Apple heart glossy

[czachorski]

Matte screen isn't a "pro" feature. My iBook G4 has a matte screen. Back when I purchased this (2005), the only lappies with glossies that I saw were HP machines. Just cuz apple tells you that consumers should want a glossy, doesn't mean that we want to switch the viewing surfaces we've been using since the emergence of lcds.

Exactly. That's the part that pisses people off. Glossy may be a better option for making consumer photos and home video pop off the screen, but not everyone wants it. People also don't want to spend $4000 on a Pro set up just to avoid it, and thats the rub.

At first glance, I never understood why not offer both as options, but that is just not the Apple way. They look at the function, and then put the best combination of choices together for that function with no options. What they lose in sales from the lack of that choice, they more than make up for in the simplicity of their line-up, ease of ordering, etc. It's just a balancing act that Apple has chosen to balance differently than most other PC makers. It's not some conspiracy. It's a marketing and design philosophy - and one that happens to be working quite well!

If you are mad at anything, be mad at the free market and that this approach works, and so they keep doing it. Or just go buy from another maker, or if it has to be a Mac (and it does for me), live with it, or pony up for the pro machine. And then welcome yourself to the wonderful world of capitalism where companies will always behave in what is in their own best interest.

 

[SaSaSushi]

Yep, a "matter of personal preference." Uh, Steve's personal preference...

...and what customers think doesn't matter,

LK

Customers seem to like the new iMacs just fine. Sales are excellent and continuing to improve.

Clearly, Steve Jobs wants to sell as many computers as he can. As much as he would love it no one is yet forced to buy Macs.

As for what you want I hope you get it. Like I said above you never know but I just don't consider it likely myself.

 

[SaSaSushi]

There are a lot of apologists on this particular site who will go to the matt with you over this issue, but if you look at other, less biased sites, you'll see that overwhelmingly people are not happy about the glossy-only option Apple has foisted on us all. Personally, I know two people who were considering a switch from PCs to Mac, but were both turned off cold by the glossy screen. Neither of them liked the Mini's specs and price and neither were interested in going $2000+ for a Mac Pro. I imagine there are a lot of potential switchers out there reacting similarly.

With all due respect to what your forum users consensus is the sales figures speak much louder IMO:

Keith Bachman of BMO Capital Markets analyst cut his price target on Apple's stock to $140 a share from $160, saying that the consumer electronics firm's three growth drivers -the iPods, iPhone and Macs - has now turned to one," that being the company's line of Macintosh PCs."

Shares slipped 32 cents to end Monday trading at $119.74.

Bachman said moves against the PC marketshare were continuing to rise, "with strength in desktops in particular," and raised his Mac sales estimates to 9.4 million units from 8.2 million for Apple's current fiscal year. He also raised his forecast for Mac sales for Apple's current quarter to 2.06 million units from 1.87 million.

Computer sales will play an increasingly important role for the Cupertino-Calif.-based company as evidence points towards slowed growth sales of the iPhone and its staple iPod music players.

The full article is here.

I think Steve might be rightly concentrating on iPod and iPhone innovations at the moment.

 

[inkswamp]

With all due respect to what your forum users consensus is the sales figures speak much louder IMO:

With all due respect: LOFL!

Are you really going to try to pull a sales-figures-means-quality argument on a Mac forum? Let me repeat: on a Macintosh forum?

Now, just so we're clear on where you stand, can you please confirm that you believe Windows to be far superior to OS X? It has, after all, much larger sales figures than OS X and sales and popularity do, according to your thinking, indicate better quality.

Right?

Dell boxes and eMachines... better than Macs, too?

Right?

 

[inkswamp]

I do quite a bit of design on my iMac , and get paid rather well for it, and I've never had a problem with color-matching. That's what calibration and proofing is for.

I have done design work professionally too and color-matching and callibration can take you a good distance. There's no substitute for a good quality monitor, however, and from what I've seen and read, these new glossy screens don't cut it. Why do you think Apple hasn't yet imposed this on their pro line-up? If it's no problem and design pros can work with them either way, why does Apple still allow for matte screens for high-end users? Seems to me even Apple tacitly acknowledges the inherent weaknesses of these new displays by failing to force them on everyone.

