In all honesty, I have no idea. He's probably right. There weren't any BTKBs out when I had a look over the system.
Edit: is it even a button? it says no such thing on the website that I have been able to find. Perhaps it simply indicates that, hey, that power source is in here(?)
Just had some 1 on 1 time with both the new 24 inch Imac and the old one, side by side. And the new keyboard versus the old.
I was dubious as to how the design looked in the flesh so to speak, and how the glare affected me and my experience with them both. And I have to admit, side by side, the old Imac looked cheap compared to the new, given same surroundings and lighting. The black edge accentuates the glossy screen perfectly and frames the content on the screen immensely well. Movies especially were much better when viewed side by side, running simultaneously. Also general content popped out better on the new Imac, and my eyes focused on content easier. The glare was a nonissue despite having large windows behind the sitting position, I noticed it the first few minutes, then it vanished completely.
Screenspace and responsiveness was close to the same, with the new Imac being slightly faster opening programs, but nothing dramatic. The experience seemed better on the new Imac though, simply because my eyes focused easier on the screen with the black border compared to the white.
I loved the old Imac the second I laid my eyes on it, but am almost ashamed to say that the new makes the old look old... The design is good, and it is solid. However, the alu frame on the new one had gotten a slight nudge by something harder than aluminium, and that stood out like a beacon it. The white Imac hid small nicks easier, at least that was how it seemed to me when having the two side by side.
I didnt have time to load any games on it, unfortunately...
But design wise, the new Imac wins out.
The new keyboard was... amazing really. It is exactly how a keyboard should be really, and feel against your fingers. After a few strokes my fingers were more "sure" on their destination, than I normally am on the old keyboard. And my fingers didnt have to work the same amount as previously, which felt like a nice release. My typing speed actually increased, or it at least felt like it. The spaceing between the buttons is spot on, at least to my butterfigners, and responsiveness was even on all buttons and the flat surface was actually nice to touch compared to the "contoured" buttons on the normal keyboard.
All in all a very very surprising experience, and I am most definitely getting a 24 inch one of the comming days.
hmm, now i'm really looking forward to getting our new 20" - although our dealer is a tad slow and it might not arrive til the week after next -just when i head off to NZ...
The reasonable price you're talking about for a 20" iMac has just now risen to at least $2,000.
Is that ok with you?
My point is: Give me a choice. Make a Core 2 Quad model with a Blue-Ray drive for customers who want power (as gamers and scientists who use math or biology programs). Make a Core 2 Duo model with a Superdrive for customers who want a cheaper home or office computer.
At present, Apple doesn't manufacture a competitively priced, no frills, no remote control, office computer for doing the basic word processing, accounting, emails and web surfing (during office hours, on employer's time!).
Apple can't rebuild its market share (35% U.S. market share in the 1987-1990 period) unless it is willing to address every segment of the market and sell its computers for a competitive price (by reducing its fat 36% profit margin and cutting corporate perks to Steve Jobs and friends).
Concerning the iMac price, have a look at a back to school flyer from an office and electronics store in your neighbourhood. In the U.S., there is CompUSA, Best Buy, Circuit City or Wal-Mart. In Canada, there is Staples or Business Depot.
While I'm not familiar with CPU model numbers and CPU speeds for AMD, or the exact speed of Intel CPU numbers, I find these back to school Windows Vista Home Premium computers tempting and so much cheaper than an iMac, MacBook or MacBook Pro.
I'm sure that I'm not the only one watching prices and looking for a good deal. I can only imagine what families and cash strapped students do.
Mac OS X Leopard is not ready yet. Let's hope that my comments, and comments from other potential customers, will help Apple to get its act together and really compete in the market place. I can wait a little bit longer, but in the end, I won't fall for good looks alone, unless there are also brains or CPU to match!
