No choice there. Final Cut is for Movie studio's, producers, etc. Your in that biz your doing BR. Your also paying for the license with the software purchase which I'm sure profit margins took a hit to not throw the price out of whack. But when your trying to keep the computer price low you need to adjust accordingly.
Honestly though what really is the market for BR on a computer? Those of us who use the mac for a HT that's one thing but how many do you think are really sitting down in front of a computer to watch a full length movie? Not counting convenience. Most people who are watching BR movies (myself included) are doing it on a big screen where we can take in the depth of the video and audio.
That's mere speculation not being a twit. I know PC companies put BR in everything but with a 1hr battery on that laptop and those sh*tty speakers on that horrid screen your not really taking it in are you.
For me, it was never about watch BR movies on the computer. It was and is about HD content delivery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
much of that support is merely having FCP work in higher resolutions. also, as you note there are externals and probably even internals for the Mac Pro (which is the machine they are pushing at the folks doing such things)
There's nothing new about FCP working in higher resolutions. The support for BR in FCS that I'm referring to is the specific capability Apple just added for FC7 and C3.5 to burn directly to Blu-ray. As for 3rd party externals (or internals), that's obviously what I'm going to have to do. It just would have been nice to have an Apple option.
So taking their word for it, that the LCD panel is glossy, is confirming what I suspected. It's the LCD panel makers that are opting for glossy finishes, as it saves them a step of applying a matte finish to their panels. So basically glossy LCD's are "cheaper" in the respect of cheaper quality. (in case you hear "cheap" in reference to glossy screens)
I don't think that's a correct way of looking at the situation. Remember, when you matte a display, you're subtracting some brightness and color reproduction as a tradeoff. Some people are willing to make that trade, some aren't.
Though there is no room for a second hard drive, users could install a SSD.
Great to see the teardown! What I am actually wondering is up to what point one can go with opening up the iMac before you start to lose your warrenty? Obviously upgrading memory can be done without any penalty, but will lifting the display or exchanging the 2.8GHz i7 for a faster one or upgrading the HDD or GPU indeed void your warrenty? Any ideas how far one can go ´safely´?
Instead of tearing it apart, why couldn't iFixit figure out how the new mini Displayport feature actually works.
I still haven't seen a definitive answer.
Is the source switching done in software or hardware?
Do I have to reboot and hold down "V" or something?
Inquiring minds want to know!
From step 8 of the tear down:
Quote:
The key thing to note is that there's no special shortcut from the LCD to the external Mini DisplayPort connector. The signal will need to go through the logic board, so you'll need to have your iMac powered on if you want to display from an external video source.
Which is very interesting, and not what I expected. It does mean that it's possible that HDMI to DP "transcoding" (or whatever you call port spec adapting) could happen in software, leaving only a cheap physical adapter necessary for using HDMI or DVI out devices with the screen.
The 2 TB is a 3.5" hard drive. They always make room for that size. Plus, there is no 2 TB 2.5" HDD. Biggest one on the market is 640 GB.
However, according to the context, it's saying that there is no second hard drive. I'm assuming meaning another 3.5" hard drive, which people might think because there is a bigger chassis. However, according to iFixIt, an SSD is possible to fit.
Yes the phrasing is verY confused. The way I take it they are implying room for a SSD some place. That could be a 2.5" bay, a 1.8" bay or a PCI-Express slot. I do hope this gets cleared up soon.
Quote:
That would be nice, have a bootable Intel X-25M SSD 160 GB and keep your 1 TB or 2 TB as just a scratch disk.
oh man that is what flew through my mind when I read the article. Basically the OS and apps sitting on a 128GB SSD for speed and the user file system on the magnetic drive. That would really make a huge difference in performance. Further if the frequently written system files are put on the magnetic drive the SSD should last a very long time due to few writes being done.
Hopefully details will follow. I'm wondering if iFixit made a mistake here as this is almost to good to be true.
Yes the phrasing is verY confused. The way I take it they are implying room for a SSD some place. That could be a 2.5" bay, a 1.8" bay or a PCI-Express slot. I do hope this gets cleared up soon.
oh man that is what flew through my mind when I read the article. Basically the OS and apps sitting on a 128GB SSD for speed and the user file system on the magnetic drive. That would really make a huge difference in performance. Further if the frequently written system files are put on the magnetic drive the SSD should last a very long time due to few writes being done.
Hopefully details will follow. I'm wondering if iFixit made a mistake here as this is almost to good to be true.
