You either did not read what I have posted in this thread, or you did read it but did not fully comprehend it.
Your comment cited "3 people" in order to justify the false notion that people who do not like glare (which is not necessarily the same as people who do not like glossy screens, by the way) are far outnumbered by those who love glare. Just because only 3 people in a given thread are vocal about disliking glare does not mean that "an equally microscopic minority outside this thread feel the same." And there's no way to really know the statistics either, because everyone is asking the wrong questions. If someone asks me if I like gloss but then doesn't allow me to explain my response, they won't be able to glean the complete truth from me.
The position of many glossy screen proponents is that all matte screen loves simply hate every aspect of glossy screens, which is flat out wrong. Again, had you fully read and digested my prior comments, you would have seen that I love glossy screens insofar as the colors pop, the blacks are rich and the sharpness is amazing. But at the same time, I hate the glare. And no, not everyone on the planet can control their environmental lighting in the same way, nor can everyone "look past the glare" in the same way you can.
Many glossy screen (and pro-glare) proponents also ignorantly assume that the status quo is the "way things will always be," and anyone dissatisfied with that should just get over it and follow in the footsteps of the rest of the Lemmings. But such a stance is ignorant of technological progress. The fact is much technological progress comes about in the quest to fill a need. Many people who are not advocates of the status quo are boldly going out to "state a need." We want colors that pop. We want richer blacks. We want sharper screens. Yes! But we don't want the glare. And we also want a consistent backlight. As technology advances, these demands will be met. But some, myself included, want to emphasize the needs in hopes that technology will advance more quickly -- in many cases, to allow us to put our money in Apple's pockets so we can bring home a lovely new Intel Mac sooner rather than later.
So those who are not happy with the status quo are in no way "complainers." Nor are they in any way wanting to go back to "old screen technology." Indeed, these vocal Mac lovers whom some of you so quickly jump to condemn are in fact those who most wish to see advancements in display technology. And if you were honest, I think you would admit that you too would not be opposed to a screen that gives you all the greatness of your current glossy screen BUT WITHOUT the glare.
Yes, there are some who dislike glare while also disliking other aspects about glossy screens. These are fellow Mac lovers who are calling for a "matte option." Things get a bit more complex when we demand that, but if I were to argue against such, I would basically be arguing against "choice." I think choice is good where it makes financial sense. And seeing that Apple has done so for the 17" MacBook Pro, it only makes logical sense that if Apple cannot advance their display technology fast enough (i.e., give us all the great aspects of glossy screens BUT WITHOUT the glare), then they should probably offer matte options for the iMac. But realistically, I can see how that would create some issues on the manufacturing side (but don't take this sentence to mean I am against it -- I am pro choice with regard to a matte option).
Hopefully, you now see the broad thinking that actually was behind my previous post about "ignorance." My statement was in no way flippant as are often the statements of many who advocate the status quo in iMac display technology.
My prior comments about "glare" and the "uneven backlight" stand.
Thank you for the wordy and indirect half-retraction of your previous statement.
People who buy Apple's current range of computers with glossy displays do so because on balance, they are happy with the performance of the whole package rather than because they are "glossy screen (or pro-glare) proponents" or because they "like glare". Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous and is similar to saying that a 1st generation iPhone user bought his phone "because he likes to be unable to send MMS".
It's not a moment too soon. Apple doesn't licence Mac OS X (and why not?)
Because
a) Apple makes its money selling hardware. Software doesn't make much money.
b) Apple doesn't want to have the same nightmarish reputation for OS X as Windows has, having to deal with thousands of permutations of motherboard/chipset/BIOS combinations.
Indeed. And I am sure you will agree that such thinking on Apple's part is flawed.
I posted about the "consumer grade" mentality (which many staunch defenders of glossy/glare screens often use against matte lovers) on Apple's forum here.
I can only add that the G4 towers used to be Apple's premium machine. And certain G4 tower models were priced under $2,000. Now consider that the highest end iMac is priced at well over $2,000. I think this in some small way can show that although some models of the iMac (e.g., the 20") could properly be classified as a "consumer grade" or "low cost" or "entry level" machine, the highest end iMac really doesn't fall into any of those categories. Hence, it makes logical sense for Apple to consider the quality of the screen on the iMac, if not but for the high end model. But they are presently not doing that.
Ignorance certainly does appear to be bliss for some.
If you consider the influence of inflation, you'll see that the difference in price, while there, isn't as great as you think it is.
You either did not read what I have posted in this thread, or you did read it but did not fully comprehend it.
Your comment cited "3 people" in order to justify the false notion that people who do not like glare (which is not necessarily the same as people who do not like glossy screens, by the way) are far outnumbered by those who love glare. Just because only 3 people in a given thread are vocal about disliking glare does not mean that "an equally microscopic minority outside this thread feel the same." And there's no way to really know the statistics either, because everyone is asking the wrong questions. If someone asks me if I like gloss but then doesn't allow me to explain my response, they won't be able to glean the complete truth from me.
The position of many glossy screen proponents is that all matte screen loves simply hate every aspect of glossy screens, which is flat out wrong. Again, had you fully read and digested my prior comments, you would have seen that I love glossy screens insofar as the colors pop, the blacks are rich and the sharpness is amazing. But at the same time, I hate the glare. And no, not everyone on the planet can control their environmental lighting in the same way, nor can everyone "look past the glare" in the same way you can.
Many glossy screen (and pro-glare) proponents also ignorantly assume that the status quo is the "way things will always be," and anyone dissatisfied with that should just get over it and follow in the footsteps of the rest of the Lemmings. But such a stance is ignorant of technological progress. The fact is much technological progress comes about in the quest to fill a need. Many people who are not advocates of the status quo are boldly going out to "state a need." We want colors that pop. We want richer blacks. We want sharper screens. Yes! But we don't want the glare. And we also want a consistent backlight. As technology advances, these demands will be met. But some, myself included, want to emphasize the needs in hopes that technology will advance more quickly -- in many cases, to allow us to put our money in Apple's pockets so we can bring home a lovely new Intel Mac sooner rather than later.