I suspect that none of you who are trashing the new iMac have actually seen one. Do yourself a favor and visit your nearest Apple Store (and soon to be Best Buy) and spend a little time with it. It is a thing of beauty that can't be adequately captured in photos. And the touch and feel of the keyboard just might pleasantly surprise you.
Yeah--you can complain about the specs--but if you are more demanding than the packages they have put together... guess what? You are not their target market. I agree with the analysts that Apple will sell 2 million by end of September.
No one is disputing the beauty of the iMac. I'm just questioning its features.
Maybe Apple will sell 2 million computers by the end of September. But, if it had its act together, Apple would sell as many computers as HP or Dell, possibly 10 million Macs per quarter.
Hopefully, my comments and other comments will show Apple that it takes more than good looks to fool consumers. Apple must offer for sale the same computers as its competitors, with the same features, at the same price, or face lackluster sales.
At present, Apple doesn't manufacture a competitively priced, no frills, no remote control, office computer for doing the basic word processing, accounting, emails and web surfing (during office hours, on employer's time!).
Because they have absolutely no interest in doing so. I repeat: absolutely no interest.
Apple is not a company that is okay with selling cheap shit boxes so drones can sit in the cubicles and pound away at boring repetitive tasks all day long. They want to make people MORE productive than that, and they also want people to have fun while doing it.
They simply refuse to cater to the lowest common denominator of computer use. Why shouldn't they? Seems to me that they're doing pretty well as a company these days, with a market share still well under 10%.
Teach a man to fish, or give him your fish? Apple likes to teach...
Maybe Apple will sell 2 million computers by the end of September. But, if it had its act together, Apple would sell as many computers as HP or Dell, possibly 10 million Macs per quarter.
I find it puzzling that in that statements, of the three names you listed, you believe Apple to be the one that doesn't have it's act together.
What you honestly can't comprehend, and I understand because very few businesses behave like this, is that Apple would rather sell 1.7 million Macs "the right way" than 10 million Macs the way HP and Dell do.
Hopefully, my comments and other comments will show Apple that it takes more than good looks to fool consumers. Apple must offer for sale the same computers as its competitors, with the same features, at the same price, or face lackluster sales.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
There's some stuff in our industry that we wouldn't be proud to ship. And we just can't do it. We can't ship junk. There are thresholds we can't cross because of who we are.
--Steve Jobs
BTW, this quote is referenced in a nice article over at Ars by John Siracusa, laying out the reason Apple's products always look and feel so different from other PC manufacturers: they design for the end user, PC makers design for IT. And the further you get away from being the actual person using the machine, the less likely you are to worry about "the user experience":
Quote:
Sure, home users are more willing to pay extra for fashion and reputation, and even the wallets of creative professionals fall open a bit wider in service of style. But the biggest difference is more fundamental. In the enterprise market, you must sell to the business as an entity, usually through an IT department whose job it is to manage technology products and services that are actually used by everyone else in the company. In the home market, you sell to the end user.
I think he's on to something. He notes how no one else was going to make anything like the iPhone, because other "smart" phones start out as corporate tools that are beholden to corporate rules, then trickle down as slightly jazzed up, media-fied versions of that (ala the Blackberry Curve).
Quote:
The "dream phone" for the enterprise looks quite different than the iPhone. It works with the corporate VPN. It does Exchange. It supports device-wide encryption and remote deletion of data on lost devices. It's available in several compatible forms from multiple manufacturers. It has a well-defined public roadmap for hardware and software. It can be backed up and restored en masse, preferably over the network. If it has a camera, it can be disabled. The battery can be removed and replaced. And on and on.
Maybe around item two hundred in this list there might be a bit about the people who will actually use these enterprise dream phones tolerating the things. Really, as long as they don't openly revolt, it's fine. The people you have to please in the enterprise market are the ones purchasing and supporting the products, not the poor schmucks who actually have to use them.
These aren't the features consumers want, these are the features you want. And if you expect some of what you're asking for in a sub-$2000 price range, you're nuts.
