iMac 24" owners. LISTEN UP!

[HLdan]

The situation here in Italy is the same: faded screens from left to right and yellow tint. I have tested others iMacs in the stores and all have the same issue (more or less). So I have made the sad decision (damn, the rest of this machine was perfect...) and return it for refund.
But... now I don't know what desktop to buy for my needs (Mac Mini? Too much underpowered. Mac Pro? Too much pricey).
Apple... what are You doing?

You can try an HP or a Dell desktop with similar specs.

 

[p-oakwoods]

You can try an HP or a Dell desktop with similar specs.

No thanks dude.
If the choice is to go with a gorgeous-new-fast PC with a crappy OS, I prefer my poor-old-slow PowerBook G4 with Tiger.

 

[holograph]

hm, was a little tired so didn´t write out all the information before. I think this atachded image was missing too. Here you can clearly see the uneven background lighting and the colour tint. Also the pixels in the above pictures are not dead, but moving around, like in particle systems sometimes =) Have restored with the system discs, but with the same result.

Holograph, those pics you are showing don't exhibit the complaints people have been having, you just got a faulty computer. I can assure you if anyone including myself (since I have the same computer) had those artifacts on our screens we would not ignore them and say we're not having any issues.

To: Rainydays, you hit the nail on the head but I think you are not trying to understand. Apple does in fact make the most beautiful computers but in order for them to give such outstanding specs along with aesthetically pleasing boxes corners have to be cut in order to create a competing product on the market.

In case you haven't heard the rumor is out that Apple's computers are more expensive than the competition. I'm being sarcastic because I'm sure you have.

To get a 24" AIO with wireless N, bluetooth, gigabit ethernet, firewire 400/800, 5 usb ports and CPU specs that eat up many PC competitor's AIO's, in fact the iMac eats up many PC's CPU specs, cost will have to be cut somewhere.

The iMac does match other competitors LCD's. Show me an AIO with a better screen for the price, features, fit and finish of the iMac and I will agree with you that the iMac's screen sucks.

 

[rainydays]

To get a 24" AIO with wireless N, bluetooth, gigabit ethernet, firewire 400/800, 5 usb ports and CPU specs that eat up many PC competitor's AIO's, in fact the iMac eats up many PC's CPU specs, cost will have to be cut somewhere.

That's like making a HiFi system with excellent design, amps and converters, then sell it with some crappy speakers just to meet a certain price point. Apple never used to do that and I don't see why they have to. I understand that they need an entry level iMac, and I understand why they chose a TN display for it. But I don't get why they couldn't make the 24" just slightly better. It is so close to perfect but it fails on one of the most important components.

But actually, I'm getting more and more convinced that this isn't a problem with the panel itself, because it is indeed a good model. And I find it hard to understand how they could possibly find so many bad ones for a cheaper price when the iMac is one of the few products that is using this panel at the moment.
It just doesn't make sense.

It's wonderful that you are happy with your machine. But you have to realize that some of us so have a problem with it and would like to know if it's common, if it's a design or economy decision on Apples part, if it's a manufacturing defect, if there's any hope for a fix etc.
Since Apple can't have that conversation with us, these forums is a natural platform for that discussion. Is there anything wrong with that?

 

[JordanNZ]

yellow tint

I've been following this thread closely. It seems some people are having serious issues. Which is easy to tell by the photos posted.

However.. I want to add that my imac does NOT have any of these issues. Apart from VERY slight dimming in the corners, the display is perfect. No yellowing at all, evenly lit, and no dead pixels.

 

[HLdan]

To: Rainydays, in regards to that picture above, if that's what some people are getting then I must have a perfect panel because I do not have any yellowing like that at all.
You asked why Apple couldn't make the iMac a little better (in terms of the screen)? Because it would be a little bit higher in price. I've posted on this forum and several others for quite a while and the number one thing that comes up is:
"I love the new Macs but I'm a poor college student and Apple should understand that I can't afford one". "Why can't Apple lower the price"?
"I didn't need that extra feature so I'm paying for something I don't need"
"I would have settled for a lesser GPU if Apple would just lower the price since Macs don't play games anyway".
"I can get a PC with similar specs for hundreds lower than what Apple's Mac computers cost".

Don't call me an Apple apologist because I'm not but the number one gripe has always been price. Apple lowered the 24" iMac by $200 for a faster machine with excellent specs. That's what the consumer is looking for.
Anyone looking for something perfect and a great price shouldn't be looking for an AIO.
Last thing, you must check out Apple's competition in AIO's and then take a look and see if the iMac is really such a bad deal and if the consumer is really getting burned on the screen quality.
It has near pro specs but it's only a pro-sumer machine.

 

[Leon Kowalski]

Anyone looking for something perfect and a great price shouldn't be looking for an AIO. Last thing, you must check out Apple's competition in AIO's ...