So those who are not happy with the status quo are in no way "complainers." Nor are they in any way wanting to go back to "old screen technology." Indeed, these vocal Mac lovers whom some of you so quickly jump to condemn are in fact those who most wish to see advancements in display technology. And if you were honest, I think you would admit that you too would not be opposed to a screen that gives you all the greatness of your current glossy screen BUT WITHOUT the glare.
Yes, there are some who dislike glare while also disliking other aspects about glossy screens. These are fellow Mac lovers who are calling for a "matte option." Things get a bit more complex when we demand that, but if I were to argue against such, I would basically be arguing against "choice." I think choice is good where it makes financial sense. And seeing that Apple has done so for the 17" MacBook Pro, it only makes logical sense that if Apple cannot advance their display technology fast enough (i.e., give us all the great aspects of glossy screens BUT WITHOUT the glare), then they should probably offer matte options for the iMac. But realistically, I can see how that would create some issues on the manufacturing side (but don't take this sentence to mean I am against it -- I am pro choice with regard to a matte option).
Hopefully, you now see the broad thinking that actually was behind my previous post about "ignorance." My statement was in no way flippant as are often the statements of many who advocate the status quo in iMac display technology.
My prior comments about "glare" and the "uneven backlight" stand.
This entire post is rather silly in nature.
Matte screens have just as much glare as glossy screens. You just aren't very good at seeing it, because it's much more deceptive.
Calling people who prefer glossy screens, "glare lovers" is derogatory and absurd.
Are you, a "matte screen lover" a lover of poor blacks, low saturation, and less accurate color? No?
Is your vision so poor that you don't notice this? No?
As you can see, this argument can get to ridiculous heights.
Most people do like glossy screens, and that includes graphics and photographic professionals.
a) Apple makes its money selling hardware. Software doesn't make much money.
Apple makes much more profit from their software than from their hardware as a measure of margin. But they also sell far less software in terms of dollars, so they make, overall, much more profit from hardware sales.
The iMac is already quite reasonable, the Mac Pro has the sticker shock.
Maybe that's the case in the US, but where I am in the UK the top end iMac with a dual core CPU, DVD drive and 4gb of RAM costs more than a quad core i7 Dell with a bluray burner and 8gb of RAM. The prices are laughably high.
Funny I seem to remember posting that a possible 23" iMac should have dual HDDs several years ago. I'd love to see a 26" or 30" iMac with dual drives (3.5 not 2.5 though).
The next iMacs will surely have LED displays and a quad-core option. Other than that the headline in the current climate has to be a lower price.
Because Apple actually sells a lot of them. They are very popular with design firms and media production houses because their small form factor allows them to be used as cheap servers. There are several places that are commercial server farms that use minis in the thousands.
Even so, when Apple priced the mini it was at a point when the rest of their line-up was established at a given price point. That price point has shifted for Apple's laptops and if the iMac follows suit, I can't imagine that the mini can remain fundamentally unaltered.
There is nothing wrong with the price point the mini finds itself in. It's quite a reasonable cost considering it comes with a very good software package. But if the mini winds up costing roughly the same as an iMac, there is no excuse for delivering weaker performance to go along with no monitor or input devices. It doesn't add up.
If the iMac starts at 2.66 Ghz, why is the mini still running 2.00 Ghz in base form? Also, the compact form factor of the mini rules out a 7,200 RPM drive.
Seems to me that the mini, even if it had to be worked into a somewhat larger case, would be better positioned if it had comparable specs to the iMac, rather than a base MacBook. I wonder why Apple chooses not to go there.
I know this is slightly off-topic, but with the 13 inch unibody MacBooks becoming MacBook Pros, does Apple have plans for brand-new MacBooks in the near future? I'm guessing they might.
This entire post is rather silly in nature. Matte screens have just as much glare as glossy screens. You just aren't very good at seeing it, because it's much more deceptive.
That statement could equally be classified as "silly" insofar as it essentially says this: "In the past, prior to glossy screens, when we all had matte LCD screens and hardly anyone spoke out negatively about glare (relative to the noticeably large number who speak out about it now), all computer users were deceived because glare really was there."
Although such a statement is factually correct about the fact that light is reflected even in matte screens, the very fact that it is diffused (and therefore less noticeable) in matte screens versus the hard edged glare in glossy screens is the very point that "we'd like a matte option" proponents advocate. And such is not more silly that wanting to take a photo of something with a lightbox (to get lovely diffused shadows) versus something shot under non-diffused light yielding hard edge shadows. Hard edge versus diffused is a big difference for some people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Calling people who prefer glossy screens, "glare lovers" is derogatory and absurd. Are you, a "matte screen lover" a lover of poor blacks, low saturation, and less accurate color? No?
Calling me a "matte screen lover" is truly "derogatory and absurd" because it is evidence that you either did not read or read but did not fully comprehend my previous posts in this thread where I specifically talk about my love of the rich blacks, colors that "pop" (i.e., improved saturation), and sharper screen. (Indeed, you quoted one of the very posts where I spoke of my love for those aspects of gloss, whereupon you then surprisingly condemned me for "not" liking that.)
brucep fully understood what I wrote because he wrote back saying "If you had to re write your post in 25 lines would it still be clear to get you point across. The gist of your post I think is glossy is great but glare sucks." Bruce understood what I wrote.
So am I myself a "glare lover" since I have admitted that I like many aspects of glossy screens? Of course not. My remark was about those who for whatever reason look past or otherwise ignore the glare, and therefore are satisfied themselves, but then are quick to attack others who lack the same ability to ignore the hard edged glare. Not all glossy screen lovers are quick to condemn those who don't like glossy screens, and so my remarks are not directed at those open-minded and kind-hearted folk.