So, the real crux of the issue isn't my opinion, it's yours? That makes a lot of sense.

Wow, dude, you go from 0 to personal in 12.5 seconds. Impressive.

My point is that personal preferences one way or the other are largely irrelevant. Apple should offer the choice and they don't.

The bottom line is, if you want a matte screen, don't buy an Al iMac. If the number of people Apple is "thumbing its nose" at is as large as you'd like to believe, they'd be losing market share rather than making significant gains there.

It's already been widely acknowledged that Apple's bump in market share recently have been due more to Microsoft's inability to produce a decent OS, Apple's switch to Intel chips, the iPod/iPhone halo effect and the downturn in PC sales (which makes it easier for Apple to have a larger looking slice by comparison.) That increase in market share was happening before the glossy screens. You're making assumptions about people not wanting matte screens simply because there are some out there who are willing to buy. You logic doesn't compute with me.

 

[flyfish29]

I love mine.

Matte screens are a recent development of the LCD age. CRTs were glossy and I never heard anything like the trendy anti-glossy fervor of today throughout their reign.

Anyway, it's just another one of those matters of total personal preference.

If I were a betting man I would not put much money down on Apple offering matte screens again for iMacs in the future but you never know.

You are right, it is a total personal preference, and I for one prefer matte as well.

There are at least two problems with comparing LCD with CRT's. CRT's were brighter (to begin with at least)- remember the day of having no viewing angle to a Powerbook! So matte was necessary to actually see something on a laptop back in the day.

Second- with desktop computers it is easy to adjust the lighting to have little or no glare, however everytime I use my laptop I am sitting someplace different, with different lighting, etc and I want to be able to see what the heck I am doing. So it should be an option for sure based on replies to this thread!

 

[Leon Kowalski]

Customers seem to like the new iMacs just fine.

Now that David Koresh and Jimmy Jones are gone, it's down to S.J. or nothin'.

...you have been assimilated,

LK


"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to choose."
-- apologies to Janice J.

.

 

[CWallace]

I have done design work professionally too and color-matching and callibration can take you a good distance. There's no substitute for a good quality monitor, however, and from what I've seen and read, these new glossy screens don't cut it. Why do you think Apple hasn't yet imposed this on their pro line-up? If it's no problem and design pros can work with them either way, why does Apple still allow for matte screens for high-end users? Seems to me even Apple tacitly acknowledges the inherent weaknesses of these new displays by failing to force them on everyone.

It could also mean that Apple feels the current line of ACDs is "good enough" until they need to change them (like adding HDCP support) so why change them? After all, they made us wait almost two years before they updated the Mac Pro...

Mind you, I don't expect Apple to go to glossy panels when they do update the ACDs, but if they do, then...

 

[SaSaSushi]

With all due respect: LOFL!

Are you really going to try to pull a sales-figures-means-quality argument on a Mac forum? Let me repeat: on a Macintosh forum?

Who said anything about quality?? I've said multiple times in this thread alone that glossy vs matte is an entirely subjective matter that comes down to the preference of the customer.

The sales figures were a direct response to your "you'll see that overwhelmingly people are not happy about the glossy-only option Apple has foisted on us all. "

Now, just so we're clear on where you stand, can you please confirm that you believe Windows to be far superior to OS X? It has, after all, much larger sales figures than OS X and sales and popularity do, according to your thinking, indicate better quality.

I made no comments whatsoever on quality NOR Windows for that matter. I was replying to your ridiculous allegation that the MAJORITY of Mac buyers out there were outraged by the lack of a matte option and were switching to Windows in droves as a result.

Nice try, though.

 

[SaSaSushi]

Now that David Koresh and Jimmy Jones are gone, it's down to S.J. or nothin'.

...you have been assimilated,

LK

I didn't make up the news, I just linked to it.

