cost end of market but still fails to top reliability charts, even without cheap crap in their range.
Only this year, Apple had problems with screens, graphics chips, super-drives, hard drives... and some of them, much as I am aware of, haven't really been sorted, even with all the firmware and other updates Apple has released.
I would expect that part of those problems is coming from Apple's ever-going attempts to differentiate their products from mainstream by choosing non standard form factors and questionable extras. As results, we have malfunctioning optical drives, overheating graphics/whole systems, conflicts between HDDs inbuilt shock sensors and Apple built ones...
Maybe it is only me, but I'd prefer Mac in decent tower box with standard, replaceable parts. Apple could still separate themselves with nice, smaller version of Mac Pro box. No one is expecting Apple to be cheap, so they should be able to find enough space within the price to build really good looking and good functioning box... \
Of other things... no, you don't have to clean reinstall Windows every two years. Not as a general rule. Being IT provider for a few big companies (for NZ standards, at least), I can say with good confidence that number of major software issues causing BSODs, instability or noticeable performance loss (without underlying hardware issues) is remarkably low. Of course, individual can crap software installation in a few minutes if completely out of mind, but on average users we come across go through the lifetime of a PC - 3 to 5 years - without reinstalling OS short of hardware faults.
Rest seems to be part of effective, if questionable marketing from Apple...
That's exactly how I like to be corrected if I must be, with logic, thoughtfulness, and tasteful commentary. Although I may still disagree with you on a point or two, you have gained my respect.
One of our local Best Buy's has one of those cracked iMacs on display. I wonder what moronic manager decided that it's best to show a damaged iMac instead of a nice, clean one.
Heh, I'm amazed they didn't put a DOA iMac on display.
FWIW I just don't get all the complaints about it having the glossy screen. Glossy looks much better in a perfect viewing environment where you control the lighting, which is exactly what you should have for your desktop, if you need it matte your in the minority, or have a poorly planed desktop space. Laptops on the other hand are completely hindered by the glossy screen and need a matte option, in fact the only time I can see having one glossy is if your were using it mostly as your desktop.
Would it really be that hard for Apple to offer matte (REAL matte, not just a film) as a BTO option?
I'd pay a $100 premium right here & now if it was available.
It'd be an all-around win. Consumers would get choice, Apple would have a nicely profitable option, and every iMac discussion wouldn't turn into a gloss-vs-matte debate.
Would it really be that hard for Apple to offer matte (REAL matte, not just a film) as a BTO option?
I'd pay a $100 premium right here & now if it was available.
It'd be an all-around win. Consumers would get choice, Apple would have a nicely profitable option, and every iMac discussion wouldn't turn into a gloss-vs-matte debate.
What about an after market true matte finish screen? Do you think it would be possible with out screwing your warranty? I'm asking because I really don't know if it would be possible.
What about an after market true matte finish screen? Do you think it would be possible with out screwing your warranty? I'm asking because I really don't know if it would be possible.
Depends what it takes to get that sheet of glass off. If it involves surgical prying or disassembly, then it'd very likely screw your warranty.
Good non-reflective glass IS available, and IMO it'd be an easy BTO option of Apple wanted to implement it. Unless (until?) Apple does something, I can see a nice little business in converting new iMacs to matte. It'd be interesting to see how Apple would work with converters regarding warranty. You'd think it'd be no different than shops that "outfit" new vehicles.
Anyway, we really don't want to go back to the days of tape-on antiglare screens....
If they were matte this never would have happened.
You made my day this time, stud. I knew you'd have something to say, but I really did not expect this. I thought it would be "Apple low quality China made poor standards etc..." but you brought in the matte-glossy debate in such a succinct, offhand and backdoor way.
God I'm sorry to hear that. Those sound like they've been assembled on the Land of the Misfit Toys. \
OMFG again... you brought in that to the thread. Masterful.
I'm not being sarcastic, really... For some reason I find the Misfit Toys reference funny. "...in the land of the misfit toys... la la la, la la la... Hey, check out the new, new guy... Hi iMac 27..."
BTW DollyforSue is cute. I don't know what the problem is and if it has anything to do with red hair. I'm not caucasian, but my view is redhead, brunette, blonde, in that order, in terms of "beauty/ cute/ attractive". (Yes I know we're talking about a doll here, I'm just sayin')
The scariest part though is if you read through the Internetz it says DollyforSue is a misfit toy because she has "psychological problems". I sh*t you not. I think Barbie should be there due to "eating problems and being born without a brain".