Dave
If you click on their "this" link, it takes you to this page.
If you take out the optical drive, you can add a 2.5" drive, but their comment about solid state drives was not referring to that option (maybe it wouldn't be bootable). They were referring to the fact that in theory you could replace the 3.5" drive with a 2.5" solid state drive (adapters exist and OCZ even has a 3.5" SSD) hence the comment on reduced capacity.
You don't need those. Running programs is so over rating and the speakings are being replaced by iImagine technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samurai1999
It's good that the GPU is on a Module
- Apple should be able to provide more higher spec'd GPUs when they're available on the module format
- difficult for a user to upgrade though!
MXM has been out for years. Great for companies to offer some choice in mobile based products, but you'll never see replacement modules on the open market.
You're right that it will happen, but I don't think 250GB is too low personally. It's plenty big for most people. It's totally ridiculous.
I totally disagree on this one, 250 GB is way to puny for todays bloated software. Just a very basic install for me takes up about 100GB. That is just apps. Don't believe me well install the XCode SDK, Eclipse, Open Office, iWork, Tex, and a few other apps and see how far that HD space goes.
Now start adding documents and Media to your storage. If you use iTunes and purchase even a limited number of movies, songs and such you will quickly need an external drive. Frankly it is why I'd like to see Apple nix the CD Drive in the portables and add provisions for 3 or so storage modules in the notebooks. CD drives work fine on external low speed ports, secondary storage needs to be internal to the case.
You're right that it will happen, but I don't think 250GB is too low personally. It's plenty big for most people. It's totally ridiculous.
A 27" media monster with 256 Gb of storage? I think Apple would face a lot criticism for building such a contradictory machine. I realize that with a firewire 800 connection external storage is fast and easy but then that kind of defeats the wireless look Apple is going for. Imho.
[QUOTE MXM has been out for years. Great for companies to offer some choice in mobile based products, but you'll never see replacement modules on the open market.[/QUOTE]
On the first 24" imac the upgrade gpu was in such a slot. Some folks did tests to see if other gpus would work but none would. Apple may be using the slot but made it to their specification, and I just don't see Apple letting you upgrade it. It's just not The Steves way.
MXM has been out for years. Great for companies to offer some choice in mobile based products, but you'll never see replacement modules on the open market.
What's the reason was it a last minute change for Apple not to put the Panasonic Blu-Ray Drive in? I think Apple didn't do it because like I said in earlier post if Apple is going to pay fees to Sony and Microsoft for licensing their codecs to have that Panasonic Drive in. This would have added cost to the Mac pricing well as if the studios wasn't going to put ALL their movies to 720p HD Movies in iTunes.
I don't follow completely the above, but I have to agree adding Blue Ray adds unacceptable costs. The last thing I want to do is to pay for the cost of Blue Ray when I go out and buy a Mac. Especially considering there are only a few whinning pinks asking for it.
Quote:
That's not a wide choice for consumers that just Apple helping Blu-Ray! Apple probably say to Hell with Blu-Ray.
I have so why shouldn't Apple. Nothing about Blue Ray is nice and intact represents the dirtyness that comes about when companies try to strong arm the market. Consummers have the responsibility to reject this sort of big businesss and it's excessive profits.
Besides buying Blue Ray is just funneling your money into the drug culture of Hollywood.
Quote:
I think their might be some going on with the studios to put the 1080p Movies on SD Cards because technologically it can do that with Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD Master Audio plus it wouldn't be Blu-Ray so there wouldn't be no licensing fees to utilize HD Movies
You are the master of run on sentences!!!
However I agree with what you are saying. Plus in either China or Japan SD distribution of movies is already under way. Read that some place in a trade rag, don't ask which one as I can't remember. It actually makes a lot of sense too, SD cards are far more compact and the capacity is going up at an incredible rate. We could potentially see 1TB SD cards soon if some research pans out. With SD you could carry a whole library of movies in your shirt pocket and still have room for pens and stuff.
Quote:
and yes I'm sure the codec will be MPEG-4 DRM like the iTunes 480p and 720p! Blu-Ray is truly dead. the fact that copy protection is non-existent and the proof in the pudding is go to torrent sites there are over 5,248 movies ripped from Blu-Ray in 720p and 1080p both with either Dolby Digital @ 640Kbps or DTS @ 1.5Mbps utilizing the Matroska Video File Format (MKV). George Lucas and others probably aware of this since day one if not I will let him know later today! Studios want something more reliable to maximize profits. You can't do that with optical medium so digital copy its best shot!
