Apple heart glossy

[BlackMax]

I'm still puzzled by what Apple was thinking. This is hands-down one of the dumbest decisions I've ever seen Apple make... well, this side of the Pippin.

When something just doesn't seem right or doesn't make sense, I always say to myself "Follow the money trail..."

If I had to bet, I'd bet Apple doesn't provide a matte option on the iMac because it would somehow cut into Apple's margin on the iMac to do so. So the simple solution is to just not offer a matte option.

At the end of the day, Apple is in business to make money and grow shareholder equity. When it becomes financially beneficial for Apple to offer a matte option for the iMac, Apple will do it.

 

[rjp]

I found glossy more accurate, but matte may match your print better.

To each his own. If you prefer the glossy, then wonderful for you. But remember that the "more vibrant" you're seeing is a tendency for the screen to oversaturate the colors which, if you do design or photography work on it, is not a good thing, regardless of how it looks at first glance.

Anyway, the real crux of this issue isn't your own personal opinion. It's why Apple has decided to thumb its nose at a significant number of users who prefer the matte screens. There's no defense for that kind of decision, especially from a company expecting users to pay a premium for the quality they offer. I'm happy to pay that premium, but I'm not willing to have a reflective display pushed on me for that which I (and many, many others) view as a step backward in terms of quality.

My tests showed that the MBP glossy screen saturation was actually better than the matte. Better in the sense that the color's intensities are what they should be for the digital signal applied. The glossy is a better screen in every measurable way except one - it may not resemble the printed result as well as matte. But this is not so much a fault of glossy as it is a limitation of matte. You could say matte just sucks as much as paper does ;-)

Regarding the main issue. I agree Apple should offer both on everything.

 

[Digital Skunk]

First things first, there isn't a matte option for the iMac because it does have a huge plate of glass over the machine.

Second, I can't believe people are still gripping about this issue. No self-respecting pro shooter/designer/editor/creative will have trouble color matching on a glossy or matte or B&W display if they actually learned how to color match correctly.

Yes, the matter is personal preference, glossy isn't as bad as the whiners make it seem. I had a 15" glossy and it was wonderful and brighter than the matter. My images were toned wonderfully and my printer and I had a great relationship and we got color spot on.

Now I have a 17" matte and it's much better. Not as bright and not as vibrant but still quite a piece of screen to work on.

 

[rjp]

First things first, there isn't a matte option for the iMac because it does have a huge plate of glass over the machine.

Second, I can't believe people are still gripping about this issue. No self-respecting pro shooter/designer/editor/creative will have trouble color matching on a glossy or matte or B&W display if they actually learned how to color match correctly.

Yes, the matter is personal preference, glossy isn't as bad as the whiners make it seem. I had a 15" glossy and it was wonderful and brighter than the matter. My images were toned wonderfully and my printer and I had a great relationship and we got color spot on.

Now I have a 17" matte and it's much better. Not as bright and not as vibrant but still quite a piece of screen to work on.

Yeah, too bad about the "glass plated" imac. Why don't they just offer a choice of plates that the user can install and change at will? That way we could have glossy or matte depending one what we're doing with the machine. How much could this cost? Not too much I would imagine, and it's novel. It would be a great selling point for Apple innovativeness!

 

[CWallace]

Yeah, too bad about the "glass plated" imac. Why don't they just offer a choice of plates that the user can install and change at will? That way we could have glossy or matte depending one what we're doing with the machine. How much could this cost? Not too much I would imagine, and it's novel. It would be a great selling point for Apple innovativeness!

Optical quality glass is neither cheap nor light. If you have seen the "tear-downs" of the iMac on the web, you need to use a special tool to safely remove and install it.

I expect the warranty claims would be high (as a percentage of total systems) both from actual defects and people damaging/breaking the glass removing and installing it.

 

[Leon Kowalski]

By the way, are you involved with the class action lawsuit?

Nope, I have no dog in that fight. I dumped my two crap
ALU iMacs onto "Refurb Mountain" and demanded a 100%
refund. I'm sure two fanboys will be delighted with their
micro-discounts on those "even better" Wal*Mart-grade
displays.

I don't understand why anyone would waste their time
with a class action lawsuit over $1500 worth of garbage.
Woulda been much simpler to stop payment on the CC,
or failing that, take it to small claims court. A bazillion
small claims suits would punish Apple much more than
one class action by scum-bag ambulance chasers.