All your typical cutesy BS 'you're a fanboi' rhetoric aside are the sales of iMacs up or down? Am I a mindless Steve Jobs follower to mention it??

Hey, whatever. I was just trying to point out that the introduction of glossy only iMacs has not seemed to hurt their sales. This may be the single hottest topic of debate in Macintosh forums but it isn't hurting Apple's bottom line so I doubt Steve Jobs gives a crap how much whining goes on.

That's the bottom line.

 

[SaSaSushi]

You are right, it is a total personal preference, and I for one prefer matte as well.

There are at least two problems with comparing LCD with CRT's. CRT's were brighter (to begin with at least)- remember the day of having no viewing angle to a Powerbook! So matte was necessary to actually see something on a laptop back in the day.

Second- with desktop computers it is easy to adjust the lighting to have little or no glare, however everytime I use my laptop I am sitting someplace different, with different lighting, etc and I want to be able to see what the heck I am doing. So it should be an option for sure based on replies to this thread!

I'm not anti-matte. I am not against Apple offering it as an option on any or ALL of it's computers. I like both matte and glossy. I love the glossy screen on my 24" iMac and prefer it to the matte screen of the 20" Core Duo (white) iMac that preceded it. I loved that one too though. I did say (and still believe) Apple is unlikely to offer matte again on the iMacs in MY OPINION.

I happen to agree with you that glossy might be much more of a concern to notebook users which is probably why Apple still offers the matte MBP. I don't know why they don't offer it on the MB line.

Really, I don't think we disagree at all. Glossy and matte comes down to personal preference. The bickering comes in when someone needs to declare one superior to the other. It's all about what's right for YOU. Thats what's the best.

 

[inkswamp]

Who said anything about quality?? I've said multiple times in this thread alone that glossy vs matte is an entirely subjective matter that comes down to the preference of the customer.

The sales figures were a direct response to your "you'll see that overwhelmingly people are not happy about the glossy-only option Apple has foisted on us all. "

I made no comments whatsoever on quality NOR Windows for that matter. I was replying to your ridiculous allegation that the MAJORITY of Mac buyers out there were outraged by the lack of a matte option and were switching to Windows in droves as a result.

Problem is, I said no such thing (the part of your quote above that I made bold). You've taken part of one sentence I wrote totally out of context and turned it into something it wasn't, not even close. I was speaking in terms of the general buzz about the iMac's glossy display you'll hear at other, less biased sites. Here's what I wrote, in context:

"There are a lot of apologists on this particular site who will go to the matt with you over this issue, but if you look at other, less biased sites, you'll see that overwhelmingly people are not happy about the glossy-only option Apple has foisted on us all."

Now, explain to me how you interpreted that as a (as you wrote) "ridiculous allegation that the MAJORITY of Mac buyers out there were outraged by the lack of a matte option and were switching to Windows in droves as a result."

How did you get that? I'll tell you how. By coming to this discussion with a pre-conceived set of ideas about what is "right" and refusing to hear anyone else's opinion and shooting others down by selectively quoting and trying to muddy the context of comments. Very underhanded.

Nice try, though.

Yeah, no kidding. Nice try yourself, but you still came off like a shameless Apple apologist. Better luck hiding that next time.

 

[inkswamp]

Mind you, I don't expect Apple to go to glossy panels when they do update the ACDs, but if they do, then...

I don't expect that either. Personal opinion and preferences aside, I've seen numerous articles demonstrating that matte displays are superior for color accuracy. The new glossy displays tend to oversaturate and that's bad news for design and photography work. I don't think Apple is going to switch to glossy-only on the high-end.

 

[SaSaSushi]

How did you get that? I'll tell you how. By coming to this discussion with a pre-conceived set of ideas about what is "right" and refusing to hear anyone else's opinion and shooting others down by selectively quoting and trying to muddy the context of comments. Very underhanded.

Mr. inkswamp. Read the very last comment I made in my last post above for my own opinion on what is "right" in this debate. I will not go to the pompous length of quoting myself.

