it seems now possible to eventually connect a wii to the imac from the display port.
Is this true? On the 27" model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KM37
So with that in mind, should I be concerned between ATI 4670 or ATI 4850 for the graphic card, i mean, i might be a computer illiterate...but does the graphic card kick in for the smoothness and quality of the movies/outside source games?
I'd be interested to hear more on this. Do you think the Wii will run smoothly if I play it on one of the new 27" iMacs?
I'm starting to wonder if blu ray is even going to survive in the long run. I was reading today that overall DVD sales including Blu ray dropped 13.9%. They dropped another 13.5% the first six months of 2009. This happening while digital distribution keeps rising.
Everyone thought when HD-DVD died Blu Ray would jump and it hasn't, in fact numbers keep falling. Most people don't seem interested.
B-R will be fine once the prices of movies drop, more classics get transferred to the format (STILL no Finding Nemo or The Incredibles!!!!). Eventually, DVD will be phased out like VHS, but we are still years away from this happening.
That's because the industry is very protective and selective about the information that they release. The last comprehensive report I've seen that had a full disclosure breakdown of revenues by format came out more than two years ago, and it was something that Sony paid for.
The revenues from Blockbuster and Netflix are counted as rentals. Sales revenues only account for sell-through by end users.
It matters if you want a true apples-to-apples comparison. Just comparing Blu-ray to digital distribution is hardly that. If you want an apples-to-apples comparison, then you need to either compare all optical media vs digital distribution, or compare only Blu-ray vs HD digital distribution.
Like I said, optical formats are not exciting to tech writers. They're pining away for the digital/networked living room, and yet another optical disc format is not part of that world order. Article after article that I've read from PC World, CNET, Engadget, and other sites throw out one negative article after another about how Blu-ray's dying or Blu-ray's not going to make it past the next year or Blu-ray's no better than DVD, etc. Much of it presents little to no evidence, other than the writer's all-too-apparent biases towards streaming/downloading. And considering that these guys are tech writers, the articles also frequently display a surprising lack of knowledge about digital video in general (i.e., the errant claims of unconverted DVD being the same resolution as Blu-ray, not knowing that ANY 1080p HDTV will upconvert a 480p DVD signal to 1080p, etc.). They might know their way around computers, but their appreciation for consumer electronics is often lacking.
But, look at what happened (or hasn't happened) on the audio side. Despite every publication out there having already written the CD format's obituary and despite the iTunes Music Store having been online for more than six years already (the amount of time it took for the DVD to overtake VHS), the CD format still has a 65% market share. Downloading has been hyped to no end by the tech press and mainstream press alike, yet the supposedly dead CD format is still very much alive.
This is the same tunnel visioned view of the world that the tech press has -- that market trends and consumer behavior patterns do not matter because we're talking about digital tech. Indeed, digital technology is a big part of our everyday lives, but its adoption and integration into an average household is an evolutionary process that takes years. Whether a consumer electronics format is digital or analog, it doesn't matter. Consumers do not make lifestyle changes or fundamentally shift their spending habits overnight. They do not adopt new technologies just because the tech press is enamored with it and makes wild predictions about it (most of them are wrong anyway -- witness the hype that accompanied the dotcom boom/bust a decade ago).
Consider that 40% of U.S. households do not currently have broadband. That part of the market is already excluded from this digital future.
The fact of the matter is that Blu-ray's growth trajectory is not that far behind the DVD at a comparable juncture. This is not bad considering that HDTV penetration remains just under 50%.
When you look at the growth of downloads and other online media, you need to consider what the actual competition is. I don't see Blu-ray and online media as inherently competing for the same market. Downloads and online media are primarily replacements and/or enhancements to PPV, movie rentals, and recorded TV programming. Who does this affect directly? It affects Blockbuster, the satellite and cable companies, Netflix (though they do their own streaming), and it reduces time spent with DVR recordings. Sell-through disc media is affected to some degree, but it's not a direct competitor like those other options.
And if you choose to compare disc media with digital distribution, it's not even close right now. The type of market shift needed for digital distribution to overtake disc media takes years, and I don't see anything in the market trends that would indicate this happening soon. We're talking about shifting of billions of dollars, and anyone who does consumer expenditure research will tell you that it does not happen overnight. Just because digital technology enables a market change to happen quickly, does not mean that consumers will behave accordingly. Overestimation of how much technological change consumers will tolerate in a short-time is what doomed most of the dotcoms, and anyone who bets on downloads and streaming taking over TV and movie viewing in short order will probably face a similarly rude awakening.