For this reason I do not have any desire to place a road block against my fellow Mac lovers who prefer matte screens. For I know that their pounding on Apple will never unseat glossy screens from the throne (as some glossy advocates fear). All these well-intention matte loving folks are asking for is a "choice." And I see nothing wrong with that. I myself love the good aspects of glossy, but not the hard edged glare (which I have written in detail about numerous times in this thread).
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
this argument can get to ridiculous heights.
It does when we do not fully read and/or digest what has been written. But I fully understand why that was likely so, as you have to moderate many forums and therefore cannot dwell too deeply on every single post in a long list of posts. So my intent in this post is certainly not to condemn you for not having fully read my prior comments, but rather to point out what you missed, which in turn led to your post against me. I also realize that you must have grown weary reading the debate on glossy/glare over time, and you therefore only skimmed my post and then were quick to stereotype me. But again, if you closely examine what I have written, you will see that I don't really fit into either of the "traditional" camps on the subject, as I like "good aspects" of glossy displays but hate the hard edged glare. (I suspect many others do to. They simply have not been so specific about this important point.)
And so, to say it yet again, despite my own love of the "good aspects" of glossy screens, I am certainly not out to condemn those who love matte screens, as stated in my previous posting. If they are asking for choice, why should I stand in their way? And if you have a reason we should stand in their way, then we must then question why Apple is also assisting these folks with a matte option on the 17" MacBook Pro.
No doubt some will still not fully comprehend what I have written. So I shall give up trying on the subject. I can only add that "hard edged glare" was not the lone topic I spoke about -- the uneven backlight is an issue as well.
Getting off this touchy subject of glare... I agree with what others have posted about upcoming iMac revisions. It would be nice to see a Quadcore iMac and more video options (if the associated heat issues can be properly handled). But since the title of the AppleInsider article, and this associated thread, is "More affordable iMacs..." I cannot help but wonder what it is that Apple will "sacrifice" in order to reduce costs. Will they truly give us "more" and "cut the price" at the same time?
Maybe that's the case in the US, but where I am in the UK the top end iMac with a dual core CPU, DVD drive and 4gb of RAM costs more than a quad core i7 Dell with a bluray burner and 8gb of RAM. The prices are laughably high.
That statement could equally be classified as "silly" insofar as it essentially says this: "In the past, prior to glossy screens, when we all had matte LCD screens and hardly anyone spoke out negatively about glare (relative to the noticeably large number who speak out about it now), all computer users were deceived because glare really was there."
Although such a statement is factually correct about the fact that light is reflected even in matte screens, the very fact that it is diffused (and therefore less noticeable) in matte screens versus the hard edged glare in glossy screens is the very point that "we'd like a matte option" proponents advocate. And such is not more silly that wanting to take a photo of something with a lightbox (to get lovely diffused shadows) versus something shot under non-diffused light yielding hard edge shadows. Hard edge versus diffused is a big difference for some people.
The very fact that it's diffused us what makes it such a problem to those who need a clear screen. It's nothing at all like taking a photograph with a diffusing light source vs a direct light source.
When you generate an image you can do whatever you like. When you have to view such a photo, you should have as little distortion on the screen as possible. Glossy screens give a more accurate view than do matte screens.
It's your contention that people who like glossy screens "like glare" - your words, is what made your post silly. That was a put-down right from the start. If you hadn't said that, neither would I. You can now say it was meant in jest, but it didn't read that way.
Quote:
Calling me a "matte screen lover" is truly "derogatory and absurd" because it is evidence that you either did not read or read but did not fully comprehend my previous posts in this thread where I specifically talk about my love of the rich blacks, colors that "pop" (i.e., improved saturation), and sharper screen. (Indeed, you quoted one of the very posts where I spoke of my love for those aspects of gloss, whereupon you then surprisingly condemned me for "not" liking that.)
You obviously didn't "get" the fact that I was throwing the statement of yours that people who like glossy screens "like glare". I was trying to show you how silly that comment was. Apparently, you really didn't get it.
Quote:
brucep fully understood what I wrote because he wrote back saying "If you had to re write your post in 25 lines would it still be clear to get you point across. The gist of your post I think is glossy is great but glare sucks." Bruce understood what I wrote.
I understand it very well.
Quote:
So am I myself a "glare lover" since I have admitted that I like many aspects of glossy screens? Of course not. My remark was about those who for whatever reason look past or otherwise ignore the glare, and therefore are satisfied themselves, but then are quick to attack others who lack the same ability to ignore the hard edged glare. Not all glossy screen lovers are quick to condemn those who don't like glossy screens, and so my remarks are not directed at those open-minded and kind-hearted folk.
We've had many a discussion here about glossy vs matte screens.
I'm not condemning someone who likes matte screens better. It was just that comment that bothered me. It made the rest of your post seem surreal.
What we've seen in these discussions it that matte screen people won't grant that glossy screens are better under certain circumstances. They have often even stated that the deterioration of the image from matte screens is proper, and that the higher contrast, color saturation of glossy is "wrong" and "inferior". Why? Because they've never used glossy screens until now, and so think that matte must be "right".
Quote:
For this reason I do not have any desire to place a road block against my fellow Mac lovers who prefer matte screens. For I know that their pounding on Apple will never unseat glossy screens from the throne (as some glossy advocates fear). All these well-intention matte loving folks are asking for is a "choice." And I see nothing wrong with that. I myself love the good aspects of glossy, but not the hard edged glare (which I have written in detail about numerous times in this thread).
I don't really care about what others want to use. I just don't like the impression that those who like glossy also like glare, as I've actually seen this silly statement before.