No, they say, wow look at those deep blacks and really nice contrast. I don't care what the matte-fans say, glossy screens look WAY nicer to me and everyone I talk to.... and 95% of the public does not care about your color accurate publishing work.
Actually, it's not about color accurate publishing work. It's about using the monitor in a professional environment that is a decent representation of how what you see will look like on another screen or when you print it out. Having a monitor that "pops" so much is only good for the wow factor. It has little to do with specialized publishing and everything to do with doing work on your Mac that goes off to someone else. Or if you want to print it and have it resemble that picture you so carefully tweaked. So bye bye photographers, amateurs and hobbyists as well as pros.
See, you're right that most of the public doesn't care about this, but the arts professionals, where Apple has a much different ratio, do care. It has to be accurate, or be able to be made accurate. Go to any photography site and see what they say about calibrating monitors. Apple will lose this market if they don't offer, along with "Way" nicer looking screens, screens that a professional can use. Six months ago I was figuring to add an iMac before the end of the year, but now it'll likely be a decent Dell monitor and...?
Depends what it takes to get that sheet of glass off. If it involves surgical prying or disassembly, then it'd very likely screw your warranty.
Good non-reflective glass IS available, and IMO it'd be an easy BTO option of Apple wanted to implement it. Unless (until?) Apple does something, I can see a nice little business in converting new iMacs to matte. It'd be interesting to see how Apple would work with converters regarding warranty. You'd think it'd be no different than shops that "outfit" new vehicles.
Anyway, we really don't want to go back to the days of tape-on antiglare screens....
Tape on is a bad idea i think. There is a great article on ifixit.com about a tear down of a 27" iMac. It does show the screen removal to a degree.
One of our local Best Buy's has one of those cracked iMacs on display. I wonder what moronic manager decided that it's best to show a damaged iMac instead of a nice, clean one.
Brother, I've been exposed to IT retail for quite a few years now and common sense is seriously not a requirement of being a retail manager. Sales by any and all means necessary is the order of the day. Sadly, they don't realise common sense actually *helps* sales, and bulls**t talk can hurt sales. ...But, there really is a sucker born every minute, or at least every day. Apple retail stores IMO are the only ones really standing above the crowd from normal Retail. There may be a few others, but nothing that stands out that I've experienced in the US, UK or Australia for the few years or months I've been there. Occasionally you do get an outstanding individual though that is helpful and genuine. Occasionally. Ah well, cest la vie. Maybe I'm too cynical because I've seen things "from the inside".
The Apple forum associated with their website has many horror stories of wildly distorted color bands, flickering and black screen occurring with the new i7 imac specifically with the 27" display. Has anyone here who has already taken delivery had any such problems, OTHER than with the cracked screen noted in the OP? I have held off ordering since that forum seemed to think the problem was native to a single batch with 946 in the serial #.
Quote:
Originally Posted by astaroth
Count me in... I am currently writing from a "lower left corner damaged glass" iMac i7. Replacement should arrive by a couple of weeks. The origin must be a factory/material defect or it wouldn't explain why it is always the left bottom side. The possible transport mishandling might be accentuated by the fact that there is - on purpose - no Fragile sign and the box shape, now even larger, makes this a difficult to handle box and thus prone to last inches drops on the ground. and the packging given the edge glass of the new imac, is imho a bit too minimalistic. Some extra softer foam in the corners "might" have prevented this. For the record it's a very small dent, I'd say around 1 inch away from the corner and it runs form edge to edge and forms a sort of triangle.
On a more serious note, I sympathise with those who have had 27" iMac troubles. AFAIK in 3 of the Apple reseller stores I am somewhat involved in all three 27" iMacs externally look fine. These are the Core 2 Duo ones though. Maybe Apple has been rushing on the Core i5 and i7 models and something slipped along the way.
Actually, it's not about color accurate publishing work. It's about using the monitor in a professional environment that is a decent representation of how what you see will look like on another screen or when you print it out. Having a monitor that "pops" so much is only good for the wow factor. It has little to do with specialized publishing and everything to do with doing work on your Mac that goes off to someone else. Or if you want to print it and have it resemble that picture you so carefully tweaked. So bye bye photographers, amateurs and hobbyists as well as pros.