I realize that most of the features that I want will have to wait for Leopard to come out or Spring 2008 to arrive. Hopefully, Apple will find some good ideas in the features I wish to see on a family iMac.
I've read that some Blue-Ray drives can be had for $299. With OEM much lower prices for millions of Blue-Ray drives each quarter, I was hoping that the time was right to introduce them to the general public. If I am too early, let's hope that 6 months will make a world of difference.
In the space of 10 years, Steve Jobs and his "puppet directors" took Apple from "Apple is dying" to "Holy crap! The sky's the limit for Apple!" If that's mismanagement, then I hate to think what you expect from well-managed companies.
Seriously, Apple's gone from hemorrhaging money and having no realistic next-gen plan to massive profits and being widely recognized as a pioneer. If you told someone in 1997 that Apple would be worth what it's worth now, they'd say you're nuts.
As for Steve Jobs' 10 year tenure as Apple CEO, he has given Apple everything that he could give it (and more so, because he has only a high school education and a blue collar family background). Staying on will only stall the company and induce talented administrators to leave.
There is a reason why an American president must leave after 2 consecutive terms of 4 years each. In France, it's now 2 consecutive terms of 5 years each. In Canada, top civil servants are appointed by the federal government for a 10 year term (after which they can be appointed to a new position in a different department or service).
Every CEO and every board member must decide upon his appointment whether he intends to serve the company or to serve himself. When they languish around for too long, they end up serving themselves instead of serving the company, its stockholders, customers and employees.
The $650 million stock option plan for Steve Jobs in 2006 is one example of corporate abuse. Another example is paying an $83 million bonus to 4 Apple vice-presidents for the year 2006. Not only did Steve Jobs buy their obedience, he probably bought their silence in the SEC criminal investigation of the illegal, fraudulent, backdated $650 million Steve Jobs stock option plan, making him the highest paid CEO on the planet for 2006.
To be clear, the Apple CEO and 4 VP didn't deserve a dollar more than a combined bonus of $20 millions for the year 2006. The difference, $730 millions, should be paid back to Apple and some of it paid as a special dividend to stockholders who are the real owners of the company.
No one is disputing the beauty of the iMac. I'm just questioning its features.
Maybe Apple will sell 2 million computers by the end of September. But, if it had its act together, Apple would sell as many computers as HP or Dell, possibly 10 million Macs per quarter.
Hopefully, my comments and other comments will show Apple that it takes more than good looks to fool consumers. Apple must offer for sale the same computers as its competitors, with the same features, at the same price, or face lackluster sales.
Features, price... I guess that's why my local shop has sold out already.
Did it ever cross your mind that Apple is content selling 2 mill as opposed to 10?
I liked them very much. I do not quite know what the major hang up is with the black border. Like CPE said, it seems to bring out whats on the screen. Glare did not seem to be much of a problem really. Whats on the screen really seems to just jump out at you. I like it. The 24" seemed brighter for sure and I think thats the one I will be getting very soon.
THe keyboard is awesome. The wife has a Macbook so I have gotten rather familiar with the feel. Does not take up a ton of deskspace yet its very functional. I think people have to give it a test drive before giving it their verdict.
The aluminum is awesome. Frankly, I am getting a bit tired of white on Apples products. Its almost like the new beige. You have the iPod shuffles, the nano, Apple TV, the Mac mini, the Mac Pro, the Macbook Pro, and now the iMAc clad in aluminum. That only leaves the Macbook and video iPod that is not. I see the video iPod going the aluminum treatment as well. The Macbook probably will be the only product that does not.
For the people that are checking out iMacs and concluding that "glare doesn't seem to be much of a problem": are you shopping at semi-darkened Apple Stores or Best Buys?
First, it's not "glare" it's "reflections", as in "mirror like".
At the Apple Store in Emeryville, CA, I can tell you without a doubt that the iMacs on display reflect a great deal of what's behind them, and it's incredibly distracting.