Quote:
It does when we do not fully read and/or digest what has been written. But I fully understand why that was likely so, as you have to moderate many forums and therefore cannot dwell too deeply on every single post in a long list of posts. So my intent in this post is certainly not to condemn you for not having fully read my prior comments, but rather to point out what you missed, which in turn led to your post against me. I also realize that you must have grown weary reading the debate on glossy/glare over time, and you therefore only skimmed my post and then were quick to stereotype me. But again, if you closely examine what I have written, you will see that I don't really fit into either of the "traditional" camps on the subject, as I like "good aspects" of glossy displays but hate the hard edged glare. (I suspect many others do to. They simply have not been so specific about this important point.)
Again, it was your one statement in the beginning that so much annoyed me.
Quote:
And so, to say it yet again, despite my own love of the "good aspects" of glossy screens, I am certainly not out to condemn those who love matte screens, as stated in my previous posting. If they are asking for choice, why should I stand in their way? And if you have a reason we should stand in their way, then we must then question why Apple is also assisting these folks with a matte option on the 17" MacBook Pro.
No doubt some will still not fully comprehend what I have written. So I shall give up trying on the subject. I can only add that "hard edged glare" was not the lone topic I spoke about -- the uneven backlight is an issue as well.
I understand what you've written, and I don't argue with it. If you just retract that one statement, all is well.
I actually don't feel that the iMacs are overpriced for what you get. It's a very well-integrated all-in-one that offers most of the connectivity features that I think people look for. It's got 802.11n, Bluetooth, Firewire, USB, iSight, etc., which means you can pretty much set it up in any spot in the house and do what you need to do with it. Then add on the fact that you basically get a 20" or 24" LED-backlit screen with it (at least on the 24" you do), and it all fits inside a clean package that requires only a single cord (assuming you use a wireless keyboard/mouse).
Generally, I agree. My needs aren't tremendous and just about any of the iMacs would suit me nicely. That said, others here have made pretty solid arguments for refocusing the iMac line a bit, particularly creating a truly professionally-themed, high-end iMac Pro with a larger screen and more processor cores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingKuei
What I'm more concerned with is the fact that we are on the cusp of moving to Nehalem-based systems now. From what I've seen over at Anandtech and other sites, the new architecture offers a dramatic step in performance per watt, so I'm more excited to see when Apple begins shifting the rest of the lineup to Nehalem. With the Mac Pro already on that track, it's about time for the MacBooks, iMacs, and Mac mini to catch up. If Apple updates the iMacs this September/October with nothing more than a speed bump and reduced prices, I think I would still hold off. While it's true that there's always something better around the corner, it's not often that you get a full step-up in terms of architecture generation. Apple has been running the Core/Core 2 Duo architecture for a few years now, so I think I'll pull the trigger when we move to Nehalem irrespective of a price cut.
This really hits the nail on the head for me. Nehalem, as far as I can tell, is going to be a huge step up for the rest of Apple's computer lineup, particularly for the iMac. Hopefully Apple will spread Nehalem processors across all models by mid-2010.
It always seems bizarre to me that Apple updates their 'school' line (namely iMac's) in late September or October.
Where did you get this idea that iMacs are school computers? Apples school machines are it's portables. It is these that they updated massively a few weeks ago. Frankly a couple of the models are ideal student machines. Along with that they have a very heavy promotion going on.
Quote:
To me, it seems to make more sense to do it late August/early September, you know, when people are buying things for school.
That is far to late. The problem is people often set goals for back to school. In otherwords I have to make xxxx dollars to pay for books, fees & other crap. In there someplace they will need to budget a computer. By august or September they are already in school or finalizing their summers last minute purchases are not wise when you are days away from an entirely different lifestyle.
All indications are that Apple has been doing really well with it's back to school program. Back to school isn't about clearing inventory or any other ill thought, it is a program to grab market share and mind set.
Agreed! I'm a bit upset at the timing. As my daughter is going to England for school, she'll need a new iMac 24" for her photographic studies. The new machines should be Nehalem based, with better graphics cards as well. I'd love to get one of those. but it seems that I'll likely have to get one of the current models at most a month before the new ones come out. Very frustrating! It wouldn't be a problem if she was going to school here, as she could continue using her current one in the beginning of the term. I'm not shipping her early 2008 model overseas.
Uh...ship her out with a mb or mini and have her visit the london apple store when the nahelem iMacs appear?
60 £ per week is kinda steep though for a couple months It's 900 £ for a year.
Heck, it's not like they wont have computers at school. Or ship her current mac out and she can ebay it when you ship the new one out. Heck, I bet she could sell it in England for more than the US anyway.
Agreed! I'm a bit upset at the timing. As my daughter is going to England for school, she'll need a new iMac 24" for her photographic studies.
She may want one but needing one is a different story. Besides if she is really serious about photography what she really needs is a calibrated monitor of good reputation.
Quote:
The new machines should be Nehalem based, with better graphics cards as well.
Well I hope so, at least in the sense of a Nehalem -derived- processor. Honestly though I'm not feeling real good about what Apple has up it's sleeve. We may get less than we are expecting.
Quote:
I'd love to get one of those. but it seems that I'll likely have to get one of the current models at most a month before the new ones come out.
The power of negative thinking. Really you don't have to do anything, you could explore other options too.
Quote:
Very frustrating! It wouldn't be a problem if she was going to school here, as she could continue using her current one in the beginning of the term. I'm not shipping her early 2008 model overseas.
I have to ask why not? She could use it for a few months as is or enhance it with a better monitor. By the way if you read this thread you might start to see that second monitor as a good idea. IMacs aren't exactly the best choice for a budding photographer.
Where did you get this idea that iMacs are school computers? Apples school machines are it's portables. It is these that they updated massively a few weeks ago. Frankly a couple of the models are ideal student machines. Along with that they have a very heavy promotion going on.
iMacs are very popular in schools. While portables may seem to be the exclusive school purchase, they aren't.