See, you're right that most of the public doesn't care about this, but the arts professionals, where Apple has a much different ratio, do care. It has to be accurate, or be able to be made accurate. Go to any photography site and see what they say about calibrating monitors. Apple will lose this market if they don't offer, along with "Way" nicer looking screens, screens that a professional can use. Six months ago I was figuring to add an iMac before the end of the year, but now it'll likely be a decent Dell monitor and...?
Sadly the arts professionals you talk about is the market Apple is less and less focused on.
Amateur photographers and video enthusiasts will love the pop and high-res. Being amateurs and enthusiasts, they may be swayed by how good it looks on their own screen, and may not be as professionally concerned about printing it out correctly, etc. etc. Being amateur or hobbyists maybe they mostly post their stuff online, or just burn a DVD to share with others.
Photo pros could probably get the Core i5 or i7 though since it is a great value option compared to the Mac Pro, then probably attach a "proofing" monitor to it for final tweaks.
Video editing pros, for some jobs could also use the iMac, if they work in a somewhat darkened room, have a tighter budget, and do not require color treatments/ calibration for their editing work.
I'm not saying this is the right way, or definitely the current way things are going, but it could be a new trend forming.
Sadly the arts professionals you talk about is the market Apple is less and less focused on.
Amateur photographers and video enthusiasts will love the pop and high-res. Being amateurs and enthusiasts, they may be swayed by how good it looks on their own screen, and may not be as professionally concerned about printing it out correctly, etc. etc. Being amateur or hobbyists maybe they mostly post their stuff online, or just burn a DVD to share with others.
Photo pros could probably get the Core i5 or i7 though since it is a great value option compared to the Mac Pro, then probably attach a "proofing" monitor to it for final tweaks.
Video editing pros, for some jobs could also use the iMac, if they work in a somewhat darkened room, have a tighter budget, and do not require color treatments/ calibration for their editing work.
I'm not saying this is the right way, or definitely the current way things are going, but it could be a new trend forming.
One dealkiller is that many spend all lot of time with more than one additional person checking out what they do on the monitor and adding their thoughts about what they see. It's half of my every day. Not huddled closely around the screen, just comfortably at a desk in front of a monitor. I don't even do presentations but what I experienced in ten minutes at the 5th Ave AppleStore tells me I can't do it with the new screens, the viewing sweet spot being so small.
I just spent a few hours on our last G5 at the office. The difference in colors and hues when moving your head just a few inches is quite noticeable. It's a 20" matte screen.
It looks dull and uneven compared to the 27". I cannot believe anyone would prefer it, though I accept that people with bright lights behind them would be too distracted from glare. But how fun is it to work on a matte monitor with its own drawbacks?
I still think it'd be preferable to organize your work area to minimize the glare and buy the much better monitor. I remember some of those old style CRTs had hoods and what not.
The difference is so incredible that I don't see Apple going back to matte on the iMac. Side-by-side, only people with serious beefs about glare and inability to devise a workspace to minimize glare would opt for matte.
Comments
How you do think they get from the ship to the Apple store?
Wouldn't it be safe to assume that they are shipped to the Apple store in a more secure fashion, like maybe several plastic-wrapped together on a pallet or something? That way they are less likely to bounce around as would one that is shipped as a lone item. Feel free to enlighten me if you have better information. I enjoy learning the learning process.
I could care less if you're foolish enough to want a high gloss computer screen. GO for it.
We just want our option for matte back. It will happen- the 17" then the 15' MBP unexpectedly got it. You shall see- in due time.
When it does happen we'll be old, gray, and riddled with glaucoma. So it won't matter. I'm already that way so maybe that's why I don't mind the glossy screen.
changing the subject cause you got caught in being wrong? least i'll admit when im wrong.
for the next time you spew a bunch of crap out of your mouth.
I don't mind being told I am wrong if it is done in a clear and more polite way. Being mean and nasty won't win any friends for you and may even run some off. Additionally, Mac memory is available at NewEgg.com and it appears that the price is pretty reasonable.
For the record, you are right regarding the processor, hard drive, optical drive and heat sink. However, I'm not clear with regards to the rest of it. I never intended to imply that none of the hardware in the iMac was usable in a p.c. case. Just the mobo, video card, and memory.
fair enough. its just what i remember hearing from a few people.
I could/should have heeded my own advice and used a better tone when I sent you the link.