I'm not sure what you mean by more reliable, a good CD lasts a long time. Flash based SD cards would have a short life span as flash will not retain info forever. Newer tech might be much better though.
In any event I have to believe that Apple and the Studios are up to something. First why all of a sudden does Apple fine a need to support SD in their new hardware. It certainly isn't for pro photographers which are using Compact Flash. Even consummer cameras use a variety of formats.
Something is up and I wouldn't be surprised to see announcements next year that major studios and Apple will back SD movie distribution in the US. They will do so for lower costs, transportability and to support a range of new consummer devices. I could see this tied in with the rumored tablet/ mystery device rumors.
On the first 24" imac the upgrade gpu was in such a slot. Some folks did tests to see if other gpus would work but none would. Apple may be using the slot but made it to their specification, and I just don't see Apple letting you upgrade it. It's just not The Steves way.
Apparently, making it easier for Apple technicians to repair their customers computers is not The Steve's way either. Inserting a stick of memory doesn't count.
Which is very interesting, and not what I expected. It does mean that it's possible that HDMI to DP "transcoding" (or whatever you call port spec adapting) could happen in software, leaving only a cheap physical adapter necessary for using HDMI or DVI out devices with the screen.
Yes Sir!
I wholeheartedly agree... Surprising and even shocking. I'm no expert when it comes to HDMI (far from it actually - I know just enough to get in trouble) but this was my basic (very basic) understanding.
HDMI provides a key based authentication system... Hardware vendors (like Apple and/or Sharp etc) are assigned by the standards body (Intel?) unique keys (each type of device probably gets a different key so with all the different Sharp products they could have MANY keys across their product line) and that key is what's used to decode an encrypted HDMI video signal.
++NOW++
If a vendor does something they weren't supposed to like output 'raw HD video' from a previously encoded HD signal (in other words strip the protection) then HDMI has a problem because anyone and everyone who wanted to rid their world of protected signals would purchase that product and it would be GAME OVER.
++HOWEVER++
The HDMI spec has a plan for just such an event... The standards body can 'BLACKLIST' previously assigned keys if its found the device was purposefully built to work around the protections **OR** if a product was (thru no fault of the developer) was hacked by the neerdowells and ruff-tuffians on the net to defeat the HDMI protections and gain access to unencrypted HD signals.
So to wrap this up... A device was designed that did exactly what it shouldn't - INPUT HDMI (with HDCP support) and OUTPUT DVI where the HDCP was removed. The product is off the market but the HDMI/HDCP key that was officially assigned to that devices is (I'm sure) now on the black-list and content providers can/should include that blacklist when sending their content and when a HDCP device sees that its talking to the 'black-listed' device it will refuse to send the content.
Thats how I understand it anyway...
So if the inbound HDMI/HDCP signal travels across the mobo then that means their MIGHT be a way for hackers who might not even boot into OS X on the iMac to gain access to the raw-unprotected HD signals. Then again I have zero knowledge of systems design and perhaps the decode is done along a path on the motherboard where the CPU still couldn't get at it.
Otherwise if the WORST did happen and the raw HD signal was accessible from the computer itself (by way of linux or os x hacks) then there's a good chance that the KEY for the iMac would be revoked and render the monitor unable to get signals from any devices that have a black-list with the iMacs key on it.
Well now I'm torn.... because part of me SO wasn't to tear down the walls of HDCP and all things DRM but since I actually want to buy and use this new iMac and have an HD cablebox all ready to connect to it I also don't want to loose out on this feature of accepting HDMI from cable boxes and bluray players etc...
Maybe another company reading your post will come up with one. And, no, I'm not on drugs.
Sure I can see it... a re-fitter of sorts...
1 - Pull and sell glossy display
2 - Buy and install matte display
3 - Markup final system
4 - PROFIT
(hey this one doesn't even have that ???? step)
Now we all know that a 'pulled' glossy lcd isn't going to fetch NEARLY what a 'new in box' matte lcd would and the time to do this will have a clear cost as well... but perhaps if someone could get the 'up-charge' (final price) to somewhere near $250 (??) then I'm betting a number of people would line up for the service.
Comments
No choice there. Final Cut is for Movie studio's, producers, etc. Your in that biz your doing BR. Your also paying for the license with the software purchase which I'm sure profit margins took a hit to not throw the price out of whack. But when your trying to keep the computer price low you need to adjust accordingly.