And the Apple Store isn't lit up like a christmas tree, or anything, it's lit like a great many office spaces I have been in-- incandescent track light up high and various point sources around the room, semi-obscured windows onto the street.
As for the home, I think it's puzzling that so many posters brush aside concerns by saying that at home you have the luxury of setting everything up however you want so you can control reflections.
Really? The expectation is that when I bring my new computer home, I move my desk or get heavier curtains or always turn out all the lights?
Sorry, I just can't see how anyone can look at that extremely reflective screen and not think it's any kind of problem. I really, really hope Apple or a third party offers some kind of solution.
As it stands, I wonder if these iMacs are going to take a toll on small to medium business sales. Certainly, if I were looking to equip an office I would have some real trepidation that my normal, bright office space lighting would render these Macs harder to use for my employees.
Look, I know some people really like the glossy screen and the enhanced contrast and punchier color rendering. And some people don't mind some reflections, or really can situate their computer so as to minimize them, or prefer to do their computing in the dark.
But look at it this way-- how many people were going to take a pass on the new iMac if it didn't have a glossy screen? And how many people are going to take a pass on the new iMac because it does? Judging from the people I talked with while at the Apple Store, a whole lot more of the latter than former.
So why can't we have a choice, like we do with the MacBook Pros?
I'm trying real hard not to start to suspect that Apple's design decisions are increasingly about attracting switchers.
As for the home, I think it's puzzling that so many posters brush aside concerns by saying that at home you have the luxury of setting everything up however you want so you can control reflections.
Really? The expectation is that when I bring my new computer home, I move my desk or get heavier curtains or always turn out all the lights?
.
This is what I do with my HDTV. Blinds are on the windows that can reflect light onto the screen. When needed we close the blinds if the refection is too much. I don't think that home computer set up should be any different. You take these things into consideration IMO.
I will agree that they probably should have given consumers a choice on the screen type though as some certainly do not like glossy screens.
Comments
Keyboard
Mac.
The keyboard is switched on automatically from the moment you start typing.
Um, ok...
Um, ok...
LOL
In all honesty, I have no idea. He's probably right. There weren't any BTKBs out when I had a look over the system.
Edit: is it even a button? it says no such thing on the website that I have been able to find. Perhaps it simply indicates that, hey, that power source is in here(?)
I was dubious as to how the design looked in the flesh so to speak, and how the glare affected me and my experience with them both. And I have to admit, side by side, the old Imac looked cheap compared to the new, given same surroundings and lighting. The black edge accentuates the glossy screen perfectly and frames the content on the screen immensely well. Movies especially were much better when viewed side by side, running simultaneously. Also general content popped out better on the new Imac, and my eyes focused on content easier. The glare was a nonissue despite having large windows behind the sitting position, I noticed it the first few minutes, then it vanished completely.
Screenspace and responsiveness was close to the same, with the new Imac being slightly faster opening programs, but nothing dramatic. The experience seemed better on the new Imac though, simply because my eyes focused easier on the screen with the black border compared to the white.
I loved the old Imac the second I laid my eyes on it, but am almost ashamed to say that the new makes the old look old... The design is good, and it is solid. However, the alu frame on the new one had gotten a slight nudge by something harder than aluminium, and that stood out like a beacon it. The white Imac hid small nicks easier, at least that was how it seemed to me when having the two side by side.
I didnt have time to load any games on it, unfortunately...
But design wise, the new Imac wins out.
The new keyboard was... amazing really. It is exactly how a keyboard should be really, and feel against your fingers. After a few strokes my fingers were more "sure" on their destination, than I normally am on the old keyboard. And my fingers didnt have to work the same amount as previously, which felt like a nice release. My typing speed actually increased, or it at least felt like it. The spaceing between the buttons is spot on, at least to my butterfigners, and responsiveness was even on all buttons and the flat surface was actually nice to touch compared to the "contoured" buttons on the normal keyboard.