Apple are making good profits. But they're clearly ripping off the customer on components that can be had in PCs that are far cheaper. I would have thought the i5s would have been as cheap as the 3 gig core duos?
Shrugs.
Still got a boner for the i7 BTO 27 inch iMac. But don't worry, I'll put some ice on it...
Lemon Bon Bon.
The i5 is significantly less expensive than the mobile 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo. You can buy two i5's for the price of one Core 2 and still have money left over.
As I said earlier, the quad core machines have a $300 cash grab built into the price.
For the first time ever I'm interested in getting an iMac (i7 27" of course), but the glossy display and the quad core tax are really annoying.
I think I'll wait until next year when the i5 is standard on the lowest priced unit.
Or the PS3 or the Xbox or Popcorn Hour or Vudu or TiVo or any of the other media appliances on the market today. The tide is coming in. Connecting your living room to the internet is coming in strong and nothing is going to stop that from dominating the market.
How many BR discs do they own, or how many hours of BR media have they watched that it could really trump the amount of digital downloads, on-demans and streaming media they?ve watched over the years. I know I watch several hours of Hulu a week and I have been watching cable on-demand for many years before Blu-ray came out. That seems unlikely to me.
I watch a movie or two on Blu-ray a month. That doesn?t come close to the number of hours of ad supported, streaming content I watch per week.
Can't play downloaded movies from iTunes except on Apple media appliances. Amazon movies won't play on the AppleTV. Unless I play it on the computer, it is really is just a bag of hurt.
And wouldn't it be more fair to compare HD digital downloads to BR?
DRM in blu-ray doesn't effect anyone, there is just as much DRM in the Apple movie downloads.
Sure it does, if it's tied to hardware/firmware.
Say someone stole the keys to your unique hardware and copied them, Sony find out that ten zillion copies of the phony keys are being used to pirate content from BluRay disks. They send out a brick command in their firmware update that disables the keys and your machine in the process.
This is what people are suspecting what happened with the PS3, because the hardware is the same and the firmware should be the same, so what is bricking some machines and not others?
Imagine this happening to Macs?
Perhaps this problem happened at the right time for Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
And the CD thing was by SonyBMG, not Sony.
And get it through your head that Blu-Ray isn't a Sony technology, there are a lot of companies involved, Sony is just one of them
And like they are not all working together on the same standards?
Sony bought BMG.
I'm with Steve Jobs that BluRay is a bag of hurt. I agree with him.
Out with this mechanical and get high capacity SD cards instead. Easier to change the DRM without bricking the drive too.
Wrong. The screen IS glossy. Just like in the MBP's was, and is. Apple themselves said, when they offered the new matte option, that the only difference between the model with the glass and the one without it was that they replaced the glossy panel with the same panel that had a matte surface, and eliminated the glass.
I'm not sure if I'm missing something or if I read something out of context, but if you were referring to the screen of the iMac beneath the glossy outer cover, it is in fact matte. I just upgraded the HDD in my late '07 24" iMac and once you remove the glossy outer screen, the surface of the monitor itself is matte. If that's not what you were saying was glossy, then disregard my post. Also, I can't vouch for what the current or new models are using, but the aluminum iMacs, like mine, had matte inner screens.
I'm not sure if I'm missing something or if I read something out of context, but if you were referring to the screen of the iMac beneath the glossy outer cover, it is in fact matte. I just upgraded the HDD in my late '07 24" iMac and once you remove the glossy outer screen, the surface of the monitor itself is matte. If that's not what you were saying was glossy, then disregard my post. Also, I can't vouch for what the current or new models are using, but the aluminum iMacs, like mine, had matte inner screens.
That's the thing I never understood about the glass faced computers. Doesn't this make it the worst of both worlds?
...Be happy that you don't have vision or perceptual problems, where a big glossy screen gives you headaches after 30 minutes.
Many people also prefer to not live or work in a cave.
Amen to that.
I actually believe the glossy CRT screens of old contributed to my present failing eyesight.
