Briefly: On last minute iMac and iPhone design changes

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 114
    aegisdesignaegisdesign Posts: 2,914member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    It's difficult to believe that the decision to switch from plastic to glass was made just two weeks before they sold over 250,000 iPhones. Could they really have done it in that short a time?



    Good grief. The change from plastic to glass caused a two week delay. It wasn't made two weeks before launch.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Very cute, guys, but once it's on, you can't see your reflection.



    ...or you've got black areas on the screen.
  • Reply 22 of 114
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    ...or you've got black areas on the screen.



    Which Apple's apps and OS are increasingly emphasizing. Fun!
  • Reply 23 of 114
    aegisdesignaegisdesign Posts: 2,914member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    Yeah totally, I don't get this at all. People are calling out reflections mostly when seeing the iMac at an angle, but head on in normal indoor lighting the reflections are pretty much non-existent



    If it was a matte screen they wouldn't be 'pretty much non-existent', they'd just not exist, at any angle, even in bad lighting. My iMac is sat at 90 deg to a big window. I like my big window. Also on the desk was a Macbook, which was unusable in that location whereas the iMac was great. The MacBook also suffered when I switched on the overhead halogens.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    and the gloss just makes the computer and its desktop more pleasing to the eye.



    Or less pleasing to the eye if you have eyes in your head that actually function correctly.
  • Reply 24 of 114
    aegisdesignaegisdesign Posts: 2,914member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Which Apple's apps and OS are increasingly emphasizing. Fun!



    I'm gonna back up my face in Time Machine.
  • Reply 25 of 114
    citycity Posts: 522member
    I just opened the box on my new iMac and the logo is red. What gaves?
  • Reply 26 of 114
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,822member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by city View Post


    I just opened the box on my new iMac and the logo is red.



    O RLY?
  • Reply 27 of 114
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    A .Mac Sync video tutorial released alongside the new all-in-one desktops correctly presents the iMac with a black logo on Apple's U.S. website. However, the same tutorial on its European website depicts the systems with a silver logo -- akin to the iPhone's mirror-like emblem.



    ...



    The disparity could indicate that Apple originally planned to mimic the iPhone's exterior more closely with the iMac. (Alternatively, the silver-logoed model may simply represent a graphical error.)



    Update: A source who provided an accurate description of the latest iMacs ahead of release claims that the original design indeed called for the mirror logo. However, it was subsequently scrapped, the source says, as people "do not like to look at themselves in the mirror all day."



    White, black and grey were said to be candidates for a replacement color, with black winning out despite its slightly conspicuous appearance.



    I think there is too much reading into this going on... It's a glossy black and can be different colors depending on lighting and viewing angle. This is demonstrated in the iMac ad even. (I understand it's probably digitally added, but that 'effect' still happens in reality.)





    Next up... I was floored when I read this:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by telekon View Post


    Personally, I hate the design.



    Firstly, Apple are trying to "pull the wool" with the black trim. The screen looks larger than it actually is. The sides look thinner than they actually are. Clever, yet deceptive and you really aren't supposed to deceive your buyers!



    These statements are almost too ridiculous for words. "Pull the wool", "Looks larger than it is", "The sides look thinner than they actually are". What?! They tell you the exact specs of each model. What is your deal? The black trim has nothing to do with it "looking bigger". (which by the way, I use my iMac by looking at it, and am not constantly thinking about the dimensions of it. If it looks big, that's because it is.) The trim is there to to give contrast between the LCD and the surface. Apple isn't deceiving anyone at all.
  • Reply 28 of 114
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,117member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    Good grief. The change from plastic to glass caused a two week delay. It wasn't made two weeks before launch.







    ...or you've got black areas on the screen.



    It's only a problem if your lighting is VERY bad, as it would be in MacWorld's labs, with the entire ceiling covered with florescent lights, each four feet long. There's almost no way to position a monitor to get rid of all reflections.



    I'm not advocating this as a universal solution. There will be times when the sharp reflections of a glossy surface will overcome the viewer. People don't always seem to notice the overall dulling of the image from overhead lights on a matte screen, but it's there.



    Also, Aegis, I've been thinking about what you've said about a matte screen under the glass.



    Apple says that the glass has both anti scratch and anti-reflection coatings, probably something like magnesium fluoride, but not that, as it would be too expensive.



    These coatings don't do as much for the front surface as they do for the ones below. The glass therefor, keeps light from reflecting off the screen surface below, keeping it from being dulled by reflections when directly hit by light, as it normally would be.



    That's why everyone seeing these machines comments on how contrasty and vivid they look, with deep blacks, even the guys at the MacWorld testing center who have all of the machines there, and on, at the same time, so they can make a side by side comparison.
  • Reply 29 of 114
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,117member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    If it was a matte screen they wouldn't be 'pretty much non-existent', they'd just not exist, at any angle, even in bad lighting. My iMac is sat at 90 deg to a big window. I like my big window. Also on the desk was a Macbook, which was unusable in that location whereas the iMac was great. The MacBook also suffered when I switched on the overhead halogens.



    Matte screens get reflections. They are just more spread out on the screen, and thus are dimmer, but they are there. The screens look more washed out under high lighting conditions as well.



    Quote:

    Or less pleasing to the eye if you have eyes in your head that actually function correctly.



    That's nasty, and, if anything, just the opposite of the truth.
  • Reply 30 of 114
    dentondenton Posts: 725member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by city View Post


    I just opened the box on my new iMac and the logo is red. What gaves?







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    O RLY?



    Pay particular attention to the HTML tag
  • Reply 31 of 114
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by city View Post


    I just opened the box on my new iMac and the logo is red. What gaves?



  • Reply 32 of 114
    dentondenton Posts: 725member
    Someone needs to lay down some basic axioms for Apple fan-boys. The first is quite obvious:



    1. No matter how good an Apple product, a vocal minority will always complain about every design choice made by Apple.
  • Reply 33 of 114
    All the flame wars about what's better, glossy or matte... etc....



    Really, we're all right. We each like what we like, whether it be glossy or matte. It really is a personal preference.



    Which is why I'm so pissed off at Apple for not giving us a *CHOICE*. They did it with the Macbook Pro; why can't they do it with the Macbook and iMac?



    No, they FORCE glossy on you. Maybe it's a scheme to make more money; people who can't stand glossy have to spend more on a Macbook Pro or a Mac Mini + non-glossy display? Or even a Mac Pro?



    Apple should have given us a choice. The difference is just ONE part, the cover that goes over the screen. Once they find out how much demand there is for each type they can just build them in the appropriate amounts. NOT HARD!



    -Z
  • Reply 34 of 114
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,117member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post


    All the flame wars about what's better, glossy or matte... etc....



    Really, we're all right. We each like what we like, whether it be glossy or matte. It really is a personal preference.



    Which is why I'm so pissed off at Apple for not giving us a *CHOICE*. They did it with the Macbook Pro; why can't they do it with the Macbook and iMac?



    No, they FORCE glossy on you. Maybe it's a scheme to make more money; people who can't stand glossy have to spend more on a Macbook Pro or a Mac Mini + non-glossy display? Or even a Mac Pro?



    Apple should have given us a choice. The difference is just ONE part, the cover that goes over the screen. Once they find out how much demand there is for each type they can just build them in the appropriate amounts. NOT HARD!



    -Z



    That's not it at all, as you should know.



    The more SKU's Apple has, the more it add to the cost. If Apple offer both, then it migh have raised the price by $50.



    Why do you think Apple puts cheap gpu's in its machines? To save a few bucks.
  • Reply 35 of 114
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    That's not it at all, as you should know.



    The more SKU's Apple has, the more it add to the cost. If Apple offer both, then it migh have raised the price by $50.



    Why do you think Apple puts cheap gpu's in its machines? To save a few bucks.



    Hmm.... sounds like Dell to me. Apple could also save a few bucks not offering glass, and going for the less-pure/cheeper plastics like other OEMs do.
  • Reply 36 of 114
    citycity Posts: 522member
    Apple should sell different color thin translucent plastic insert logos for $39 that we can apply to front our new iMacs
  • Reply 37 of 114
    icfireballicfireball Posts: 2,594member
    The beginning of those videos look animated, so it seems the animation team forgot to change it.
  • Reply 38 of 114
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,117member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thebaint View Post


    Hmm.... sounds like Dell to me. Apple could also save a few bucks not offering glass, and going for the less-pure/cheeper plastics like other OEMs do.



    I don't know why they went for glass.



    Was it purely for style, or was there something else?



    But, it does make it easy to change the glass.
  • Reply 39 of 114
    s10s10 Posts: 107member
    beige logo would have been nice
  • Reply 40 of 114
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    White, black and grey were said to be candidates for a replacement color, with black winning out despite its slightly conspicuous appearance.



    Conspicuous is relative to the surrounding. I happen to think that white is most conspicuous because it's brighter than probably anything around it save for anything that's fluorescent colored.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by msantti View Post


    I prefer the black logo.



    One would get sick and tired of seeing yourself all day with the mirrored one.



    It probably wouldn't be perfectly flat, I think it would have been somewhat fun-house like, I'm using my memory of the G4 iMac.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Matthew Yohe View Post


    These statements are almost too ridiculous for words. "Pull the wool", "Looks larger than it is", "The sides look thinner than they actually are". What?! They tell you the exact specs of each model. What is your deal? The black trim has nothing to do with it "looking bigger". (which by the way, I use my iMac by looking at it, and am not constantly thinking about the dimensions of it. If it looks big, that's because it is.) The trim is there to to give contrast between the LCD and the surface. Apple isn't deceiving anyone at all.



    Your explanation doesn't ring true to me. Things can appear a different size than they are if the design techniques exploit optical illusions, in this case, I think it does and was pretty well explained be the person you replied to. I really don't understand how you can deny this in such a manner. The perimeter, combined with the black back face also makes the machine seem thinner too. A similar trick was done with the previous generation, the panel was just as thick but the back panel curved forward instead of being flat. The overall thickness was the same, but the iMac seemed thinner, I think Apple even promoted it as being thinner though the overall dimensions were the same.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Denton View Post


    Someone needs to lay down some basic axioms for Apple fan-boys. The first is quite obvious:



    1. No matter how good an Apple product, a vocal minority will always complain about every design choice made by Apple.



    It's not always the same minority. For example, Aegisdesign had been an almost stead-fast defender of a lot of Apple's design choices, but had lately been hammering on the designs of iPhone and the new iMac.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    It's difficult to believe that the decision to switch from plastic to glass was made just two weeks before they sold over 250,000 iPhones. Could they really have done it in that short a time?



    I really doubt it, unless ALL the testing and validation was done before then, even then, that's a very rapid production.



    I think someone posted here two or three months beforehand saying that that decision was already made.
Sign In or Register to comment.