...OTOH, scum-bags vs. scum-bags is a fair fight,

LK

 

[Digital Skunk]

Yeah, too bad about the "glass plated" imac. Why don't they just offer a choice of plates that the user can install and change at will? That way we could have glossy or matte depending one what we're doing with the machine. How much could this cost? Not too much I would imagine, and it's novel. It would be a great selling point for Apple innovativeness!

Optical quality glass is neither cheap nor light. If you have seen the "tear-downs" of the iMac on the web, you need to use a special tool to safely remove and install it.

I expect the warranty claims would be high (as a percentage of total systems) both from actual defects and people damaging/breaking the glass removing and installing it.

Yeah... that would be nice, but as CWallace mentions in the post above, I am sure it would be a horrible and intensive process to do that, and then you'd still have a glossy piece of glass over top of the matte display, which would make it glossy still. There used to be screen protectors for the old iBook G4s that once applied, would turn the matte display glossy, and if you applied it wrong, it was a horrible thing to look at.

I'd rather Apple had made the machine look good, and still be somewhat functional. They are keeping up with their track record of designing great products, but sacrificing a bit too much for that design.

Even now I love the MBP design, but would love to have one that was a bit fresher, but didn't take away from the functionality that is already there, and maybe even added some to it. I love that the new iMac has FW800, and a fresh design, but can understand the desire for glossy.

Personally and professionally, it's still kind of overrated.

p.s. and if you really need it for color specific jobs and just don't want to be bothered with a glossy screen, then the Mac Pro is really the best option. I struggled to get enough cash for my first pro machine, but I knew that I didn't want to bother with the iMac, I went straight for the Power Mac.

 

[czachorski]

Nope, I have no dog in that fight. I dumped my two crap
ALU iMacs onto "Refurb Mountain" and demanded a 100%
refund. I'm sure two fanboys will be delighted with their
micro-discounts on those "even better" Wal*Mart-grade
displays.

I don't understand why anyone would waste their time
with a class action lawsuit over $1500 worth of garbage.
Woulda been much simpler to stop payment on the CC,
or failing that, take it to small claims court. A bazillion
small claims suits would punish Apple much more than
one class action by scum-bag ambulance chasers.

...OTOH, scum-bags vs. scum-bags is a fair fight,

LK

Wait, I'm confused. I thought you returned them due to your gradient issues. Now you seem to be casting it like you did it over the dithering, now that the Class Action Law Suit is out. I don't seem to remember you mentioning anything about dithering when you were complaining when you returned them. Are you ambulance chasing just to troll?

 

[ironMonkey]

It didn't take long for the part numbers on the actual LCD panels to be determined and wouldn't it make more sense to check with the LCD maker for the full detailed specs?

Are you kidding? You pull part numbers and check with original manufacturers before buying a piece of electronics? I call BS.

 

[CWallace]

When the review sites started doing their "tear downs" of the new iMacs, many of them included in their review the LCD panel specifications from the manufacturer's sites. Now, it is likely Apple has more then one supplier of LCD panels and chances are each supplier offers more then one panel, so even though a review site found "Panel X" in their tear-down does not mean every iMac has "Panel X" in it.

However, chances are the earliest produced models do have "Panel X" since Apple would have sourced an initial run of panels from their primary source who likely delivered a single model. My 24" Al iMac is within the first month and it looks mighty nice. I imagine it has "Panel X", but I find no need to tear it down to find out for sure because for what I need, it delivers.

 

[PNW]

No self-respecting pro shooter/designer/editor/creative will have trouble color matching on a glossy or matte or B&W display if they actually learned how to color match correctly.

Yeah but there are plenty of self-respecting amateur shooters/designers/editors/creatives who need all the help we can get.

 

[Leon Kowalski]

Wait, I'm confused.

Now there's a news flash!

I thought you returned them due to your gradient issues.

Where did I ever say otherwise?

Feel free to post a link -- along with the URLs of those
imaginary spec sheets you claim to have "researched"
to find the color-depth differences between 20" and
24" ALU iMac displays.

LK

 

[SaSaSushi]

Are you kidding? You pull part numbers and check with original manufacturers before buying a piece of electronics? I call BS.

I didn't say I did that. I said an educated consumer would do so if he had reason to believe that Apple was being less than honest in their advertising.