Because one's eyes are constantly refocusing many times a second, reflections are so slightly out of focus that the eye works overtime trying to adjust focus.
This is what could be causing the eyestrain and the headaches.
The only way to stop is to not use the machines causing the problem or attach a anti-glare/reflection screen or hood. Which can be impractical for laptops or just plain ugly on nice hardware.
The years of eyestrain because I was young and ignorant most likely lead to a premature failing of the eye muscles and poor vision I have now in mid life.
My father used CRT computers from day one and still uses them today, he wears glasses that are almost one inch thick now. Bugeyes we call him. But my grandparents who never used a computer or even a TV for that matter never needed glasses at all.
I'm sorry but we have to live in the present. The new iMacs are awesome without Blu-ray, but they would be even better with the option. What do SD cards have to do with Blu-ray? Last I checked a DVD superdrive was occupying the slot where the Blu-ray drive would go. SD and Blu-ray could coexist on the same computer. Similarly, streaming and optical media will continue to coexist for the foreseeable future.
Apple will remove the Superdrive eventually leaving only SD as a removable media (e.g. the high-end Mini). That's what it has to do with Blu-ray - in other words Blu-ray will never come to the Mac platform.
Netflix type downloads are the present - maybe not HD. I used them as an example. All the networks have content downloads. Internet downloads of movie and TV are today and around the world.
So, all I'll need (to play Wii on the 27" iMac) is an adaptor? A, err, component to, err, to display port adaptor??
No resolution/picture stretching problems?
Will it run smoothly?
Thanks! You know, I'm almost ready to part with my money!
I?d wait for some testing and reviews of the DP input, first. With the Wii only have component out you need a component to VGA adapter and then the correct male/female VGA adapter to mini-DisplayPort. Not that expensive on monoprice, but it will require an extra adapter to go to analong according to the DP Wiki page.
That's the thing I never understood about the glass faced computers. Doesn't this make it the worst of both worlds?
The glossy screen was never a problem for me. There appears to be no degradation of the image (except for the potential for reflections and that's not a problem for me **no, I don't use it in a cave**). If anything, I have more of an issue with my iMac's screen being too bright. I typically have it set to the 3-4 lowest settings. Interestingly, I have a 20" cinema display hooked up as a 2nd monitor right next to my iMac and there are things that look better on the iMac's screen. Other things, however, look better on the cinema display.
I?d wait for some testing and reviews of the DP input, first. With the Wii only have component out you need a component to VGA adapter and then the correct male/female VGA adapter to mini-DisplayPort. Not that expensive on monoprice, but it will require an extra adapter to go to analong according to the DP Wiki page.
Ah, still sounds a bit complicated. Possibilities, though.
Thanks very much for taking the time to share your knowledge with me - much appreciated.
The glossy screen was never a problem for me. There appears to be no degradation of the image (except for the potential for reflections and that's not a problem for me **no, I don't use it in a cave**). If anything, I have more of an issue with my iMac's screen being too bright. I typically have it set to the 3-4 lowest settings. Interestingly, I have a 20" cinema display hooked up as a 2nd monitor right next to my iMac and there are things that look better on the iMac's screen. Other things, however, look better on the cinema display.
The part that bewildered me was the fact that there is a matte surface behind a glossy screen. So you should be seeing the speculative glare as well as the diffuse glare. Maybe our brains just learn to ignore the diffuse panel glare when you have the specular glare.
Same feeling with me. As long as the screen is gloss I am staying away no matter how gorrrgeous the macs are. This is paving for larger than 30" cinema displays next year. Hope they listen to designers and give us back matte
Comments
it seems now possible to eventually connect a wii to the imac from the display port.
Is this true? On the 27" model.
So with that in mind, should I be concerned between ATI 4670 or ATI 4850 for the graphic card, i mean, i might be a computer illiterate...but does the graphic card kick in for the smoothness and quality of the movies/outside source games?
I'd be interested to hear more on this. Do you think the Wii will run smoothly if I play it on one of the new 27" iMacs?
I'm starting to wonder if blu ray is even going to survive in the long run. I was reading today that overall DVD sales including Blu ray dropped 13.9%. They dropped another 13.5% the first six months of 2009. This happening while digital distribution keeps rising.
Everyone thought when HD-DVD died Blu Ray would jump and it hasn't, in fact numbers keep falling. Most people don't seem interested.