Yeah, no kidding. Nice try yourself, but you still came off like a shameless Apple apologist. Better luck hiding that next time.

Namecalling will get you nowhere. I have not apologized for anyone.

Oh, and by the way you still haven't said where I mentioned anything about Windows and quality.

 

[gorby]

I've used glossy Alu 24" iMacs at a lab extensively for correcting photos, and they reflect lights terribly. (extremely annoying when working on say, a person with black hair, or wearing black clothes-- the dark areas become mirrors)

And the suggestion that we should all paint the walls black was particularly hilarious.... should we all paint our walls black, and tear out all the offending ceiling lights?

... or should we just buy a computer/screen that doesn't have that problem? (sucks for the people who want a new iMac, but hate glare...)

 

[SaSaSushi]

I've used glossy Alu 24" iMacs at a lab extensively for correcting photos, and they reflect lights terribly. (extremely annoying when working on say, a person with black hair, or wearing black clothes-- the dark areas become mirrors)

And the suggestion that we should all paint the walls black was particularly hilarious.... should we all paint our walls black, and tear out all the offending ceiling lights?

... or should we just buy a computer/screen that doesn't have that problem? (sucks for the people who want a new iMac, but hate glare...)

No, my suggestion for you would be to buy a computer with a matte screen.

Oh, and I have a white wall behind me and I do not have glare issues. The location and type of the room's ambient lighting is far more important in my experience.

 

[SaSaSushi]

"There are a lot of apologists on this particular site who will go to the matt with you over this issue, but if you look at other, less biased sites, you'll see that overwhelmingly people are not happy about the glossy-only option Apple has foisted on us all."

Now, explain to me how you interpreted that as a (as you wrote) "ridiculous allegation that the MAJORITY of Mac buyers out there were outraged by the lack of a matte option and were switching to Windows in droves as a result."

Well, I suppose the same way you interpreted what I said as a statement on the superior "quality" of glossy screens.

I never defended Apple's decision to offer only glossy screens on their computers. I never said glossy is superior to anything else. I said only that I don't believe Apple WILL offer glossy as an option again on the iMac. That's an opinion and we can disagree.

I feel like I'm repeating myself here again but the sales thing was just to show that no matter what the forum consensus is (and I wasn't calling you a liar about that) the iMac sales have not been hurt by the discontinuation of a matte option.

 

[mschmitt]

feel like I'm repeating myself here again but the sales thing was just to show that no matter what the forum consensus is (and I wasn't calling you a liar about that) the iMac sales have not been hurt by the discontinuation of a matte option.

How can you know this for a fact based solely on iMac sales growth? What if sales could have been even higher had matte been left as an option? Might many of the refurbs available online be returns based on this very issue?

I returned my 24" 2.4 iMac to the Fashion Fair Apple Store (Fresno, CA) today, and I had to drive about 2 hours to and from the store to accomplish this. I expect many Mac fans to jump on me for buying it in the first place, then throwing away the 10 percent restocking fee, but hear me out.

The glossy screen of the 20" iMac we used in the store the day of purchase did distract me from the programs my son was using, but I felt this was most likely due to the bright store lighting. At home, I thought there would be less glare. This turned out to be true, but the glare that was present during daylight hours still bothered me more that I expected.

When the Apple Store rep asked me why I was returning the computer, I cited the glare as the primary reason, and he indicated that many customers felt the same way. That is not to say they also returned their computers, but he had heard complaints.

The glare wasn't the only reason I returned it, however. I was mindful of impending updates, as well, and remain hopeful that a matte iMac (or headless xMac much less expensive than the Mac Pro) will be offered. Additionally, my previous iMac (Intel Core Duo 1.8 17") recently presented its fourth vertical line on the display, so my confidence in built-in screens continues to drop.

I took a chance on the iMac 24", and though I lost a bit of money on the restocking fee and driving back and forth to Fresno, it was absolutely worth it. I feel much more comfortable now either waiting for updated iMacs or waiting to save additional money for a Mac Pro and ACD.