Personally, I have always subscribed to the school of my own eyes. Specs are all well and good but I let my eyes decide how things look when choosing a screen (or a computer with one built in )

 

[SaSaSushi]

Yeah... that would be nice, but as CWallace mentions in the post above, I am sure it would be a horrible and intensive process to do that, and then you'd still have a glossy piece of glass over top of the matte display, which would make it glossy still.

This is a common misconception about the new iMac panels. The LCD panel itself behind the glass is actually glossy as well, not matte.

I really don't recommend removing the glass at all unless you are in a dust-controlled room since I've heard it is next to impossible under normal conditions to replace it without getting at least one dust particle between it and the panel. Dust caught under the glass looks like stuck/dead pixels that flash... not pretty.

 

[Digital Skunk]

This is a common misconception about the new iMac panels. The LCD panel itself behind the glass is actually glossy as well, not matte.

Yeah, I know it's a glossy display under there. I was telling the quoted poster that removing the glass covering, and putting a matte display under there (only God and an Apple certified tech know how) and putting the glass back would still make the screen "glossy" since the glass seems to be highly polished.

I agree about taking it apart as well. Getting dust underneath of an LCD is the pits. I had an old LG phone that one the first day got dust underneath the screen and I hated the phone ever since. It ALWAYS looked dirty and there was no way to clean it out.

Yeah but there are plenty of self-respecting amateur shooters/designers/editors/creatives who need all the help we can get.

I know I know, but those are the people that should be learning how to do it correctly in the first place. That's what separates the pros from the amateurs. If the aspiring student learns proper toning technique, they can switch their screen to negative and get accurate color. The person that didn't would be on this forum making the false statement: "I am a Pro and I need yadda yadda display to get accurate color, I spent all this yadda yadda money on yadda yadda color calibration and I can't get yadda yadda to look good on this display."

They are the same ones that cry about the price of the ACD and NEC monitors, and compare them to the cheap (not the actual good ones) Dell and Samsung monitors, trying their best to claim that the cheaper ones are just as good.

Edit by the numbers, print by the numbers, and the prints/graphics/video should be fine.

 

[AlexisV]

Would it be better to have an option? Yes.

But anyone ranting about the inferiority of the gloss is just expressing their own personal opinion. It's like saying oranges are better than pears.

I like the glossy display. If you don't like it, don't buy it, but it's nothing to do with the product being inferior - it's just that you don't like it.

A matte option would still be good though (as would a better spec of screen in the first place).

But c'est la vie.

Who knows what we'll see in the next update in May or June probably.

 

[PNW]

But anyone ranting about the inferiority of the gloss is just expressing their own personal opinion. It's like saying oranges are better than pears.

Well if you need the vitamin C oranges really are better than pears.

I understand that there are plenty of folks who view the glossy screens as an improvement, however glossy vs. matte isn't a simple matter of preference like red vs. blue. It's more like sedan vs pickup, which may be all about preference when you just want to get from A to B but isn't when you've got a load to haul, or want to pile the whole family into the vehicle. Despite not liking the idea of all-in-ones I'd talked myself into replacing my aging Linux/XP box with a 24" iMac, but after spending time with the glossy screen I just can't go there. This leaves me having to choose between the mini, and loose the dual monitors I've become addicted to, plus getting less power than I'd like. Or spending an extra $500 on a MP for more computer than I'll ever need. (Or yes as others have so "helpfully" pointed out I could buy an older iMac that I thought was underpowered a year ago)

 

[Digital Skunk]

Well if you need the vitamin C oranges really are better than pears.

I understand that there are plenty of folks who view the glossy screens as an improvement, however glossy vs. matte isn't a simple matter of preference like red vs. blue. It's more like sedan vs pickup, which may be all about preference when you just want to get from A to B but isn't when you've got a load to haul, or want to pile the whole family into the vehicle. Despite not liking the idea of all-in-ones I'd talked myself into replacing my aging Linux/XP box with a 24" iMac, but after spending time with the glossy screen I just can't go there. This leaves me having to choose between the mini, and loose the dual monitors I've become addicted to, plus getting less power than I'd like. Or spending an extra $500 on a MP for more computer than I'll ever need. (Or yes as others have so "helpfully" pointed out I could buy an older iMac that I thought was underpowered a year ago)

I wasn't quite in the same boat, but when I was looking for a way to keep my monitor and spend less money on a new system there was the 24" iMac which would suit me quite fine, or the Mac Pro, which I just didn't want to spend all my money on when i just needed a second system to backup my portable and so forth.