B-R will be fine once the prices of movies drop, more classics get transferred to the format (STILL no Finding Nemo or The Incredibles!!!!). Eventually, DVD will be phased out like VHS, but we are still years away from this happening.
That's because the industry is very protective and selective about the information that they release. The last comprehensive report I've seen that had a full disclosure breakdown of revenues by format came out more than two years ago, and it was something that Sony paid for.
The revenues from Blockbuster and Netflix are counted as rentals. Sales revenues only account for sell-through by end users.
It matters if you want a true apples-to-apples comparison. Just comparing Blu-ray to digital distribution is hardly that. If you want an apples-to-apples comparison, then you need to either compare all optical media vs digital distribution, or compare only Blu-ray vs HD digital distribution.
Like I said, optical formats are not exciting to tech writers. They're pining away for the digital/networked living room, and yet another optical disc format is not part of that world order. Article after article that I've read from PC World, CNET, Engadget, and other sites throw out one negative article after another about how Blu-ray's dying or Blu-ray's not going to make it past the next year or Blu-ray's no better than DVD, etc. Much of it presents little to no evidence, other than the writer's all-too-apparent biases towards streaming/downloading. And considering that these guys are tech writers, the articles also frequently display a surprising lack of knowledge about digital video in general (i.e., the errant claims of unconverted DVD being the same resolution as Blu-ray, not knowing that ANY 1080p HDTV will upconvert a 480p DVD signal to 1080p, etc.). They might know their way around computers, but their appreciation for consumer electronics is often lacking.
But, look at what happened (or hasn't happened) on the audio side. Despite every publication out there having already written the CD format's obituary and despite the iTunes Music Store having been online for more than six years already (the amount of time it took for the DVD to overtake VHS), the CD format still has a 65% market share. Downloading has been hyped to no end by the tech press and mainstream press alike, yet the supposedly dead CD format is still very much alive.
This is the same tunnel visioned view of the world that the tech press has -- that market trends and consumer behavior patterns do not matter because we're talking about digital tech. Indeed, digital technology is a big part of our everyday lives, but its adoption and integration into an average household is an evolutionary process that takes years. Whether a consumer electronics format is digital or analog, it doesn't matter. Consumers do not make lifestyle changes or fundamentally shift their spending habits overnight. They do not adopt new technologies just because the tech press is enamored with it and makes wild predictions about it (most of them are wrong anyway -- witness the hype that accompanied the dotcom boom/bust a decade ago).
Consider that 40% of U.S. households do not currently have broadband. That part of the market is already excluded from this digital future.
The fact of the matter is that Blu-ray's growth trajectory is not that far behind the DVD at a comparable juncture. This is not bad considering that HDTV penetration remains just under 50%.
When you look at the growth of downloads and other online media, you need to consider what the actual competition is. I don't see Blu-ray and online media as inherently competing for the same market. Downloads and online media are primarily replacements and/or enhancements to PPV, movie rentals, and recorded TV programming. Who does this affect directly? It affects Blockbuster, the satellite and cable companies, Netflix (though they do their own streaming), and it reduces time spent with DVR recordings. Sell-through disc media is affected to some degree, but it's not a direct competitor like those other options.
And if you choose to compare disc media with digital distribution, it's not even close right now. The type of market shift needed for digital distribution to overtake disc media takes years, and I don't see anything in the market trends that would indicate this happening soon. We're talking about shifting of billions of dollars, and anyone who does consumer expenditure research will tell you that it does not happen overnight. Just because digital technology enables a market change to happen quickly, does not mean that consumers will behave accordingly. Overestimation of how much technological change consumers will tolerate in a short-time is what doomed most of the dotcoms, and anyone who bets on downloads and streaming taking over TV and movie viewing in short order will probably face a similarly rude awakening.
Very good post.
Is this true? On the 27? model.
Any of the game consoles, TiVo, cable box, Blu-ray player, and even an AppleTV, but that wouldn?t make sense.
Apple are making good profits. But they're clearly ripping off the customer on components that can be had in PCs that are far cheaper. I would have thought the i5s would have been as cheap as the 3 gig core duos?
Shrugs.
Still got a boner for the i7 BTO 27 inch iMac. But don't worry, I'll put some ice on it...
Lemon Bon Bon.