Honestly though what really is the market for BR on a computer? Those of us who use the mac for a HT that's one thing but how many do you think are really sitting down in front of a computer to watch a full length movie? Not counting convenience. Most people who are watching BR movies (myself included) are doing it on a big screen where we can take in the depth of the video and audio.
That's mere speculation not being a twit. I know PC companies put BR in everything but with a 1hr battery on that laptop and those sh*tty speakers on that horrid screen your not really taking it in are you.
For me, it was never about watch BR movies on the computer. It was and is about HD content delivery.
much of that support is merely having FCP work in higher resolutions. also, as you note there are externals and probably even internals for the Mac Pro (which is the machine they are pushing at the folks doing such things)
There's nothing new about FCP working in higher resolutions. The support for BR in FCS that I'm referring to is the specific capability Apple just added for FC7 and C3.5 to burn directly to Blu-ray. As for 3rd party externals (or internals), that's obviously what I'm going to have to do. It just would have been nice to have an Apple option.
- Apple should be able to provide more higher spec'd GPUs when they're available on the module format
- difficult for a user to upgrade though!
NOKIA SUE-ING APPLE OVER GSM/WIRELESS LAN PATENTS!!
Just came over CNBC right this exact second!!
You heard it from me! WOOO HOOO!!
Nokia isn't going to get anywhere. But they can try.
So taking their word for it, that the LCD panel is glossy, is confirming what I suspected. It's the LCD panel makers that are opting for glossy finishes, as it saves them a step of applying a matte finish to their panels. So basically glossy LCD's are "cheaper" in the respect of cheaper quality. (in case you hear "cheap" in reference to glossy screens)
I don't think that's a correct way of looking at the situation. Remember, when you matte a display, you're subtracting some brightness and color reproduction as a tradeoff. Some people are willing to make that trade, some aren't.
Though there is no room for a second hard drive, users could install a SSD.
Great to see the teardown! What I am actually wondering is up to what point one can go with opening up the iMac before you start to lose your warrenty? Obviously upgrading memory can be done without any penalty, but will lifting the display or exchanging the 2.8GHz i7 for a faster one or upgrading the HDD or GPU indeed void your warrenty? Any ideas how far one can go ´safely´?
Instead of tearing it apart, why couldn't iFixit figure out how the new mini Displayport feature actually works.
I still haven't seen a definitive answer.
Is the source switching done in software or hardware?
Do I have to reboot and hold down "V" or something?
Inquiring minds want to know!
From step 8 of the tear down:
The key thing to note is that there's no special shortcut from the LCD to the external Mini DisplayPort connector. The signal will need to go through the logic board, so you'll need to have your iMac powered on if you want to display from an external video source.
Which is very interesting, and not what I expected. It does mean that it's possible that HDMI to DP "transcoding" (or whatever you call port spec adapting) could happen in software, leaving only a cheap physical adapter necessary for using HDMI or DVI out devices with the screen.
The 2 TB is a 3.5" hard drive. They always make room for that size. Plus, there is no 2 TB 2.5" HDD. Biggest one on the market is 640 GB.
However, according to the context, it's saying that there is no second hard drive. I'm assuming meaning another 3.5" hard drive, which people might think because there is a bigger chassis. However, according to iFixIt, an SSD is possible to fit.
Yes the phrasing is verY confused. The way I take it they are implying room for a SSD some place. That could be a 2.5" bay, a 1.8" bay or a PCI-Express slot. I do hope this gets cleared up soon.
That would be nice, have a bootable Intel X-25M SSD 160 GB and keep your 1 TB or 2 TB as just a scratch disk.
oh man that is what flew through my mind when I read the article. Basically the OS and apps sitting on a 128GB SSD for speed and the user file system on the magnetic drive. That would really make a huge difference in performance. Further if the frequently written system files are put on the magnetic drive the SSD should last a very long time due to few writes being done.
Hopefully details will follow. I'm wondering if iFixit made a mistake here as this is almost to good to be true.
Dave
Yes the phrasing is verY confused. The way I take it they are implying room for a SSD some place. That could be a 2.5" bay, a 1.8" bay or a PCI-Express slot. I do hope this gets cleared up soon.
oh man that is what flew through my mind when I read the article. Basically the OS and apps sitting on a 128GB SSD for speed and the user file system on the magnetic drive. That would really make a huge difference in performance. Further if the frequently written system files are put on the magnetic drive the SSD should last a very long time due to few writes being done.