All in all a very very surprising experience, and I am most definitely getting a 24 inch one of the comming days.
hmm, now i'm really looking forward to getting our new 20" - although our dealer is a tad slow and it might not arrive til the week after next -just when i head off to NZ...
The reasonable price you're talking about for a 20" iMac has just now risen to at least $2,000.
Is that ok with you?
My point is: Give me a choice. Make a Core 2 Quad model with a Blue-Ray drive for customers who want power (as gamers and scientists who use math or biology programs). Make a Core 2 Duo model with a Superdrive for customers who want a cheaper home or office computer.
At present, Apple doesn't manufacture a competitively priced, no frills, no remote control, office computer for doing the basic word processing, accounting, emails and web surfing (during office hours, on employer's time!).
Apple can't rebuild its market share (35% U.S. market share in the 1987-1990 period) unless it is willing to address every segment of the market and sell its computers for a competitive price (by reducing its fat 36% profit margin and cutting corporate perks to Steve Jobs and friends).
Concerning the iMac price, have a look at a back to school flyer from an office and electronics store in your neighbourhood. In the U.S., there is CompUSA, Best Buy, Circuit City or Wal-Mart. In Canada, there is Staples or Business Depot.
While I'm not familiar with CPU model numbers and CPU speeds for AMD, or the exact speed of Intel CPU numbers, I find these back to school Windows Vista Home Premium computers tempting and so much cheaper than an iMac, MacBook or MacBook Pro.
I'm sure that I'm not the only one watching prices and looking for a good deal. I can only imagine what families and cash strapped students do.
Mac OS X Leopard is not ready yet. Let's hope that my comments, and comments from other potential customers, will help Apple to get its act together and really compete in the market place. I can wait a little bit longer, but in the end, I won't fall for good looks alone, unless there are also brains or CPU to match!
I suspect that none of you who are trashing the new iMac have actually seen one. Do yourself a favor and visit your nearest Apple Store (and soon to be Best Buy) and spend a little time with it. It is a thing of beauty that can't be adequately captured in photos. And the touch and feel of the keyboard just might pleasantly surprise you.
Yeah--you can complain about the specs--but if you are more demanding than the packages they have put together... guess what? You are not their target market. I agree with the analysts that Apple will sell 2 million by end of September.
No one is disputing the beauty of the iMac. I'm just questioning its features.
Maybe Apple will sell 2 million computers by the end of September. But, if it had its act together, Apple would sell as many computers as HP or Dell, possibly 10 million Macs per quarter.
Hopefully, my comments and other comments will show Apple that it takes more than good looks to fool consumers. Apple must offer for sale the same computers as its competitors, with the same features, at the same price, or face lackluster sales.
At present, Apple doesn't manufacture a competitively priced, no frills, no remote control, office computer for doing the basic word processing, accounting, emails and web surfing (during office hours, on employer's time!).
Because they have absolutely no interest in doing so. I repeat: absolutely no interest.
Apple is not a company that is okay with selling cheap shit boxes so drones can sit in the cubicles and pound away at boring repetitive tasks all day long. They want to make people MORE productive than that, and they also want people to have fun while doing it.
They simply refuse to cater to the lowest common denominator of computer use. Why shouldn't they? Seems to me that they're doing pretty well as a company these days, with a market share still well under 10%.
Teach a man to fish, or give him your fish? Apple likes to teach...
for better performance, we need identical RAM speed and size? paired?
Maybe Apple will sell 2 million computers by the end of September. But, if it had its act together, Apple would sell as many computers as HP or Dell, possibly 10 million Macs per quarter.
I find it puzzling that in that statements, of the three names you listed, you believe Apple to be the one that doesn't have it's act together.
What you honestly can't comprehend, and I understand because very few businesses behave like this, is that Apple would rather sell 1.7 million Macs "the right way" than 10 million Macs the way HP and Dell do.