The i5 is significantly less expensive than the mobile 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo. You can buy two i5's for the price of one Core 2 and still have money left over.
As I said earlier, the quad core machines have a $300 cash grab built into the price.
For the first time ever I'm interested in getting an iMac (i7 27" of course), but the glossy display and the quad core tax are really annoying.
I think I'll wait until next year when the i5 is standard on the lowest priced unit.
Or the PS3 or the Xbox or Popcorn Hour or Vudu or TiVo or any of the other media appliances on the market today. The tide is coming in. Connecting your living room to the internet is coming in strong and nothing is going to stop that from dominating the market.
How many BR discs do they own, or how many hours of BR media have they watched that it could really trump the amount of digital downloads, on-demans and streaming media they?ve watched over the years. I know I watch several hours of Hulu a week and I have been watching cable on-demand for many years before Blu-ray came out. That seems unlikely to me.
I watch a movie or two on Blu-ray a month. That doesn?t come close to the number of hours of ad supported, streaming content I watch per week.
Can't play downloaded movies from iTunes except on Apple media appliances. Amazon movies won't play on the AppleTV. Unless I play it on the computer, it is really is just a bag of hurt.
And wouldn't it be more fair to compare HD digital downloads to BR?
There are really only two legit complaints left about the iMac line, and people aren't happy about that, they want to complain.
One is, for that small few who don't understand how to use a glossy screen, the glass.
Don't be so pompous. Be happy that you don't have vision or perceptual problems, where a big glossy screen gives you headaches after 30 minutes.
Many people also prefer to not live or work in a cave.
DRM in blu-ray doesn't effect anyone, there is just as much DRM in the Apple movie downloads.
Sure it does, if it's tied to hardware/firmware.
Say someone stole the keys to your unique hardware and copied them, Sony find out that ten zillion copies of the phony keys are being used to pirate content from BluRay disks. They send out a brick command in their firmware update that disables the keys and your machine in the process.
This is what people are suspecting what happened with the PS3, because the hardware is the same and the firmware should be the same, so what is bricking some machines and not others?
Imagine this happening to Macs?
Perhaps this problem happened at the right time for Apple.
And the CD thing was by SonyBMG, not Sony.
And get it through your head that Blu-Ray isn't a Sony technology, there are a lot of companies involved, Sony is just one of them
And like they are not all working together on the same standards?
Sony bought BMG.
I'm with Steve Jobs that BluRay is a bag of hurt. I agree with him.
Out with this mechanical and get high capacity SD cards instead. Easier to change the DRM without bricking the drive too.
Wrong. The screen IS glossy. Just like in the MBP's was, and is. Apple themselves said, when they offered the new matte option, that the only difference between the model with the glass and the one without it was that they replaced the glossy panel with the same panel that had a matte surface, and eliminated the glass.
I'm not sure if I'm missing something or if I read something out of context, but if you were referring to the screen of the iMac beneath the glossy outer cover, it is in fact matte. I just upgraded the HDD in my late '07 24" iMac and once you remove the glossy outer screen, the surface of the monitor itself is matte. If that's not what you were saying was glossy, then disregard my post. Also, I can't vouch for what the current or new models are using, but the aluminum iMacs, like mine, had matte inner screens.
Any of the game consoles, TiVo, cable box, Blu-ray player, and even an AppleTV, but that wouldn?t make sense.
Thanks for the reply.
So, all I'll need (to play Wii on the 27" iMac) is an adaptor? A, err, component to, err, to display port adaptor??
No resolution/picture stretching problems?
Will it run smoothly?
Thanks! You know, I'm almost ready to part with my money!
I'm not sure if I'm missing something or if I read something out of context, but if you were referring to the screen of the iMac beneath the glossy outer cover, it is in fact matte. I just upgraded the HDD in my late '07 24" iMac and once you remove the glossy outer screen, the surface of the monitor itself is matte. If that's not what you were saying was glossy, then disregard my post. Also, I can't vouch for what the current or new models are using, but the aluminum iMacs, like mine, had matte inner screens.
That's the thing I never understood about the glass faced computers. Doesn't this make it the worst of both worlds?
Oh, I forgot to add in the 7% sales tax for the shitty iMac.
Total cost of iMac = $2,566.93
Total cost of much faster DIY = $1,152.91
$1,152.91/$2,566.93 = 45%
I've got enough spare parts to build two of these puppies for the cost of this one piece of shit.