One more thing, how can you hate me? You don't even know me.
Wanna start over?
Never said that Apple had exclusive access to the i5.
As far as the hardware being universal have a look at this (http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac-...27-Inch/1236/1) and tell me how much of the "universal' iMac hardware you can put in a tower. Of course you can just leave the hardware alone then wipe out the Snow Leopard OS and install windows if you hate Apple so much. Then in two years, give or take, you will have an expensive crap MicroSuck machine that needs to have the o.s. reloaded just to restore it's optimum usability. The potential for longevity is much greater with the iMac and the Snow Leopard o.s.
How hardware is packed inside the unit doesn't change the fact that same processors, graphics, chipsets, memory chips... are used across whole industry today.
Worrying part is that Apples are sliding down the reliability charts, even their laptops - at present being behind Asus and Toshiba units. More worrying part is that other brands have low-cost cheap units - expected to be more defect-prone - watering down their reliability across the range, while Apple basically has high-cost end of market but still fails to top reliability charts, even without cheap crap in their range.
Only this year, Apple had problems with screens, graphics chips, super-drives, hard drives... and some of them, much as I am aware of, haven't really been sorted, even with all the firmware and other updates Apple has released.
I would expect that part of those problems is coming from Apple's ever-going attempts to differentiate their products from mainstream by choosing non standard form factors and questionable extras. As results, we have malfunctioning optical drives, overheating graphics/whole systems, conflicts between HDDs inbuilt shock sensors and Apple built ones...
Maybe it is only me, but I'd prefer Mac in decent tower box with standard, replaceable parts. Apple could still separate themselves with nice, smaller version of Mac Pro box. No one is expecting Apple to be cheap, so they should be able to find enough space within the price to build really good looking and good functioning box...
Of other things... no, you don't have to clean reinstall Windows every two years. Not as a general rule. Being IT provider for a few big companies (for NZ standards, at least), I can say with good confidence that number of major software issues causing BSODs, instability or noticeable performance loss (without underlying hardware issues) is remarkably low. Of course, individual can crap software installation in a few minutes if completely out of mind, but on average users we come across go through the lifetime of a PC - 3 to 5 years - without reinstalling OS short of hardware faults.
Rest seems to be part of effective, if questionable marketing from Apple...
How hardware is packed inside the unit doesn't change the fact that same processors, graphics, chipsets, memory chips... are used across whole industry today.
Worrying part is that Apples are sliding down the reliability charts, even their laptops - at present being behind Asus and Toshiba units. More worrying part is that other brands have low-cost cheap units - expected to be more defect-prone - watering down their reliability across the range, while Apple basically has high-cost end of market but still fails to top reliability charts, even without cheap crap in their range.
Only this year, Apple had problems with screens, graphics chips, super-drives, hard drives... and some of them, much as I am aware of, haven't really been sorted, even with all the firmware and other updates Apple has released.
I would expect that part of those problems is coming from Apple's ever-going attempts to differentiate their products from mainstream by choosing non standard form factors and questionable extras. As results, we have malfunctioning optical drives, overheating graphics/whole systems, conflicts between HDDs inbuilt shock sensors and Apple built ones...
Maybe it is only me, but I'd prefer Mac in decent tower box with standard, replaceable parts. Apple could still separate themselves with nice, smaller version of Mac Pro box. No one is expecting Apple to be cheap, so they should be able to find enough space within the price to build really good looking and good functioning box...
Of other things... no, you don't have to clean reinstall Windows every two years. Not as a general rule. Being IT provider for a few big companies (for NZ standards, at least), I can say with good confidence that number of major software issues causing BSODs, instability or noticeable performance loss (without underlying hardware issues) is remarkably low. Of course, individual can crap software installation in a few minutes if completely out of mind, but on average users we come across go through the lifetime of a PC - 3 to 5 years - without reinstalling OS short of hardware faults.
Rest seems to be part of effective, if questionable marketing from Apple...
That's exactly how I like to be corrected if I must be, with logic, thoughtfulness, and tasteful commentary. Although I may still disagree with you on a point or two, you have gained my respect.
One of our local Best Buy's has one of those cracked iMacs on display. I wonder what moronic manager decided that it's best to show a damaged iMac instead of a nice, clean one.
Heh, I'm amazed they didn't put a DOA iMac on display.
They're not cracks, they're FLOW LINES!