That's a silly argument. The vast majority of Apple customers are attracted by OS-X, ease-of-use, wonderful apps like iPhoto/iMovie, virus-free surfing, etc. etc. -- their minds are set on getting a Mac. The AIO packaging is (at most) a secondary attraction.

However, totally unlike ANY windoze hardware maker, Apple's mainstream desktop line is exclusively AIO. So, if you want to enjoy "Mac-ness" with medium-high performance in the $1500-$2500 price range, you're stuck with AIO -- like it or not.

Problem is, the current crop of iMacs have some ...uh, "limitations" WRT display quality -- and Apple offers NO OPTION to buy a similar price/performance OS-X platform in a non-AIO package.

BTW, I think I heard a rumor somewhere that Macs were extremely popular in the graphics design, photographic, and VISUAL arts communities ...

...good thing those folks don't give a rat's rump about video quality ...huh?

LK

 

[HLdan]

That's a silly argument. The vast majority of Apple customers are attracted by OS-X, ease-of-use, wonderful apps like iPhoto/ iMovie, virus-free surfing, etc. etc. -- their minds are set on getting a Mac. The AIO packaging is (at most) a secondary attraction.

However, totally unlike ANY windoze hardware maker, Apple's mainstream desktop line is exclusively AIO. So, if you want to enjoy "Mac-ness" with medium-high performance in the $1500-$2500 price range, you're stuck with AIO -- like it or not.

Problem is, the current crop of iMacs have some ...uh, "limitations" WRT display quality -- and Apple offers NO OPTION to buy a similar price/performance OS-X platform in a non-AIO package.

BTW, I think I heard a rumor somewhere that Macs were extremely popular in the graphics design, photographic, and VISUAL arts communities ...

...good thing those folks don't give a rat's rump about video quality ...huh?

LK

Actually your argument is silly. Your required specifications narrow it down to only the iMac. Medium-high performance for $1500-2500.00 however you can get a Mac Pro for $2200.00. Your argument is the same as saying, "I want a Mercedes E class but Mercedes only offers the low end C class for the money I want to spend".
You can't say Apple doesn't offer what you need if you want to narrow it to a certain price and expect it to perform in the way professionals prefer.
Since when has the iMac EVER been a pro's choice? This argument has only surfaced since the new iMacs came to life. To many the new iMacs look better and seem more professional so everything else should be better including the LCD screen.

I certainly don't remember any graphics pros lusting after the first CRT iMacs, or the Sun Flower lamp iMac, or the iMac G5 or the iMac Intels as pros tend to look at the iMacIntels as little white toys, so why should the aluminum's be any more lustful to pros over the previous ones?

I only mentioned other AIO's in the industry to point out that the iMac gives more than the competition for less money so expecting the screen to be perfect while maintaining a low cost computer is unreasonable.

BTW I sold my dual G5 desktop and 23" Cinema display in favor of the iMac so while you are correct that I prefer OS X I decided to go for AIO for size and form factor but not because there were no other options.

 

[psonice]

All of you people with a yellow patch in the middle of the screen... you're not wearing yellow by any chance are you?

On a more serious note, I rechecked my screen yesterday - there's no yellowing in the middle, and I checked the brightness of the screen with a flat background and a digital camera as a basic meter. There was pretty much zero brightness variation - I can't see any either (apart from the usual bits in the corners with a dark screen).

One thing to bear in mind when you measure the screen like that btw - because it's a gloss screen, the meter will be affected by reflections on the screen as well as the light the screen emits, so you're sure to get some variation from that. Either measure in a dark room, or use a lens hood pressed against the screen to kill the reflections.

I wonder then as most people report no issue, but a few seem to find the issue with every imac, if it could be either a 'bad batch' that's been sent to a certain area (so you keep exchanging for one from the bad batch) or if it's something weird in the environment causing it? It might be worth moving it to a different room.

 

[jajo]

On a more serious note, I rechecked my screen yesterday - there's no yellowing in the middle, and I checked the brightness of the screen with a flat background and a digital camera as a basic meter. There was pretty much zero brightness variation - I can't see any either (apart from the usual bits in the corners with a dark screen).

Can you post some photos of your screen? I believe you, but I'd love to see it anyway.

/ Jacob

 

[whowhat78]

i am still waiting on my 3rd replacement............looks like it will be the end of the week.

more to come from me as soon as it arrives

 

[Leon Kowalski]

...you can get a Mac Pro for $2200 ...

The basic Mac Pro, with no display, costs $2500. Yeah, you could shave-off $300 by downgrading to 2.0 GHz (with a BTO that forfeits your returm/exchange rights), but it still ain't got a screen ...or WiFi, ...or BlueTooth, ...or a microphone, ...or speakers, ...or a camera.