I have come to terms with the price of the Mac Pro, and realize that there is no such thing as "more power than I would ever need" . I used to think that way about the Dual core 2GHz Power Mac I have, but with my dual 2.5 and the Power Mac getting long in the tooth, I know now that what is too much now, or even a year from now, is going to be perfect in two years, and then "long in the tooth" about 3 or more years from now.

I say get the Quad Core Mac Pro.

 

[RedAbundance]

i have to say i hate glossy screens as well. it's so much more difficult to clean than matte for one thing, and the reflection is just annoying. and aesthetically i don't think it fits the matte finish of the aluminum. does anyone know if glossy screens are cheaper to manufacture than mattes?

 

[Lancetx]

(Or yes as others have so "helpfully" pointed out I could buy an older iMac that I thought was underpowered a year ago)

Having used both, I can tell you that there is hardly any noticeable performance difference between the 2.16 GHz white iMacs and the 2.4 GHz aluminum iMacs. On average, they're only 9-10% faster in overall usage according to every benchmark test I've seen.

The only significant drawback IMO is that the the aluminum models can utilize 4GB RAM as opposed to the 3GB limit on the older white ones, but even that isn't really a huge deal. So if you feel that the older iMacs are "underpowered," then you would almost certainly feel the same way about the current aluminum ones too. IMO, neither are underpowered at all unless you're used to using a higher end Mac Pro or something and if that's the case, the iMac probably isn't for you anyway.

 

[czachorski]

Now there's a news flash!

Where did I ever say otherwise?

Feel free to post a link -- along with the URLs of those
imaginary spec sheets you claim to have "researched"
to find the color-depth differences between 20" and
24" ALU iMac displays.

LK

Your language on this subject has clearly implied that the dithering was a factor in your returns, when your post history and own admission above shows it clearly was not. If you don't want BS called on this, stop posting BS.

The research I performed was on the web and this very forum. The best research I did through Apple was at their retail stores where I compared screens with my own two eyes. Something you should understand, given the quote in your signature. Why is it so hard to understand: you research a product before you buy it, and you get what you expect. The 24" iMac is great machine - exactly what I expected, no big surprise! You seem to be indicating that you did not do research on your iMac, bought it based on what Jobs said at the Keynote, and it was not what you expected. Gee, what a big surprise!

But I am still confused (yes, your contradictory posts and claims are quite confusing). You have indicated very clearly that you returned it due to screen gradients. You are now implying that what you bought did not meet what was promised with respect to color depth in the specs. I call BS. If it was due to a screen gradient issue, than that has nothing to do with any promises of specs at all: it is clearly a product defect that Apple should have, and did for many others, remedy. This has nothing to do with the specs of the machine. And yet you go on and on and on here about how Apple screwed you. BUT THEY SCREWED ON THE GRADIENT!! And you never mentioned anything on the screen specs until now. That is what I am calling BS on.

 

[southerndoc]

They say it's personal taste, so why is matte not even an option on the iMac? There's no opportunity to exercise said taste? Anyway, I just don't get the love affair with glossys. I jumped on an aluminum iMac in the lab the other day, and under those fluorescent lights, using the glossy is a completely different experience than the matte.

Rant over.

Apple likes glossy screens because they can use inferior screens that cost them much less to produce.

 

[alphaod]

I don't know if it's been said yet, but you can get a matte screen protector.

 

[Leon Kowalski]

I don't buys computers based on Keynotes from CEOs. I read specs, see
the machine in the stores and judge for myself if it will meet my needs. .....

There is a sucker born every minute. If you buy only based on promises
at the keynote, we know who it was the minute you were born.

Original revision 1 Mac mini - 1.25 Ghz G4, 80 GB HD, 512 MB RAM,
pre-ordered the same day as the keynote

............................

.....BWAHAHAHAHA!

LK

 

[SaSaSushi]

Apple likes glossy screens because they can use inferior screens that cost them much less to produce.

Please, by all means DO elaborate on this unsubstantiated BS.

This is the sort of thing that does annoy me in these forums, totally uneducated claims with no data whatsoever to back them up. Why even bother posting ridiculous comments like this?

There is nothing inferior about the LG Phillips LM240WU2 used on the 24" iMac in comparison to a matte screen of similar specs nor are they cheaper to produce. Apple doesn't even make LCD panels.