I'm dismayed, however, that so many forum members attack people for simply being a little unhappy about a particular feature of their Mac. I don't begrudge anyone their right to love the glossy screen. Colors do POP out of the screen. I just wish everyone allowed for more differences of opinion.

The glossy versus matte screen issue is one example, but there are certainly others. Consider the condensation issue some have experienced. Just as some in this thread have suggested those bothered by glare have inappropriately situated their Macs in areas with too much ambient light, others have informed those suffering condensation within the iMac glass that their Mac is in an area that is too humid. Some even suggest that they should be thankful that the iMac is warning them about this overabundance of humidity. What if their previous Mac, or PC for that matter, gave no indication of serving as a relative humidity measurement instrument in the same location?

Can't we just cut people a little slack if a particular aspect of their Mac does not thrill them? Maybe not, but I remain hopeful. Flame away if you must. I'll try not to take it personally.

 

[SaSaSushi]

How can you know this for a fact based solely on iMac sales growth? What if sales could have been even higher had matte been left as an option?

Because I define "hurt sales" as a loss. Might the iMac sales be even higher if the iMac had a matte option? Perhaps. Neither you nor I can say for sure.

What is not up for debate is that the iMac is the single best selling product for Apple at the moment.

Might many of the refurbs available online be returns based on this very issue?

Are you saying people bought new iMacs with no idea that they had glossy screens until they took delivery of them?

By the way there are still plenty of refurb white iMacs out there as well.

I'm dismayed, however, that so many forum members attack people for simply being a little unhappy about a particular feature of their Mac. I don't begrudge anyone their right to love the glossy screen. Colors do POP out of the screen. I just wish everyone allowed for more differences of opinion.

Now I KNOW that can't be directed at me. I'm the one who has been saying ad nauseum the glossy -v- matte thing is entirely a matter of personal preference.

I get dismayed by those that come in here and feel they have to prove why glossy is superior to matte or the other way around and try to belittle the opinions of those who differ.

Can't we just cut people a little slack if a particular aspect of their Mac does not thrill them? Maybe not, but I remain hopeful. Flame away if you must. I'll try not to take it personally.

Why would anyone want to flame you for stating your opinion?

I'm sorry to hear it didn't work out for you with your recent iMac and I hope Apple offers that matte option for you in the next revision. I just wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

I have done design work professionally too and color-matching and callibration can take you a good distance. There's no substitute for a good quality monitor, however, and from what I've seen and read, these new glossy screens don't cut it. Why do you think Apple hasn't yet imposed this on their pro line-up? If it's no problem and design pros can work with them either way, why does Apple still allow for matte screens for high-end users? Seems to me even Apple tacitly acknowledges the inherent weaknesses of these new displays by failing to force them on everyone.

The iMac is and has always been aimed at the consumer level. The fact that it can be used for higher-end purposes only makes it a more impressive piece of machinery, glossy screen or not.

Wow, dude, you go from 0 to personal in 12.5 seconds. Impressive.

My point is that personal preferences one way or the other are largely irrelevant. Apple should offer the choice and they don't.

Uh, I just repeated back to you exactly what you said. How is that "going personal" in any way different than what you did? It is your opinion that you can't get good color on the iMac. It is mine that you can. Seeing as how I've never had a job not match, I think my opinion suits me just fine. But I'm sure you'll spout off some "fact" that makes your opinion more valid than mine, all the while claiming that I'm attacking you by having a different opinion (see below).

It's already been widely acknowledged that Apple's bump in market share recently have been due more to Microsoft's inability to produce a decent OS, Apple's switch to Intel chips, the iPod/iPhone halo effect and the downturn in PC sales (which makes it easier for Apple to have a larger looking slice by comparison.) That increase in market share was happening before the glossy screens. You're making assumptions about people not wanting matte screens simply because there are some out there who are willing to buy. You logic doesn't compute with me.

I never said people didn't want matte screens, I just said that a larger share of the population than you are willing to admit either likes the glossy screens or is okay enough with them to buy a newer iMac.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your assumptions.