Comments
You either did not read what I have posted in this thread, or you did read it but did not fully comprehend it.
Your comment cited "3 people" in order to justify the false notion that people who do not like glare (which is not necessarily the same as people who do not like glossy screens, by the way) are far outnumbered by those who love glare. Just because only 3 people in a given thread are vocal about disliking glare does not mean that "an equally microscopic minority outside this thread feel the same." And there's no way to really know the statistics either, because everyone is asking the wrong questions. If someone asks me if I like gloss but then doesn't allow me to explain my response, they won't be able to glean the complete truth from me.
The position of many glossy screen proponents is that all matte screen loves simply hate every aspect of glossy screens, which is flat out wrong. Again, had you fully read and digested my prior comments, you would have seen that I love glossy screens insofar as the colors pop, the blacks are rich and the sharpness is amazing. But at the same time, I hate the glare. And no, not everyone on the planet can control their environmental lighting in the same way, nor can everyone "look past the glare" in the same way you can.
Many glossy screen (and pro-glare) proponents also ignorantly assume that the status quo is the "way things will always be," and anyone dissatisfied with that should just get over it and follow in the footsteps of the rest of the Lemmings. But such a stance is ignorant of technological progress. The fact is much technological progress comes about in the quest to fill a need. Many people who are not advocates of the status quo are boldly going out to "state a need." We want colors that pop. We want richer blacks. We want sharper screens. Yes! But we don't want the glare. And we also want a consistent backlight. As technology advances, these demands will be met. But some, myself included, want to emphasize the needs in hopes that technology will advance more quickly -- in many cases, to allow us to put our money in Apple's pockets so we can bring home a lovely new Intel Mac sooner rather than later.
So those who are not happy with the status quo are in no way "complainers." Nor are they in any way wanting to go back to "old screen technology." Indeed, these vocal Mac lovers whom some of you so quickly jump to condemn are in fact those who most wish to see advancements in display technology. And if you were honest, I think you would admit that you too would not be opposed to a screen that gives you all the greatness of your current glossy screen BUT WITHOUT the glare.
Yes, there are some who dislike glare while also disliking other aspects about glossy screens. These are fellow Mac lovers who are calling for a "matte option." Things get a bit more complex when we demand that, but if I were to argue against such, I would basically be arguing against "choice." I think choice is good where it makes financial sense. And seeing that Apple has done so for the 17" MacBook Pro, it only makes logical sense that if Apple cannot advance their display technology fast enough (i.e., give us all the great aspects of glossy screens BUT WITHOUT the glare), then they should probably offer matte options for the iMac. But realistically, I can see how that would create some issues on the manufacturing side (but don't take this sentence to mean I am against it -- I am pro choice with regard to a matte option).
Hopefully, you now see the broad thinking that actually was behind my previous post about "ignorance." My statement was in no way flippant as are often the statements of many who advocate the status quo in iMac display technology.
My prior comments about "glare" and the "uneven backlight" stand.
Thank you for the wordy and indirect half-retraction of your previous statement.
People who buy Apple's current range of computers with glossy displays do so because on balance, they are happy with the performance of the whole package rather than because they are "glossy screen (or pro-glare) proponents" or because they "like glare". Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous and is similar to saying that a 1st generation iPhone user bought his phone "because he likes to be unable to send MMS".
It's not a moment too soon. Apple doesn't licence Mac OS X (and why not?)
Because
a) Apple makes its money selling hardware. Software doesn't make much money.
b) Apple doesn't want to have the same nightmarish reputation for OS X as Windows has, having to deal with thousands of permutations of motherboard/chipset/BIOS combinations.
Indeed. And I am sure you will agree that such thinking on Apple's part is flawed.
I posted about the "consumer grade" mentality (which many staunch defenders of glossy/glare screens often use against matte lovers) on Apple's forum here.
I can only add that the G4 towers used to be Apple's premium machine. And certain G4 tower models were priced under $2,000. Now consider that the highest end iMac is priced at well over $2,000. I think this in some small way can show that although some models of the iMac (e.g., the 20") could properly be classified as a "consumer grade" or "low cost" or "entry level" machine, the highest end iMac really doesn't fall into any of those categories. Hence, it makes logical sense for Apple to consider the quality of the screen on the iMac, if not but for the high end model. But they are presently not doing that.
Ignorance certainly does appear to be bliss for some.
If you consider the influence of inflation, you'll see that the difference in price, while there, isn't as great as you think it is.
Try comparing it here.
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
You either did not read what I have posted in this thread, or you did read it but did not fully comprehend it.
Your comment cited "3 people" in order to justify the false notion that people who do not like glare (which is not necessarily the same as people who do not like glossy screens, by the way) are far outnumbered by those who love glare. Just because only 3 people in a given thread are vocal about disliking glare does not mean that "an equally microscopic minority outside this thread feel the same." And there's no way to really know the statistics either, because everyone is asking the wrong questions. If someone asks me if I like gloss but then doesn't allow me to explain my response, they won't be able to glean the complete truth from me.
The position of many glossy screen proponents is that all matte screen loves simply hate every aspect of glossy screens, which is flat out wrong. Again, had you fully read and digested my prior comments, you would have seen that I love glossy screens insofar as the colors pop, the blacks are rich and the sharpness is amazing. But at the same time, I hate the glare. And no, not everyone on the planet can control their environmental lighting in the same way, nor can everyone "look past the glare" in the same way you can.
Many glossy screen (and pro-glare) proponents also ignorantly assume that the status quo is the "way things will always be," and anyone dissatisfied with that should just get over it and follow in the footsteps of the rest of the Lemmings. But such a stance is ignorant of technological progress. The fact is much technological progress comes about in the quest to fill a need. Many people who are not advocates of the status quo are boldly going out to "state a need." We want colors that pop. We want richer blacks. We want sharper screens. Yes! But we don't want the glare. And we also want a consistent backlight. As technology advances, these demands will be met. But some, myself included, want to emphasize the needs in hopes that technology will advance more quickly -- in many cases, to allow us to put our money in Apple's pockets so we can bring home a lovely new Intel Mac sooner rather than later.