Hopefully, my comments and other comments will show Apple that it takes more than good looks to fool consumers. Apple must offer for sale the same computers as its competitors, with the same features, at the same price, or face lackluster sales.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
There's some stuff in our industry that we wouldn't be proud to ship. And we just can't do it. We can't ship junk. There are thresholds we can't cross because of who we are.
--Steve Jobs
BTW, this quote is referenced in a nice article over at Ars by John Siracusa, laying out the reason Apple's products always look and feel so different from other PC manufacturers: they design for the end user, PC makers design for IT. And the further you get away from being the actual person using the machine, the less likely you are to worry about "the user experience":
Sure, home users are more willing to pay extra for fashion and reputation, and even the wallets of creative professionals fall open a bit wider in service of style. But the biggest difference is more fundamental. In the enterprise market, you must sell to the business as an entity, usually through an IT department whose job it is to manage technology products and services that are actually used by everyone else in the company. In the home market, you sell to the end user.
I think he's on to something. He notes how no one else was going to make anything like the iPhone, because other "smart" phones start out as corporate tools that are beholden to corporate rules, then trickle down as slightly jazzed up, media-fied versions of that (ala the Blackberry Curve).
The "dream phone" for the enterprise looks quite different than the iPhone. It works with the corporate VPN. It does Exchange. It supports device-wide encryption and remote deletion of data on lost devices. It's available in several compatible forms from multiple manufacturers. It has a well-defined public roadmap for hardware and software. It can be backed up and restored en masse, preferably over the network. If it has a camera, it can be disabled. The battery can be removed and replaced. And on and on.
Maybe around item two hundred in this list there might be a bit about the people who will actually use these enterprise dream phones tolerating the things. Really, as long as they don't openly revolt, it's fine. The people you have to please in the enterprise market are the ones purchasing and supporting the products, not the poor schmucks who actually have to use them.
Worth a read.
These aren't the features consumers want, these are the features you want. And if you expect some of what you're asking for in a sub-$2000 price range, you're nuts.
I realize that most of the features that I want will have to wait for Leopard to come out or Spring 2008 to arrive. Hopefully, Apple will find some good ideas in the features I wish to see on a family iMac.
I've read that some Blue-Ray drives can be had for $299. With OEM much lower prices for millions of Blue-Ray drives each quarter, I was hoping that the time was right to introduce them to the general public. If I am too early, let's hope that 6 months will make a world of difference.
In the space of 10 years, Steve Jobs and his "puppet directors" took Apple from "Apple is dying" to "Holy crap! The sky's the limit for Apple!" If that's mismanagement, then I hate to think what you expect from well-managed companies.
Seriously, Apple's gone from hemorrhaging money and having no realistic next-gen plan to massive profits and being widely recognized as a pioneer. If you told someone in 1997 that Apple would be worth what it's worth now, they'd say you're nuts.
As for Steve Jobs' 10 year tenure as Apple CEO, he has given Apple everything that he could give it (and more so, because he has only a high school education and a blue collar family background). Staying on will only stall the company and induce talented administrators to leave.
There is a reason why an American president must leave after 2 consecutive terms of 4 years each. In France, it's now 2 consecutive terms of 5 years each. In Canada, top civil servants are appointed by the federal government for a 10 year term (after which they can be appointed to a new position in a different department or service).
Every CEO and every board member must decide upon his appointment whether he intends to serve the company or to serve himself. When they languish around for too long, they end up serving themselves instead of serving the company, its stockholders, customers and employees.
The $650 million stock option plan for Steve Jobs in 2006 is one example of corporate abuse. Another example is paying an $83 million bonus to 4 Apple vice-presidents for the year 2006. Not only did Steve Jobs buy their obedience, he probably bought their silence in the SEC criminal investigation of the illegal, fraudulent, backdated $650 million Steve Jobs stock option plan, making him the highest paid CEO on the planet for 2006.