Hopefully details will follow. I'm wondering if iFixit made a mistake here as this is almost to good to be true.
Dave
If you click on their "this" link, it takes you to this page.
http://www.ifixit.com/Apple-Parts/12...sure/IF107-081
If you take out the optical drive, you can add a 2.5" drive, but their comment about solid state drives was not referring to that option (maybe it wouldn't be bootable). They were referring to the fact that in theory you could replace the 3.5" drive with a 2.5" solid state drive (adapters exist and OCZ even has a 3.5" SSD) hence the comment on reduced capacity.
Speakers, memory slots are located in the "chin".
You don't need those. Running programs is so over rating and the speakings are being replaced by iImagine technology.
It's good that the GPU is on a Module
- Apple should be able to provide more higher spec'd GPUs when they're available on the module format
- difficult for a user to upgrade though!
MXM has been out for years. Great for companies to offer some choice in mobile based products, but you'll never see replacement modules on the open market.
You're right that it will happen, but I don't think 250GB is too low personally. It's plenty big for most people. It's totally ridiculous.
I totally disagree on this one, 250 GB is way to puny for todays bloated software. Just a very basic install for me takes up about 100GB. That is just apps. Don't believe me well install the XCode SDK, Eclipse, Open Office, iWork, Tex, and a few other apps and see how far that HD space goes.
Now start adding documents and Media to your storage. If you use iTunes and purchase even a limited number of movies, songs and such you will quickly need an external drive. Frankly it is why I'd like to see Apple nix the CD Drive in the portables and add provisions for 3 or so storage modules in the notebooks. CD drives work fine on external low speed ports, secondary storage needs to be internal to the case.
Dave
I wonder if you could force a 27" non-glossy screen into it? Think that would void the warranty?
Maybe another company reading your post will come up with one. And, no, I'm not on drugs.
You're right that it will happen, but I don't think 250GB is too low personally. It's plenty big for most people. It's totally ridiculous.
A 27" media monster with 256 Gb of storage? I think Apple would face a lot criticism for building such a contradictory machine. I realize that with a firewire 800 connection external storage is fast and easy but then that kind of defeats the wireless look Apple is going for. Imho.
On the first 24" imac the upgrade gpu was in such a slot. Some folks did tests to see if other gpus would work but none would. Apple may be using the slot but made it to their specification, and I just don't see Apple letting you upgrade it. It's just not The Steves way.
MXM has been out for years. Great for companies to offer some choice in mobile based products, but you'll never see replacement modules on the open market.
I know!
What's the reason was it a last minute change for Apple not to put the Panasonic Blu-Ray Drive in? I think Apple didn't do it because like I said in earlier post if Apple is going to pay fees to Sony and Microsoft for licensing their codecs to have that Panasonic Drive in. This would have added cost to the Mac pricing well as if the studios wasn't going to put ALL their movies to 720p HD Movies in iTunes.
I don't follow completely the above, but I have to agree adding Blue Ray adds unacceptable costs. The last thing I want to do is to pay for the cost of Blue Ray when I go out and buy a Mac. Especially considering there are only a few whinning pinks asking for it.
That's not a wide choice for consumers that just Apple helping Blu-Ray! Apple probably say to Hell with Blu-Ray.
I have so why shouldn't Apple. Nothing about Blue Ray is nice and intact represents the dirtyness that comes about when companies try to strong arm the market. Consummers have the responsibility to reject this sort of big businesss and it's excessive profits.
Besides buying Blue Ray is just funneling your money into the drug culture of Hollywood.
I think their might be some going on with the studios to put the 1080p Movies on SD Cards because technologically it can do that with Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD Master Audio plus it wouldn't be Blu-Ray so there wouldn't be no licensing fees to utilize HD Movies
You are the master of run on sentences!!!
However I agree with what you are saying. Plus in either China or Japan SD distribution of movies is already under way. Read that some place in a trade rag, don't ask which one as I can't remember. It actually makes a lot of sense too, SD cards are far more compact and the capacity is going up at an incredible rate. We could potentially see 1TB SD cards soon if some research pans out. With SD you could carry a whole library of movies in your shirt pocket and still have room for pens and stuff.
and yes I'm sure the codec will be MPEG-4 DRM like the iTunes 480p and 720p! Blu-Ray is truly dead. the fact that copy protection is non-existent and the proof in the pudding is go to torrent sites there are over 5,248 movies ripped from Blu-Ray in 720p and 1080p both with either Dolby Digital @ 640Kbps or DTS @ 1.5Mbps utilizing the Matroska Video File Format (MKV). George Lucas and others probably aware of this since day one if not I will let him know later today! Studios want something more reliable to maximize profits. You can't do that with optical medium so digital copy its best shot!
I'm not sure what you mean by more reliable, a good CD lasts a long time. Flash based SD cards would have a short life span as flash will not retain info forever. Newer tech might be much better though.
In any event I have to believe that Apple and the Studios are up to something. First why all of a sudden does Apple fine a need to support SD in their new hardware. It certainly isn't for pro photographers which are using Compact Flash. Even consummer cameras use a variety of formats.
Something is up and I wouldn't be surprised to see announcements next year that major studios and Apple will back SD movie distribution in the US. They will do so for lower costs, transportability and to support a range of new consummer devices. I could see this tied in with the rumored tablet/ mystery device rumors.
Dave
On the first 24" imac the upgrade gpu was in such a slot. Some folks did tests to see if other gpus would work but none would. Apple may be using the slot but made it to their specification, and I just don't see Apple letting you upgrade it. It's just not The Steves way.
Apparently, making it easier for Apple technicians to repair their customers computers is not The Steve's way either. Inserting a stick of memory doesn't count.
Which is very interesting, and not what I expected. It does mean that it's possible that HDMI to DP "transcoding" (or whatever you call port spec adapting) could happen in software, leaving only a cheap physical adapter necessary for using HDMI or DVI out devices with the screen.
Yes Sir!
I wholeheartedly agree... Surprising and even shocking. I'm no expert when it comes to HDMI (far from it actually - I know just enough to get in trouble) but this was my basic (very basic) understanding.
HDMI provides a key based authentication system... Hardware vendors (like Apple and/or Sharp etc) are assigned by the standards body (Intel?) unique keys (each type of device probably gets a different key so with all the different Sharp products they could have MANY keys across their product line) and that key is what's used to decode an encrypted HDMI video signal.
++NOW++
If a vendor does something they weren't supposed to like output 'raw HD video' from a previously encoded HD signal (in other words strip the protection) then HDMI has a problem because anyone and everyone who wanted to rid their world of protected signals would purchase that product and it would be GAME OVER.
++HOWEVER++
The HDMI spec has a plan for just such an event... The standards body can 'BLACKLIST' previously assigned keys if its found the device was purposefully built to work around the protections **OR** if a product was (thru no fault of the developer) was hacked by the neerdowells and ruff-tuffians on the net to defeat the HDMI protections and gain access to unencrypted HD signals.
So to wrap this up... A device was designed that did exactly what it shouldn't - INPUT HDMI (with HDCP support) and OUTPUT DVI where the HDCP was removed. The product is off the market but the HDMI/HDCP key that was officially assigned to that devices is (I'm sure) now on the black-list and content providers can/should include that blacklist when sending their content and when a HDCP device sees that its talking to the 'black-listed' device it will refuse to send the content.
Thats how I understand it anyway...
So if the inbound HDMI/HDCP signal travels across the mobo then that means their MIGHT be a way for hackers who might not even boot into OS X on the iMac to gain access to the raw-unprotected HD signals. Then again I have zero knowledge of systems design and perhaps the decode is done along a path on the motherboard where the CPU still couldn't get at it.
Otherwise if the WORST did happen and the raw HD signal was accessible from the computer itself (by way of linux or os x hacks) then there's a good chance that the KEY for the iMac would be revoked and render the monitor unable to get signals from any devices that have a black-list with the iMacs key on it.
Well now I'm torn.... because part of me SO wasn't to tear down the walls of HDCP and all things DRM but since I actually want to buy and use this new iMac and have an HD cablebox all ready to connect to it I also don't want to loose out on this feature of accepting HDMI from cable boxes and bluray players etc...
Well I can't have it both ways I guess!
Maybe another company reading your post will come up with one. And, no, I'm not on drugs.
Sure I can see it... a re-fitter of sorts...
1 - Pull and sell glossy display
2 - Buy and install matte display
3 - Markup final system
4 - PROFIT
(hey this one doesn't even have that ???? step)
Now we all know that a 'pulled' glossy lcd isn't going to fetch NEARLY what a 'new in box' matte lcd would and the time to do this will have a clear cost as well... but perhaps if someone could get the 'up-charge' (final price) to somewhere near $250 (??) then I'm betting a number of people would line up for the service.