So those who are not happy with the status quo are in no way "complainers." Nor are they in any way wanting to go back to "old screen technology." Indeed, these vocal Mac lovers whom some of you so quickly jump to condemn are in fact those who most wish to see advancements in display technology. And if you were honest, I think you would admit that you too would not be opposed to a screen that gives you all the greatness of your current glossy screen BUT WITHOUT the glare.
Yes, there are some who dislike glare while also disliking other aspects about glossy screens. These are fellow Mac lovers who are calling for a "matte option." Things get a bit more complex when we demand that, but if I were to argue against such, I would basically be arguing against "choice." I think choice is good where it makes financial sense. And seeing that Apple has done so for the 17" MacBook Pro, it only makes logical sense that if Apple cannot advance their display technology fast enough (i.e., give us all the great aspects of glossy screens BUT WITHOUT the glare), then they should probably offer matte options for the iMac. But realistically, I can see how that would create some issues on the manufacturing side (but don't take this sentence to mean I am against it -- I am pro choice with regard to a matte option).
Hopefully, you now see the broad thinking that actually was behind my previous post about "ignorance." My statement was in no way flippant as are often the statements of many who advocate the status quo in iMac display technology.
My prior comments about "glare" and the "uneven backlight" stand.
This entire post is rather silly in nature.
Matte screens have just as much glare as glossy screens. You just aren't very good at seeing it, because it's much more deceptive.
Calling people who prefer glossy screens, "glare lovers" is derogatory and absurd.
Are you, a "matte screen lover" a lover of poor blacks, low saturation, and less accurate color? No?
Is your vision so poor that you don't notice this? No?
As you can see, this argument can get to ridiculous heights.
Most people do like glossy screens, and that includes graphics and photographic professionals.
Not everyone does, and leave it at that.
Because
a) Apple makes its money selling hardware. Software doesn't make much money.
Apple makes much more profit from their software than from their hardware as a measure of margin. But they also sell far less software in terms of dollars, so they make, overall, much more profit from hardware sales.
The iMac is already quite reasonable, the Mac Pro has the sticker shock.
Maybe that's the case in the US, but where I am in the UK the top end iMac with a dual core CPU, DVD drive and 4gb of RAM costs more than a quad core i7 Dell with a bluray burner and 8gb of RAM. The prices are laughably high.
The next iMacs will surely have LED displays and a quad-core option. Other than that the headline in the current climate has to be a lower price.
Because Apple actually sells a lot of them. They are very popular with design firms and media production houses because their small form factor allows them to be used as cheap servers. There are several places that are commercial server farms that use minis in the thousands.
Even so, when Apple priced the mini it was at a point when the rest of their line-up was established at a given price point. That price point has shifted for Apple's laptops and if the iMac follows suit, I can't imagine that the mini can remain fundamentally unaltered.
There is nothing wrong with the price point the mini finds itself in. It's quite a reasonable cost considering it comes with a very good software package. But if the mini winds up costing roughly the same as an iMac, there is no excuse for delivering weaker performance to go along with no monitor or input devices. It doesn't add up.
If the iMac starts at 2.66 Ghz, why is the mini still running 2.00 Ghz in base form? Also, the compact form factor of the mini rules out a 7,200 RPM drive.
Seems to me that the mini, even if it had to be worked into a somewhat larger case, would be better positioned if it had comparable specs to the iMac, rather than a base MacBook. I wonder why Apple chooses not to go there.
This entire post is rather silly in nature. Matte screens have just as much glare as glossy screens. You just aren't very good at seeing it, because it's much more deceptive.
That statement could equally be classified as "silly" insofar as it essentially says this: "In the past, prior to glossy screens, when we all had matte LCD screens and hardly anyone spoke out negatively about glare (relative to the noticeably large number who speak out about it now), all computer users were deceived because glare really was there."
Although such a statement is factually correct about the fact that light is reflected even in matte screens, the very fact that it is diffused (and therefore less noticeable) in matte screens versus the hard edged glare in glossy screens is the very point that "we'd like a matte option" proponents advocate. And such is not more silly that wanting to take a photo of something with a lightbox (to get lovely diffused shadows) versus something shot under non-diffused light yielding hard edge shadows. Hard edge versus diffused is a big difference for some people.
Calling people who prefer glossy screens, "glare lovers" is derogatory and absurd. Are you, a "matte screen lover" a lover of poor blacks, low saturation, and less accurate color? No?
Calling me a "matte screen lover" is truly "derogatory and absurd" because it is evidence that you either did not read or read but did not fully comprehend my previous posts in this thread where I specifically talk about my love of the rich blacks, colors that "pop" (i.e., improved saturation), and sharper screen. (Indeed, you quoted one of the very posts where I spoke of my love for those aspects of gloss, whereupon you then surprisingly condemned me for "not" liking that.)
brucep fully understood what I wrote because he wrote back saying "If you had to re write your post in 25 lines would it still be clear to get you point across. The gist of your post I think is glossy is great but glare sucks." Bruce understood what I wrote.
So am I myself a "glare lover" since I have admitted that I like many aspects of glossy screens? Of course not. My remark was about those who for whatever reason look past or otherwise ignore the glare, and therefore are satisfied themselves, but then are quick to attack others who lack the same ability to ignore the hard edged glare. Not all glossy screen lovers are quick to condemn those who don't like glossy screens, and so my remarks are not directed at those open-minded and kind-hearted folk.
