Possibly, but this is nothing new. Apple have always been relatively expensive for their tech specs and low end iMacs have nearly always had these crap TN displays. I would accept this argument 100% if this was the first time Apple had fitted a TN display in their low end iMacs and if their prices hadn't dropped as a result.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New iMacs- 20" TN 6-bit panels?
- Thread starter xtwentyseven
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Possibly, but this is nothing new. Apple have always been relatively expensive for their tech specs and low end iMacs have nearly always had these crap TN displays. I would accept this argument 100% if this was the first time Apple had fitted a TN display in their low end iMacs and if their prices hadn't dropped as a result.
The only problem with that argument is that today it isn't just the low end iMac, but also the high end 20" (mid range iMac overall) that both now have the crappy TN displays. The last white 20" model was priced at $1,499 (US) and had the S-IPS display, while the current $1,499 20" model has a TN display. The current 24" is not the same price as the final white 20" was, it's $300 higher.
So I could maybe accept it if only the lowest end model had the TN, but now you have to spend at least $1,799 (instead of just $1,499 this time last year) to get one that has the higher quality IPS panel.
Thats what I was going to say.
I'm fine with 1200$ model having a crappy screen (like 17" before it), but the mid-range 1500$ iMac had a great screen which now turned into TN crap thats even worse than the one in my 17" iMac G5.
Apple is becoming really greedy.
Same here. I can honestly say that IMO at least, my old 17" Core Duo iMac had a better TN panel than any of the aluminum 20" iMacs I've ever seen in person as well. That's exactly why I ended up ordering a refurbished white 20" from Apple instead back in March. I didn't want to spend $1,799 for a new 24" iMac when a 20" display was all I really needed at this point.
Thats what I was going to say.
I'm fine with 1200$ model having a crappy screen (like 17" before it), but the mid-range 1500$ iMac had a great screen which now turned into TN crap thats even worse than the one in my 17" iMac G5.
Apple is becoming really greedy.
They lowered prices $300 more or less across the board when the Alum iMacs came out. A raise in price with a drop off in sales is greed. A drop in price with an increase is sales is good business. Apple lowered the price and unit sales have skyrocketed ever since. Greed to you looks like smart business to me.
The pricing on low- and mid-range models remained the same. They only dropped the price slightly on on 24" model.
Check you facts. The prices went down by $200-$300 for every iMac slot-for-slot in the line-up.
http://www.hiptechblog.com/2007/08/11/apple-imac-new-look-new-specs-starts-at-1199/
Ahem...
The mid model was 1500$ as it is still (According to this)
The low-end model was 1200$, just like now (Link)
They dropped the price on 24" only, as it was 2000$ before Alu. (Link)
Check your facts
The other problem is that the 20" 2.4 GHz iMac with the crap screen
was priced exactly the same ($1499) as the previous 20" 2.16 GHz
that came with pro-quality LCD panel -- identical to the 20" ACD.
There was NO price reduction for the faster ALU 20", just a minor
bump in CPU speed and HDD capacity -- and a HUGE downgrade in
display quality. I'm no graphic artist or photographer; 90% of my
computer use is text based (surfing and 'C' programming) -- but I
found the displays on both Aug-07 ALU iMacs totally unacceptable
for any purpose. The April-'08 iMacs appear to be are the same.
Apart from any consideration of dither, viewing angles, or gloss,
both of my ALU iMacs (a 20" and a 24") were pure crap even for
black & white text, at a 0 degree viewing angle, in a dark room.
See for yourself: http://picasaweb.google.com/TheLooby
...there's no excuse for sub-Wal*Mart quality at $1500,
LK
Consumer Reports reviewed the 20" iMacs in their latest issue along with the 24" iMacs. They gave the display on the 20" iMac a Very Good rating and the display on the 24" iMac an Excellent rating.
The notion that the 20" display is totally unacceptable for any purpose is pure hogwash.
The notion that the 20" display is totally unacceptable for any purpose is pure hogwash.
Oops. Try this: http://picasaweb.google.com/TheLooby
...The quality goes in before the name falls off.
LK
Really no different from the low end 1.83GHz 17" and high end 2.16GHz 17" of the previous gen iMacs, both of which had the same crappy TN display. Like it or not, the 20" is the new 17".
The 2.16 GHz was 20" priced @ 1500$, just like current 2.66 GHz model.
If 20" is low-end now, where's mid-range?
It would seem logical to me if they kept the crap screen in the 1200$ model, but offered a better screen in the mid-range 1500$ model.
Yes! Thank you for summarizing this so perfectly. That post needs to be on the front page of MacRumors for a day or two. You just effortlessly bulldozed the 10-ton mountain of Apple apologist b*******t that has been building since Apple put the new iMacs out.
Nicely done. I'd buy you a drink if I lived anywhere near your home country of Gondwanaland... or anytime near, I guess.
I actually used a 24'' screen for a couple of years at work and it was quite useful, but I feel like it is a bit too much for home.
I see what you mean, but there is "large enough", there is "just the size" and then there is "vanity" and "way too big". 30'' is at that way too big to be useful scale for me, so that makes 24'' just around the "vanity/show off" line.
Technological progress affected the "large enough" size for my budget for a while, but I think "too big" is going to stay where it is for a long time.
Ahem...