 

[czachorski]

Because I define "hurt sales" as a loss. Might the iMac sales be even higher if the iMac had a matte option? Perhaps. Neither you nor I can say for sure.

What is not up for debate is that the iMac is the single best selling product for Apple at the moment.



Are you saying people bought new iMacs with no idea that they had glossy screens until they took delivery of them?

By the way there are still plenty of refurb white iMacs out there as well.



Now I KNOW that can't be directed at me. I'm the one who has been saying ad nauseum the glossy -v- matte thing is entirely a matter of personal preference.

I get dismayed by those that come in here and feel they have to prove why glossy is superior to matte or the other way around and try to belittle the opinions of those who differ.



Why would anyone want to flame you for stating your opinion?

I'm sorry to hear it didn't work out for you with your recent iMac and I hope Apple offers that matte option for you in the next revision. I just wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

No doubt. What will get you flamed is stating that your opinion is right, and others are wrong, and that anyone disagreeing with your opinion must be drinking the SJ Kool-Aid. Give us a break please. Post like that only show the posters own ignorance, naivety and arrogance.

And I found it funny that the person questioning how any of us can know for sure whether glossy has hurt Apple's sales went on in their post to say that they returned the iMac only to save more money for a more expensive machine, or wait for the next update. Hmmmm - no lost sale there! Actually, maybe even a sale migrated to a more expensive machine. Ohhhh, the irony of arguing that this may be hurting Apple, when the individuals own stated actions don't support it.

 

[ironMonkey]

It's interesting that this turned into a flame-fest over whether Apple needs to offer matte if people are willing to buy glossy. It seems a pretty lame argument that if people are buying something it must be a-ok. The lack of an option makes it impossible to compare consumer preference. People buy into the mac platform and often don't want to switch back to pc, even if they can't find a best-fit option among apple's current line-up. So I am guessing some purchasers of new iMacs are merely compromising so as to make their necessary upgrade.

The thread was started to rant on Apple's apparent infatuation with glossy. I would definitely be the owner of a macbook or an iMac, right now, if they didn't have those screens. I may just buy a mini once they go penryn. I love having a laptop, but currently my priority is a faster machine (compared to a g4 ibook). Hopefully, centrino 2 will bring a sub-15" MBP. Now THAT would be worth the extra money. The fabled return to the old 12" powerbook!

If you go to a computer lab in any university, you will see rows of matte displays. The only glossy's are on iMacs. If you go to any cubicle-farm in an office, you'll see matte after matte lcd. Glossy appears to have been an innovation that made dvd viewing on a laptop more pleasant by offering deep blacks. Now we are getting them on desktops, oh sweet sarcastic joy!

 

[mschmitt]

No doubt. What will get you flamed is stating that your opinion is right, and others are wrong, and that anyone disagreeing with your opinion must be drinking the SJ Kool-Aid. Give us a break please. Post like that only show the posters own ignorance, naivety and arrogance.

And I found it funny that the person questioning how any of us can know for sure whether glossy has hurt Apple's sales went on in their post to say that they returned the iMac only to save more money for a more expensive machine, or wait for the next update. Hmmmm - no lost sale there! Actually, maybe even a sale migrated to a more expensive machine. Ohhhh, the irony of arguing that this may be hurting Apple, when the individuals own stated actions don't support it.

So, you won't flame me, but you will ridicule me for deciding to wait for better or more expensive options from Apple because I have no other choice unless I want a less powerful Mac (mini) or a straight Windows PC.

How does driving to a total of four hours to return an iMac NOT support a lost sale? The fact that I MAY buy a more expensive Mac in the future because I have no choice if I want to buy a new computer with OS X is a confirmed sale for Apple? You are giving Apple credit for a sale yet to be made and ignoring the fact that I did return my iMac and have delayed my purchase indefinitely.

Your post is exactly the type of response I'm arguing against. Some people take offense at any criticism of Apple, and you seem to be such a person. Who cares if the glossy screen issue has hurt Apple sales, anyway? You snidely remark that I'm arguing this, when actually I'm just citing an instance in which the glossy screen did affect the decision to return the product. Why make a personal attack? Oh, the irony indeed.