For this reason I do not have any desire to place a road block against my fellow Mac lovers who prefer matte screens. For I know that their pounding on Apple will never unseat glossy screens from the throne (as some glossy advocates fear). All these well-intention matte loving folks are asking for is a "choice." And I see nothing wrong with that. I myself love the good aspects of glossy, but not the hard edged glare (which I have written in detail about numerous times in this thread).
this argument can get to ridiculous heights.
It does when we do not fully read and/or digest what has been written. But I fully understand why that was likely so, as you have to moderate many forums and therefore cannot dwell too deeply on every single post in a long list of posts. So my intent in this post is certainly not to condemn you for not having fully read my prior comments, but rather to point out what you missed, which in turn led to your post against me. I also realize that you must have grown weary reading the debate on glossy/glare over time, and you therefore only skimmed my post and then were quick to stereotype me. But again, if you closely examine what I have written, you will see that I don't really fit into either of the "traditional" camps on the subject, as I like "good aspects" of glossy displays but hate the hard edged glare. (I suspect many others do to. They simply have not been so specific about this important point.)
And so, to say it yet again, despite my own love of the "good aspects" of glossy screens, I am certainly not out to condemn those who love matte screens, as stated in my previous posting. If they are asking for choice, why should I stand in their way? And if you have a reason we should stand in their way, then we must then question why Apple is also assisting these folks with a matte option on the 17" MacBook Pro.
No doubt some will still not fully comprehend what I have written. So I shall give up trying on the subject. I can only add that "hard edged glare" was not the lone topic I spoke about -- the uneven backlight is an issue as well.
Getting off this touchy subject of glare... I agree with what others have posted about upcoming iMac revisions. It would be nice to see a Quadcore iMac and more video options (if the associated heat issues can be properly handled). But since the title of the AppleInsider article, and this associated thread, is "More affordable iMacs..." I cannot help but wonder what it is that Apple will "sacrifice" in order to reduce costs. Will they truly give us "more" and "cut the price" at the same time?
Maybe that's the case in the US, but where I am in the UK the top end iMac with a dual core CPU, DVD drive and 4gb of RAM costs more than a quad core i7 Dell with a bluray burner and 8gb of RAM. The prices are laughably high.
Everything in the UK is high.
apple should offer matte as an option .
happy !!
That statement could equally be classified as "silly" insofar as it essentially says this: "In the past, prior to glossy screens, when we all had matte LCD screens and hardly anyone spoke out negatively about glare (relative to the noticeably large number who speak out about it now), all computer users were deceived because glare really was there."
Although such a statement is factually correct about the fact that light is reflected even in matte screens, the very fact that it is diffused (and therefore less noticeable) in matte screens versus the hard edged glare in glossy screens is the very point that "we'd like a matte option" proponents advocate. And such is not more silly that wanting to take a photo of something with a lightbox (to get lovely diffused shadows) versus something shot under non-diffused light yielding hard edge shadows. Hard edge versus diffused is a big difference for some people.
The very fact that it's diffused us what makes it such a problem to those who need a clear screen. It's nothing at all like taking a photograph with a diffusing light source vs a direct light source.
When you generate an image you can do whatever you like. When you have to view such a photo, you should have as little distortion on the screen as possible. Glossy screens give a more accurate view than do matte screens.
It's your contention that people who like glossy screens "like glare" - your words, is what made your post silly. That was a put-down right from the start. If you hadn't said that, neither would I. You can now say it was meant in jest, but it didn't read that way.
Calling me a "matte screen lover" is truly "derogatory and absurd" because it is evidence that you either did not read or read but did not fully comprehend my previous posts in this thread where I specifically talk about my love of the rich blacks, colors that "pop" (i.e., improved saturation), and sharper screen. (Indeed, you quoted one of the very posts where I spoke of my love for those aspects of gloss, whereupon you then surprisingly condemned me for "not" liking that.)
You obviously didn't "get" the fact that I was throwing the statement of yours that people who like glossy screens "like glare". I was trying to show you how silly that comment was. Apparently, you really didn't get it.
brucep fully understood what I wrote because he wrote back saying "If you had to re write your post in 25 lines would it still be clear to get you point across. The gist of your post I think is glossy is great but glare sucks." Bruce understood what I wrote.
I understand it very well.
So am I myself a "glare lover" since I have admitted that I like many aspects of glossy screens? Of course not. My remark was about those who for whatever reason look past or otherwise ignore the glare, and therefore are satisfied themselves, but then are quick to attack others who lack the same ability to ignore the hard edged glare. Not all glossy screen lovers are quick to condemn those who don't like glossy screens, and so my remarks are not directed at those open-minded and kind-hearted folk.
We've had many a discussion here about glossy vs matte screens.
I'm not condemning someone who likes matte screens better. It was just that comment that bothered me. It made the rest of your post seem surreal.
What we've seen in these discussions it that matte screen people won't grant that glossy screens are better under certain circumstances. They have often even stated that the deterioration of the image from matte screens is proper, and that the higher contrast, color saturation of glossy is "wrong" and "inferior". Why? Because they've never used glossy screens until now, and so think that matte must be "right".
For this reason I do not have any desire to place a road block against my fellow Mac lovers who prefer matte screens. For I know that their pounding on Apple will never unseat glossy screens from the throne (as some glossy advocates fear). All these well-intention matte loving folks are asking for is a "choice." And I see nothing wrong with that. I myself love the good aspects of glossy, but not the hard edged glare (which I have written in detail about numerous times in this thread).
I don't really care about what others want to use. I just don't like the impression that those who like glossy also like glare, as I've actually seen this silly statement before.