The mid model was 1500$ as it is still (According to this)
The low-end model was 1200$, just like now (Link)
They dropped the price on 24" only, as it was 2000$ before Alu. (Link)
Check your facts
So you are going to revert to comparing the 17" to the 20" to make your point?
Weak.Fine, though - play it your way - Apple kept the screen quality the same, and offered a bigger screen in the low slot for the same price. They offered a more compelling product for the same price, and sales have skyrocketed ever since. What seems like greed to you seems like good business to me.
Yes! Thank you for summarizing this so perfectly. That post needs to be on the front page of MacRumors for a day or two. You just effortlessly bulldozed the 10-ton mountain of Apple apologist b*******t that has been building since Apple put the new iMacs out.
Nicely done. I'd buy you a drink if I lived anywhere near your home country of Gondwanaland... or anytime near, I guess.
Except that there was a $200-$300 price drop across the board. The white iMac machine he referenced was a $250 upgrade over the $1499 base price for the faster processor. The slots all saw prices drop in the $200-$300 range, including the base 20", which dropped $300. If not for that one pesky fact, it would have been good point. If you are going to claim to bulldoze over a bunch of Apple apologists, at least try to do with the accurate facts.
Exactly. This entire discussion needs to be had within this context. Apple has optimized the quality, build cost and price to maximize their profits, given their targeted market, who is not that focused on these screen quality details. It has obviously worked quite well, as they sales are skyrocketing (35% increase in quarter to year ago quarter desktop sales last quarter).
What this really could be boiled down to is a frustration by many around here (and rightly so) is that Apple has moved the iMac line to this market target in the first place. Those in that camp don't really care that *most* consumers in line for an iMac don't feel like they do about the screen. They only care that Apple has moved to a place that doesn't work for them (as they should). The flaw comes in when the stretch their argument and try to apply it to everyone, when it really only applies to them.
You could sum it all up by saying that's it's tough luck if you specifically want a 20" iMac with a pro quality display and you're not willing to consider a 24" for whatever reason. I can only presume Apple thought they would sell more 20" iMacs at a slightly lower price level with cheaper components. Looks like they were right too. Outside of these specialist forums, not many people seem to complain about the 20" displays. Even many critical reviews consider it a reasonably good display. It probably is for the vast majority of casual users. But if they ever drop the quality of the top end iMac displays I'll have to buy a Mac Pro or something else altogether.
Here let me correct that for you:
"Outside of these specialist forums, not many people even know there is a difference in the 20 vs 24."
Users at this (and other) forum put everything under a microscope and magnify any perceived problems.
Great point
For me, having switched from PC to Mac just recently for the first time, my take on that is very simple:
From what i had heard and read about why any Mac is better especially for designers and musicians like me i simply didn't expect any mac to have such a serious issue like i think the color shift/gradient problem on the 20" is.
I thought to switch to *any* Mac would equal "no hardware issues anymore".
Really, for designers the color shift is a *real* issue.True, i could buy a 24" Mac to "solve" the problem, just that that size is too big for my needs.
And i would'nt have ever thought that Apple could build a computer with such an essential flaw *at all* - big disappointment.
Instead of buying an 20" iMac as replacement for my Macbook i guess all that is left for me is keeping the MB and buy some external 20" display which still isn't a real solution as i was also interested in the otherwise better specs (more USB and FW ports etc.) of the 20" imac compared to the MB.
As said, big disappointment.
From what i had heard and read about why any Mac is better especially for designers and musicians like me i simply didn't expect any mac to have such a serious issue like i think the color shift/gradient problem on the 20" is.
I thought to switch to *any* Mac would equal "no hardware issues anymore".
Really, for designers the color shift is a *real* issue.True, i could buy a 24" Mac to "solve" the problem, just that that size is too big for my needs.
And i would'nt have ever thought that Apple could build a computer with such an essential flaw *at all* - big disappointment.
Instead of buying an 20" iMac as replacement for my Macbook i guess all that is left for me is keeping the MB and buy some external 20" display which still isn't a real solution as i was also interested in the otherwise better specs (more USB and FW ports etc.) of the 20" imac compared to the MB.
As said, big disappointment.
So you are going to revert to comparing the 17" to the 20" to make your point?
Fine, though - play it your way - Apple kept the screen quality the same, and offered a bigger screen in the low slot for the same price. They offered a more compelling product for the same price, and sales have skyrocketed ever since. What seems like greed to you seems like good business to me.
I'm not comparing 17" to 20", I'm comparing previous 20" to current 1500$ 20". Please re-read my post.
What you fail to understand is there was NO price drop on the mid-range iMac. It was 1500$ and it still is 1500$. Again, re-read my post.
Your links on price comparrisons linked one to the 17" white iMac, and the other to a 20". I did read your post - perhaps better than you did.
The mid-range white iMac was $1500 with a 2.16 Ghz processor, and it could be upgrade to a 2.33 Ghz processor for $250, resulting in a price of $1750. The mid-range alum iMac was 2.4 Ghz for $1500 base price. You are spinning it pretty hard: from my perspective, its a $250 price drop. From yours, the price stayed the same (and they now threw in a $250 upgrade for the same price, which you conveniently ignore). Either way, Apple made the offering more compelling for the customer. That's not greed, it's good business, and for Apple iMac sales have skyrocketed in the 3 quarters since they made the move.
Linky linky: