Briefly: On last minute iMac and iPhone design changes

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 114
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    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.
  • Reply 82 of 114
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    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.
  • Reply 83 of 114
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    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
  • Reply 84 of 114
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,117member
    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.
  • Reply 85 of 114
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,117member
    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.
  • Reply 86 of 114
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    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.
  • Reply 87 of 114
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,117member
    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.
  • Reply 88 of 114
    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?



  • Reply 89 of 114
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by britwithgoodteeth View Post


    Nature-protection groups?







    They wander the woods with hand whittled pistols.
  • Reply 90 of 114
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,117member
    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.
  • Reply 91 of 114
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    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?
  • Reply 92 of 114
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,117member
    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.
  • Reply 93 of 114
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    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.
  • Reply 94 of 114
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,117member
    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.



  • Reply 95 of 114
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    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!



  • Reply 96 of 114
    mr omr o Posts: 1,046member
    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.
  • Reply 97 of 114
    mr omr o Posts: 1,046member
    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.
  • Reply 98 of 114
    nacnudnacnud Posts: 20member
    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.
  • Reply 99 of 114
    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?
  • Reply 100 of 114
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.