I'm glad the guys who helped me at the Apple Store were far more helpful and understanding.

Are you saying people bought new iMacs with no idea that they had glossy screens until they took delivery of them?

I know my post was long, but I think you didn't read it carefully enough. Did you not see that the glare bothered me in store? So why did I proceed to buy? Because I thought the store lighting was to blame and that the lighting in my home office would not cause what I perceived to be distracting reflections.

By the way there are still plenty of refurb white iMacs out there as well.

That's perfectly fine if you are interested in an old Mac.

Now I KNOW that can't be directed at me.

Nope. Nothing was directed at you personally, SaSaSushi. In fact, I think it's very cool to be having a discussion with someone located in Japan.

I'm typing this on my MacBook. I plan to upgrade the hard drive on this machine so that I have at least as much room as I did on the 17" iMac I gave to my wife (with 22" Samsung LCD) when I bought the 24". Hopefully, the drive in this MacBook can be upgraded to 160GB. Off to the MacBook forum I go.

 

[czachorski]

So, you won't flame me, but you will ridicule me for deciding to wait for better or more expensive options from Apple because I have no other choice unless I want a less powerful Mac (mini) or a straight Windows PC.

How does driving to a total of four hours to return an iMac NOT support a lost sale? The fact that I MAY buy a more expensive Mac in the future because I have no choice if I want to buy a new computer with OS X is a confirmed sale for Apple? You are giving Apple credit for a sale yet to be made and ignoring the fact that I did return my iMac and have delayed my purchase indefinitely.

Your post is exactly the type of response I'm arguing against. Some people take offense at any criticism of Apple, and you seem to be such a person. Who cares if the glossy screen issue has hurt Apple sales, anyway? You snidely remark that I'm arguing this, when actually I'm just citing an instance in which the glossy screen did affect the decision to return the product. Why make a personal attack? Oh, the irony indeed.

Show me where I made a personal attack? Show me where I ridiculed you for deciding to wait for better options from Apple? Show me where I have taken offense to criticism of Apple? You claimed Apple was losing sales because of this, and then went on to post that in your own situation, that would likely not be the case. I fail to see how pointing that out is a personal attack or ridiculing your decision to wait. It is ridiculing your poor argument that is not supported by your own stated planned actions.

I have stated again and again (and now again) that I have no problem with anyone voicing their opinion on the matter. What I do take offense to is the flame bating, poor arguments, and general attitude that if you feel the glossy screen is fine or a non-issue that you are drinking the kool-aid or "taking offense at any criticism of Apple", as you put it.

You made an argument that is not supported by your own stated intended actions. When it was pointed out, you went to the "you take offense at any criticism of Apple" stance. That is what I am talking about. It is a very weak and flame-bating way of making a point, and you will get called out for it here every time. Get used to it.

 

[mschmitt]

Show me where I made a personal attack? Show me where I ridiculed you for deciding to wait for better options from Apple? Show me where I have taken offense to criticism of Apple? You claimed Apple was losing sales because of this, and then went on to post that in your own situation, that would likely not be the case. I fail to see how pointing that out is a personal attack or ridiculing your decision to wait. It is ridiculing your poor argument that is not supported by your own stated planned actions.

I have stated again and again (and now again) that I have no problem with anyone voicing their opinion on the matter. What I do take offense to is the flame bating, poor arguments, and general attitude that if you feel the glossy screen is fine or a non-issue that you are drinking the kool-aid or "taking offense at any criticism of Apple", as you put it.

You made an argument that is not supported by your own stated intended actions. When it was pointed out, you went to the "you take offense at any criticism of Apple" stance. That is what I am talking about. It is a very weak and flame-bating way of making a point, and you will get called out for it here every time. Get used to it.

You state YOUR opinion as fact. You are not the arbiter of all that is true, supported by fact or otherwise. Get used to THAT.