Not sayin' the Mac Pro is overpriced -- just that it would be a seriously drain-bamaged choice for a system budgeted anywhere below $3500-$4000. I have no idea what use you might find for the 6 empty DIMM sockets and 3 empty PCI slots...

...but them 4 unused drive bays would make great knick-knack shelves,

LK

 

[HLdan]

The basic Mac Pro, with no display, costs $2500. Yeah, you could shave-off $300 by downgrading to 2.0 GHz (with a BTO that forfeits your returm/exchange rights), but it still ain't got a screen ...or WiFi, ...or BlueTooth, ...or a microphone, ...or a camera.

Not sayin' the Mac Pro is overpriced -- just that it would be a seriously drain-bamaged choice for a system budgeted anywhere below $3500-$4000. I have no idea what use you might find for the 6 empty DIMM sockets and 3 empty PCI slots...

...but them 4 unused drive bays would make great knick-knack shelves,

LK

I know the situation about BTO's but I beg to differ that if you buy a BTO Mac and it was defective that Apple wouldn't exchange it. I'm sure they would send you a box to send it back and get a replacement.
There's a no lemon law in many states, there's no way they can make you keep it.

 

[Leon Kowalski]

I know the situation about BTO's but I beg to differ that if you buy a BTO Mac and it was defective ...

For standard (non-BTO) products, there's a 14-day, "no questions asked" return policy. You can return it or exchange it for ANY reason, or for no reason at all. Maximum downside risk is a 10% restocking fee.

For BTO products ...tough luck, Bubba!

Product "defects" are an entirely different can of worms. If you report a defect within the first 30 days (and IF Apple agrees with you on what "defect" means), the product is considered DOA (Dead On Arrival) and you are entitled to have it replaced with a brand new unit. After 30 days, the choice of repair or replacement is entirely at Mother Apple's discretion -- governed only by the terms of the written warranty and your AppleCare extended service contract, if any.

As far as I can discern, Apple's policies for handling "defects" apply equally to BTO and non-BTO products -- both during and after the 30-day DOA replacement period.

 

[flyinmac]

The basic Mac Pro, with no display, costs $2500. Yeah, you could shave-off $300 by downgrading to 2.0 GHz (with a BTO that forfeits your returm/exchange rights), but it still ain't got a screen ...or WiFi, ...or BlueTooth, ...or a microphone, ...or speakers, ...or a camera.

Not sayin' the Mac Pro is overpriced -- just that it would be a seriously drain-bamaged choice for a system budgeted anywhere below $3500-$4000. I have no idea what use you might find for the 6 empty DIMM sockets and 3 empty PCI slots...

...but them 4 unused drive bays would make great knick-knack shelves,

LK

Yes, but on the plus side, if the monitor is somehow unsatisfactory, then you just get another one. A dud monitor has no affect on the desirability or value of the rest of the computer.

I've had my share of dud iMac screens dating back to the first iMac G5. So, the gamble of getting another iMac with another dud screen just wasn't worth it.

So, I'm using my bargain basement 19-inch widescreen monitor (which looks better than the iMac screens I've owned) with my new Mac Pro.

Best part, if the screen ever dies, I just get a new one. The rest of the computer is completely unaffected.

With an iMac, if the screen dies, you basically just lost the computer. Sure, you could use an external monitor, but doesn't that defeat the purpose?

And, paying for a replacement internal panel once the warranty expires will cost nearly as much as a new iMac (I seem to remember quotes in the $700 to $900 range depending on model).

At least if my external LCD screen dies, I just have to come up with another $160 to $200.

 

[whowhat78]

i am still waiting on my 3rd replacement............looks like it will be the end of the week.

more to come from me as soon as it arrives

my 3rd replacement just arrived and will post tonight...............

this one came from CA instead of China. wonder if that will help?

more to come tonight

 

[Audioslave]

Got my 3rd iMac today, and the screen is the worst of the three I have tried.. A lot darker on the left side than the right side, I noticed it before I even took the plastic cover off. This is starting to get annoying.. A Mac Mini is too slow for me, and the Mac Pro is a bit too expensive + it hasnt been updated for a year (except the 8-core)..

 

[flyinmac]

Got my 3rd iMac today, and the screen is the worst of the three I have tried.. A lot darker on the left side than the right side, I noticed it before I even took the plastic cover off. This is starting to get annoying.. A Mac Mini is too slow for me, and the Mac Pro is a bit too expensive + it hasnt been updated for a year (except the 8-core)..

Actually, I spec'd an iMac 24-inch maxed-out right after they came out (the day they were released). The price came very close to a Mac Pro 2.66 with comparable upgrades. I think it was only about $100 more for the Mac Pro with our small corporate discount (usually about $100 to $200).