Read 'em and weep!
Have fun with your piece of shit display.
...Be happy that you don't have vision or perceptual problems, where a big glossy screen gives you headaches after 30 minutes.
Many people also prefer to not live or work in a cave.
Amen to that.
I actually believe the glossy CRT screens of old contributed to my present failing eyesight.
Because one's eyes are constantly refocusing many times a second, reflections are so slightly out of focus that the eye works overtime trying to adjust focus.
This is what could be causing the eyestrain and the headaches.
The only way to stop is to not use the machines causing the problem or attach a anti-glare/reflection screen or hood. Which can be impractical for laptops or just plain ugly on nice hardware.
The years of eyestrain because I was young and ignorant most likely lead to a premature failing of the eye muscles and poor vision I have now in mid life.
My father used CRT computers from day one and still uses them today, he wears glasses that are almost one inch thick now. Bugeyes we call him. But my grandparents who never used a computer or even a TV for that matter never needed glasses at all.
I'm sorry but we have to live in the present. The new iMacs are awesome without Blu-ray, but they would be even better with the option. What do SD cards have to do with Blu-ray? Last I checked a DVD superdrive was occupying the slot where the Blu-ray drive would go. SD and Blu-ray could coexist on the same computer. Similarly, streaming and optical media will continue to coexist for the foreseeable future.
Apple will remove the Superdrive eventually leaving only SD as a removable media (e.g. the high-end Mini). That's what it has to do with Blu-ray - in other words Blu-ray will never come to the Mac platform.
Netflix type downloads are the present - maybe not HD. I used them as an example. All the networks have content downloads. Internet downloads of movie and TV are today and around the world.
Thanks for the reply.
So, all I'll need (to play Wii on the 27" iMac) is an adaptor? A, err, component to, err, to display port adaptor??
No resolution/picture stretching problems?
Will it run smoothly?
Thanks! You know, I'm almost ready to part with my money!
I?d wait for some testing and reviews of the DP input, first. With the Wii only have component out you need a component to VGA adapter and then the correct male/female VGA adapter to mini-DisplayPort. Not that expensive on monoprice, but it will require an extra adapter to go to analong according to the DP Wiki page.
That's the thing I never understood about the glass faced computers. Doesn't this make it the worst of both worlds?
The glossy screen was never a problem for me. There appears to be no degradation of the image (except for the potential for reflections and that's not a problem for me **no, I don't use it in a cave**). If anything, I have more of an issue with my iMac's screen being too bright. I typically have it set to the 3-4 lowest settings. Interestingly, I have a 20" cinema display hooked up as a 2nd monitor right next to my iMac and there are things that look better on the iMac's screen. Other things, however, look better on the cinema display.
Can a mod please direct the DVD vs. Blu-Ray vs. Downloads talk to the thread dedicated to that topic?
BR isn't here. It isn't coming anytime soon. We know that.
Most people don't care. Those that do should discuss it in the BR thread.
I?d wait for some testing and reviews of the DP input, first. With the Wii only have component out you need a component to VGA adapter and then the correct male/female VGA adapter to mini-DisplayPort. Not that expensive on monoprice, but it will require an extra adapter to go to analong according to the DP Wiki page.
Ah, still sounds a bit complicated. Possibilities, though.
Thanks very much for taking the time to share your knowledge with me - much appreciated.
The glossy screen was never a problem for me. There appears to be no degradation of the image (except for the potential for reflections and that's not a problem for me **no, I don't use it in a cave**). If anything, I have more of an issue with my iMac's screen being too bright. I typically have it set to the 3-4 lowest settings. Interestingly, I have a 20" cinema display hooked up as a 2nd monitor right next to my iMac and there are things that look better on the iMac's screen. Other things, however, look better on the cinema display.
The part that bewildered me was the fact that there is a matte surface behind a glossy screen. So you should be seeing the speculative glare as well as the diffuse glare. Maybe our brains just learn to ignore the diffuse panel glare when you have the specular glare.
Same feeling with me. As long as the screen is gloss I am staying away no matter how gorrrgeous the macs are. This is paving for larger than 30" cinema displays next year. Hope they listen to designers and give us back matte
Apple, I believe, has a message for you: bye.