Oh wait...
FWIW I just don't get all the complaints about it having the glossy screen. Glossy looks much better in a perfect viewing environment where you control the lighting, which is exactly what you should have for your desktop, if you need it matte your in the minority, or have a poorly planed desktop space. Laptops on the other hand are completely hindered by the glossy screen and need a matte option, in fact the only time I can see having one glossy is if your were using it mostly as your desktop.
Would it really be that hard for Apple to offer matte (REAL matte, not just a film) as a BTO option?
I'd pay a $100 premium right here & now if it was available.
It'd be an all-around win. Consumers would get choice, Apple would have a nicely profitable option, and every iMac discussion wouldn't turn into a gloss-vs-matte debate.
Would it really be that hard for Apple to offer matte (REAL matte, not just a film) as a BTO option?
I'd pay a $100 premium right here & now if it was available.
It'd be an all-around win. Consumers would get choice, Apple would have a nicely profitable option, and every iMac discussion wouldn't turn into a gloss-vs-matte debate.
What about an after market true matte finish screen? Do you think it would be possible with out screwing your warranty? I'm asking because I really don't know if it would be possible.
What about an after market true matte finish screen? Do you think it would be possible with out screwing your warranty? I'm asking because I really don't know if it would be possible.
Depends what it takes to get that sheet of glass off. If it involves surgical prying or disassembly, then it'd very likely screw your warranty.
Good non-reflective glass IS available, and IMO it'd be an easy BTO option of Apple wanted to implement it. Unless (until?) Apple does something, I can see a nice little business in converting new iMacs to matte. It'd be interesting to see how Apple would work with converters regarding warranty. You'd think it'd be no different than shops that "outfit" new vehicles.
Anyway, we really don't want to go back to the days of tape-on antiglare screens....
If they were matte this never would have happened.
Thou art truly a master troll.
God I'm sorry to hear that. Those sound like they've been assembled on the Land of the Misfit Toys.
OMFG again... you brought in that to the thread. Masterful.
I'm not being sarcastic, really... For some reason I find the Misfit Toys reference funny. "...in the land of the misfit toys... la la la, la la la... Hey, check out the new, new guy... Hi iMac 27..."
BTW DollyforSue is cute. I don't know what the problem is and if it has anything to do with red hair. I'm not caucasian, but my view is redhead, brunette, blonde, in that order, in terms of "beauty/ cute/ attractive". (Yes I know we're talking about a doll here, I'm just sayin')
The scariest part though is if you read through the Internetz it says DollyforSue is a misfit toy because she has "psychological problems". I sh*t you not. I think Barbie should be there due to "eating problems and being born without a brain".
No, they say, wow look at those deep blacks and really nice contrast. I don't care what the matte-fans say, glossy screens look WAY nicer to me and everyone I talk to.... and 95% of the public does not care about your color accurate publishing work.
Actually, it's not about color accurate publishing work. It's about using the monitor in a professional environment that is a decent representation of how what you see will look like on another screen or when you print it out. Having a monitor that "pops" so much is only good for the wow factor. It has little to do with specialized publishing and everything to do with doing work on your Mac that goes off to someone else. Or if you want to print it and have it resemble that picture you so carefully tweaked. So bye bye photographers, amateurs and hobbyists as well as pros.
See, you're right that most of the public doesn't care about this, but the arts professionals, where Apple has a much different ratio, do care. It has to be accurate, or be able to be made accurate. Go to any photography site and see what they say about calibrating monitors. Apple will lose this market if they don't offer, along with "Way" nicer looking screens, screens that a professional can use. Six months ago I was figuring to add an iMac before the end of the year, but now it'll likely be a decent Dell monitor and...?
Depends what it takes to get that sheet of glass off. If it involves surgical prying or disassembly, then it'd very likely screw your warranty.
Good non-reflective glass IS available, and IMO it'd be an easy BTO option of Apple wanted to implement it. Unless (until?) Apple does something, I can see a nice little business in converting new iMacs to matte. It'd be interesting to see how Apple would work with converters regarding warranty. You'd think it'd be no different than shops that "outfit" new vehicles.
Anyway, we really don't want to go back to the days of tape-on antiglare screens....
Tape on is a bad idea i think. There is a great article on ifixit.com about a tear down of a 27" iMac. It does show the screen removal to a degree.