To be clear, the Apple CEO and 4 VP didn't deserve a dollar more than a combined bonus of $20 millions for the year 2006. The difference, $730 millions, should be paid back to Apple and some of it paid as a special dividend to stockholders who are the real owners of the company.
No one is disputing the beauty of the iMac. I'm just questioning its features.
Maybe Apple will sell 2 million computers by the end of September. But, if it had its act together, Apple would sell as many computers as HP or Dell, possibly 10 million Macs per quarter.
Hopefully, my comments and other comments will show Apple that it takes more than good looks to fool consumers. Apple must offer for sale the same computers as its competitors, with the same features, at the same price, or face lackluster sales.
Features, price... I guess that's why my local shop has sold out already.
Did it ever cross your mind that Apple is content selling 2 mill as opposed to 10?
I liked them very much. I do not quite know what the major hang up is with the black border. Like CPE said, it seems to bring out whats on the screen. Glare did not seem to be much of a problem really. Whats on the screen really seems to just jump out at you. I like it. The 24" seemed brighter for sure and I think thats the one I will be getting very soon.
THe keyboard is awesome. The wife has a Macbook so I have gotten rather familiar with the feel. Does not take up a ton of deskspace yet its very functional. I think people have to give it a test drive before giving it their verdict.
The aluminum is awesome. Frankly, I am getting a bit tired of white on Apples products. Its almost like the new beige. You have the iPod shuffles, the nano, Apple TV, the Mac mini, the Mac Pro, the Macbook Pro, and now the iMAc clad in aluminum. That only leaves the Macbook and video iPod that is not. I see the video iPod going the aluminum treatment as well. The Macbook probably will be the only product that does not.
The Macbook probably will be the only product that does not.
Unless they offer them in anodized colors.
First, it's not "glare" it's "reflections", as in "mirror like".
At the Apple Store in Emeryville, CA, I can tell you without a doubt that the iMacs on display reflect a great deal of what's behind them, and it's incredibly distracting.
And the Apple Store isn't lit up like a christmas tree, or anything, it's lit like a great many office spaces I have been in-- incandescent track light up high and various point sources around the room, semi-obscured windows onto the street.
As for the home, I think it's puzzling that so many posters brush aside concerns by saying that at home you have the luxury of setting everything up however you want so you can control reflections.
Really? The expectation is that when I bring my new computer home, I move my desk or get heavier curtains or always turn out all the lights?
Sorry, I just can't see how anyone can look at that extremely reflective screen and not think it's any kind of problem. I really, really hope Apple or a third party offers some kind of solution.
As it stands, I wonder if these iMacs are going to take a toll on small to medium business sales. Certainly, if I were looking to equip an office I would have some real trepidation that my normal, bright office space lighting would render these Macs harder to use for my employees.
Look, I know some people really like the glossy screen and the enhanced contrast and punchier color rendering. And some people don't mind some reflections, or really can situate their computer so as to minimize them, or prefer to do their computing in the dark.
But look at it this way-- how many people were going to take a pass on the new iMac if it didn't have a glossy screen? And how many people are going to take a pass on the new iMac because it does? Judging from the people I talked with while at the Apple Store, a whole lot more of the latter than former.
So why can't we have a choice, like we do with the MacBook Pros?
I'm trying real hard not to start to suspect that Apple's design decisions are increasingly about attracting switchers.
As for the home, I think it's puzzling that so many posters brush aside concerns by saying that at home you have the luxury of setting everything up however you want so you can control reflections.
Really? The expectation is that when I bring my new computer home, I move my desk or get heavier curtains or always turn out all the lights?
.
This is what I do with my HDTV. Blinds are on the windows that can reflect light onto the screen. When needed we close the blinds if the refection is too much. I don't think that home computer set up should be any different. You take these things into consideration IMO.
I will agree that they probably should have given consumers a choice on the screen type though as some certainly do not like glossy screens.