It does when we do not fully read and/or digest what has been written. But I fully understand why that was likely so, as you have to moderate many forums and therefore cannot dwell too deeply on every single post in a long list of posts. So my intent in this post is certainly not to condemn you for not having fully read my prior comments, but rather to point out what you missed, which in turn led to your post against me. I also realize that you must have grown weary reading the debate on glossy/glare over time, and you therefore only skimmed my post and then were quick to stereotype me. But again, if you closely examine what I have written, you will see that I don't really fit into either of the "traditional" camps on the subject, as I like "good aspects" of glossy displays but hate the hard edged glare. (I suspect many others do to. They simply have not been so specific about this important point.)
Again, it was your one statement in the beginning that so much annoyed me.
And so, to say it yet again, despite my own love of the "good aspects" of glossy screens, I am certainly not out to condemn those who love matte screens, as stated in my previous posting. If they are asking for choice, why should I stand in their way? And if you have a reason we should stand in their way, then we must then question why Apple is also assisting these folks with a matte option on the 17" MacBook Pro.
No doubt some will still not fully comprehend what I have written. So I shall give up trying on the subject. I can only add that "hard edged glare" was not the lone topic I spoke about -- the uneven backlight is an issue as well.
I understand what you've written, and I don't argue with it. If you just retract that one statement, all is well.
Everything in the UK is high.
No kidding!
I actually don't feel that the iMacs are overpriced for what you get. It's a very well-integrated all-in-one that offers most of the connectivity features that I think people look for. It's got 802.11n, Bluetooth, Firewire, USB, iSight, etc., which means you can pretty much set it up in any spot in the house and do what you need to do with it. Then add on the fact that you basically get a 20" or 24" LED-backlit screen with it (at least on the 24" you do), and it all fits inside a clean package that requires only a single cord (assuming you use a wireless keyboard/mouse).
Generally, I agree. My needs aren't tremendous and just about any of the iMacs would suit me nicely. That said, others here have made pretty solid arguments for refocusing the iMac line a bit, particularly creating a truly professionally-themed, high-end iMac Pro with a larger screen and more processor cores.
What I'm more concerned with is the fact that we are on the cusp of moving to Nehalem-based systems now. From what I've seen over at Anandtech and other sites, the new architecture offers a dramatic step in performance per watt, so I'm more excited to see when Apple begins shifting the rest of the lineup to Nehalem. With the Mac Pro already on that track, it's about time for the MacBooks, iMacs, and Mac mini to catch up. If Apple updates the iMacs this September/October with nothing more than a speed bump and reduced prices, I think I would still hold off. While it's true that there's always something better around the corner, it's not often that you get a full step-up in terms of architecture generation. Apple has been running the Core/Core 2 Duo architecture for a few years now, so I think I'll pull the trigger when we move to Nehalem irrespective of a price cut.
This really hits the nail on the head for me. Nehalem, as far as I can tell, is going to be a huge step up for the rest of Apple's computer lineup, particularly for the iMac. Hopefully Apple will spread Nehalem processors across all models by mid-2010.
It always seems bizarre to me that Apple updates their 'school' line (namely iMac's) in late September or October.
Where did you get this idea that iMacs are school computers? Apples school machines are it's portables. It is these that they updated massively a few weeks ago. Frankly a couple of the models are ideal student machines. Along with that they have a very heavy promotion going on.
To me, it seems to make more sense to do it late August/early September, you know, when people are buying things for school.
That is far to late. The problem is people often set goals for back to school. In otherwords I have to make xxxx dollars to pay for books, fees & other crap. In there someplace they will need to budget a computer. By august or September they are already in school or finalizing their summers last minute purchases are not wise when you are days away from an entirely different lifestyle.
All indications are that Apple has been doing really well with it's back to school program. Back to school isn't about clearing inventory or any other ill thought, it is a program to grab market share and mind set.
Dave
Dave
Agreed! I'm a bit upset at the timing. As my daughter is going to England for school, she'll need a new iMac 24" for her photographic studies. The new machines should be Nehalem based, with better graphics cards as well. I'd love to get one of those. but it seems that I'll likely have to get one of the current models at most a month before the new ones come out. Very frustrating! It wouldn't be a problem if she was going to school here, as she could continue using her current one in the beginning of the term. I'm not shipping her early 2008 model overseas.
Uh...ship her out with a mb or mini and have her visit the london apple store when the nahelem iMacs appear?
Or do this:
http://www.rentit.biz/specs/apple_imac_24_inch.htm
60 £ per week is kinda steep though for a couple months It's 900 £ for a year.
Heck, it's not like they wont have computers at school. Or ship her current mac out and she can ebay it when you ship the new one out. Heck, I bet she could sell it in England for more than the US anyway.
Frankly, the calibration matters more than either matte or glossy anyway for photo work.
Agreed! I'm a bit upset at the timing. As my daughter is going to England for school, she'll need a new iMac 24" for her photographic studies.
She may want one but needing one is a different story. Besides if she is really serious about photography what she really needs is a calibrated monitor of good reputation.
The new machines should be Nehalem based, with better graphics cards as well.
Well I hope so, at least in the sense of a Nehalem -derived- processor. Honestly though I'm not feeling real good about what Apple has up it's sleeve. We may get less than we are expecting.
I'd love to get one of those. but it seems that I'll likely have to get one of the current models at most a month before the new ones come out.
The power of negative thinking. Really you don't have to do anything, you could explore other options too.
Very frustrating! It wouldn't be a problem if she was going to school here, as she could continue using her current one in the beginning of the term. I'm not shipping her early 2008 model overseas.
I have to ask why not? She could use it for a few months as is or enhance it with a better monitor. By the way if you read this thread you might start to see that second monitor as a good idea. IMacs aren't exactly the best choice for a budding photographer.
Dave
Where did you get this idea that iMacs are school computers? Apples school machines are it's portables. It is these that they updated massively a few weeks ago. Frankly a couple of the models are ideal student machines. Along with that they have a very heavy promotion going on.
iMacs are very popular in schools. While portables may seem to be the exclusive school purchase, they aren't.