One of our local Best Buy's has one of those cracked iMacs on display. I wonder what moronic manager decided that it's best to show a damaged iMac instead of a nice, clean one.
Brother, I've been exposed to IT retail for quite a few years now and common sense is seriously not a requirement of being a retail manager. Sales by any and all means necessary is the order of the day. Sadly, they don't realise common sense actually *helps* sales, and bulls**t talk can hurt sales.
The Apple forum associated with their website has many horror stories of wildly distorted color bands, flickering and black screen occurring with the new i7 imac specifically with the 27" display. Has anyone here who has already taken delivery had any such problems, OTHER than with the cracked screen noted in the OP? I have held off ordering since that forum seemed to think the problem was native to a single batch with 946 in the serial #.
Count me in... I am currently writing from a "lower left corner damaged glass" iMac i7.
On a more serious note, I sympathise with those who have had 27" iMac troubles. AFAIK in 3 of the Apple reseller stores I am somewhat involved in all three 27" iMacs externally look fine. These are the Core 2 Duo ones though. Maybe Apple has been rushing on the Core i5 and i7 models and something slipped along the way.
Actually, it's not about color accurate publishing work. It's about using the monitor in a professional environment that is a decent representation of how what you see will look like on another screen or when you print it out. Having a monitor that "pops" so much is only good for the wow factor. It has little to do with specialized publishing and everything to do with doing work on your Mac that goes off to someone else. Or if you want to print it and have it resemble that picture you so carefully tweaked. So bye bye photographers, amateurs and hobbyists as well as pros.
See, you're right that most of the public doesn't care about this, but the arts professionals, where Apple has a much different ratio, do care. It has to be accurate, or be able to be made accurate. Go to any photography site and see what they say about calibrating monitors. Apple will lose this market if they don't offer, along with "Way" nicer looking screens, screens that a professional can use. Six months ago I was figuring to add an iMac before the end of the year, but now it'll likely be a decent Dell monitor and...?
Sadly the arts professionals you talk about is the market Apple is less and less focused on.
Amateur photographers and video enthusiasts will love the pop and high-res. Being amateurs and enthusiasts, they may be swayed by how good it looks on their own screen, and may not be as professionally concerned about printing it out correctly, etc. etc. Being amateur or hobbyists maybe they mostly post their stuff online, or just burn a DVD to share with others.
Photo pros could probably get the Core i5 or i7 though since it is a great value option compared to the Mac Pro, then probably attach a "proofing" monitor to it for final tweaks.
Video editing pros, for some jobs could also use the iMac, if they work in a somewhat darkened room, have a tighter budget, and do not require color treatments/ calibration for their editing work.
I'm not saying this is the right way, or definitely the current way things are going, but it could be a new trend forming.
Sadly the arts professionals you talk about is the market Apple is less and less focused on.
Amateur photographers and video enthusiasts will love the pop and high-res. Being amateurs and enthusiasts, they may be swayed by how good it looks on their own screen, and may not be as professionally concerned about printing it out correctly, etc. etc. Being amateur or hobbyists maybe they mostly post their stuff online, or just burn a DVD to share with others.
Photo pros could probably get the Core i5 or i7 though since it is a great value option compared to the Mac Pro, then probably attach a "proofing" monitor to it for final tweaks.
Video editing pros, for some jobs could also use the iMac, if they work in a somewhat darkened room, have a tighter budget, and do not require color treatments/ calibration for their editing work.
I'm not saying this is the right way, or definitely the current way things are going, but it could be a new trend forming.
One dealkiller is that many spend all lot of time with more than one additional person checking out what they do on the monitor and adding their thoughts about what they see. It's half of my every day. Not huddled closely around the screen, just comfortably at a desk in front of a monitor. I don't even do presentations but what I experienced in ten minutes at the 5th Ave AppleStore tells me I can't do it with the new screens, the viewing sweet spot being so small.
It looks dull and uneven compared to the 27". I cannot believe anyone would prefer it, though I accept that people with bright lights behind them would be too distracted from glare. But how fun is it to work on a matte monitor with its own drawbacks?
I still think it'd be preferable to organize your work area to minimize the glare and buy the much better monitor. I remember some of those old style CRTs had hoods and what not.
The difference is so incredible that I don't see Apple going back to matte on the iMac. Side-by-side, only people with serious beefs about glare and inability to devise a workspace to minimize glare would opt for matte.