So, even though the Pro has not been updated recently, it was still a much better bargain considering the extra processor cores, the ability to open it and clean it out (blow the dust out), add extra drives, and the expandability.

Since the price difference was minimal, I decided the better money was on the Mac Pro. So, that's what I purchased. I've been very happy with it.

And, I was able to keep using the LCD screen that I already had (which is a great display).

 

[psonice]

Can you post some photos of your screen? I believe you, but I'd love to see it anyway.

/ Jacob

Sure, here's one. Well, that was funny - I used a mid-grey background, it looked fine, opened the pic in aperture, and it looks terrible. It seems to drift towards blue on the left, darken on the right, and it does look almost yellowish in the middle.

I've checked the colour though, and it's actually slightly blue in the centre, not yellow. I think the fact that it looks more blue on the left tricks the eye into thinking it's yellow. Also look at the thin strip of metal at the top of the screen, you can see it's reflecting the background - and it's darker on the right, just like the screen. I think the darker right hand side is just the camera picking up more reflected light on the left. The red dot is just a reflection of my mouse.

Any idea what could cause the blueness on the left though? I'm assuming it's a camera effect of some sort as it looks grey on the actual screen.

 

[imacan]

Here is mine:

 

[suneohair]

I only mentioned other AIO's in the industry to point out that the iMac gives more than the competition for less money so expecting the screen to be perfect while maintaining a low cost computer is unreasonable.

Unreasonable? This isn't like stuck pixels. There are hundreds of displays available that do not exhibit this problem. Further, your proposition asserts that in order for Apple to offer a low cost computer they had to use problem ridden panels. How ridiculous is that? This, the H-IPS panel that was undeniably compared the NEC which sells for $1300, and which made all the 24" iMac owners proclaim to have one of the best panels on the market. Are we to assume that Apple buys the lowest binned parts available? The yellow screens, the lowest bin CPUs, the cheapest memory, etc etc. If that is indeed what you are asserting, how can anyone possibly say Apple offers products better than the competition, let alone, that Apple offers quality products?

Considering there are displays constructed with this panel that don't have this problem we know it is possible to have a "perfect" display. We also know, that other displays don't have this problem (otherwise we wouldn't know of it, would we?). We also have reports of good screens. Which means 1: Apple bought panels that have this problem. 2: Apple has some issues in their plants.

With that in mind, we know that it is completely reasonable to expect a display that behaves like nearly every other display on the market. Which means no discoloration. It is just as reasonable as you expecting a CPU that runs at the advertised speed. Your argument begs the question though: What else can we assume to be skimped in order to keep the product at a low cost? You can proclaim "Slippery slope!" here, but that is the slope you started to slide down when you formed your argument.

 

[rainydays]

Very well said suneohair!

 

[Leon Kowalski]

Sure, here's one. Well, that was funny - I used a mid-grey background, it looked fine, opened the pic in aperture, and it looks terrible.

Just goes to show what a powerful effect "fervent wishing" can have on subjective judgement. There's no substitute for a heartless light meter.

Any idea what could cause the blueness on the left though? I'm assuming it's a camera effect of some sort as it looks grey on the actual screen.

That's no "camera effect" -- that's ruthless Reality™. You can easily prove it's not a camera artifact. Just turn out the lights and take a few shots with the camera upside-down and/or in portrait orientation. No difference!

Wild guess: That photo was exposed at ISO 100, f8, 1/5 sec (or the equivalent) at minimum display brightness -- or 1 EV less, if at maximum display brightness. (Slow shutter speeds avoid any possible artifacts related to screen refresh rate.)

Betcha my 'wild guess' is correct within 1/2 f-stop. ...right?

I've personally photographed and metered five 24" iMacs -- my own, plus four in the Apple Store showroom -- and they're all exactly the same (except one unit in the Apple showroom that had the same basic problem, but was nearly 2x worse).

Your photo makes the score six-for-six!

I'm neither a photographer nor a "sensitive" type, so I have to wonder why the subtle (to me) blue-to-yellow color shift draws so much attention -- when the obvious (and easily measurable) 800# gorilla in the room is the huge and intense "hotspot" covering the left 1/4 of the screen. Nevermind color shifts, the panchromatic max:min luminance ratio in that photo is easily over 2:1. ...'zactly like every other one I've seen.

BTW, a 2:1 luminance non-uniformity is about ten times worse than the typical test results for low/mid-priced mass-market monitors -- as measured and reported by reviewers like extremetech.com, anandtech.com, etc. Check it out.

...denial IS NOT a river in Egypt,

LK

 

[imacan]

Interesting thread on Apple discussion forum about a possible explanation for the gradient problem:

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1146877&tstart=15

 

[imacan]

Other pics of my display with different white / gray backgrounds (sorry for the quality and settings, no photographer here), now I find it hard to see the gradient