New iMacs- 20" TN 6-bit panels?

[eXan]

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:

Man, either you are new to this Apple stuff or just missing the point.

Its natural (for Apple at least) that when they update their computers they add more stuff in it like faster CPUs, GPUs, more HD space, more RAM, and when moving from one design to another they also add new features, like iSight camera or backlit keyboards. Without making something worse than before.

All this for the same or (sometimes) lower price.

But sadly, when moving from plastic white iMac design to alu/black they replaced a very good 20" display in the mid-range model with a crap cheap TN panel in the same mid-range 20" model and priced them the same. I can understand why they used this display in the low-end (1200$) 20" iMac, but cant why they used the same cheap panel in their mid-range solution.

Oh, and your point about CPUs is plain wrong. Prices go down on CPUs so for the price you could get a CPU in 2006 you could get a much faster CPU in 2007. If it wasnt like this, we'd still be stuck with 20 MHz CPUs from ancient times, with modern CPUs costing thousands of dollars.

BTW, I gave you the links to prove there was no price decrease in low-end and mid-range iMacs when moving from white core 2 duo to alu/black core 2 duo.

So, if you still insist on your point then answer: why did Apple improve the configuration of 24" iMac in every aspect, yet still decreased the price by 200$?

 

[czachorski]

I can understand why they used this display in the low-end (1200$) 20" iMac, but cant why they used the same cheap panel in their mid-range solution.

I can hear you there. Now that makes some sense. But don't spin it that they did not lower the price - the effective price went down $250. Now maybe it should have gone done even further because the processors got cheaper, AND the screen panels got cheaper, but don't spin it to say the price stayed the same - it's just going to dilute your point.

I understand your frustration - the simple question could be asked: why not offer the better panel in the mid-range 20" iMac? The answer is lies in stepping outside of the details look that you are giving this screen, and stepping into the shoes of the buyer Apple is targeting - who does not care about these details, who hardly even notices there is a difference at all. Apple focused their offerings to optimize features, build cost and price, and moved away from a place that works for you. That is unfortunate for you. The argument gets thin for me when what is unfortunate for you is extended to everyone, where it does not necessarily apply.

 

[inkswamp]

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.

You're ignoring the effects of time. Of course, after a long time, the iMac components become outdated and stale and need to be refreshed. That refresh doesn't necessarily make it effectively a price drop, not when you consider how rapidly the value of the components is lost as technology moves forward.

What you see as a price drop is seen by some of us as Apple finally putting the value back into the price it's asking and catching back up with where technology has gone. And just because they may have shuffled the iMacs down into the next lower price slot, doesn't mean it was a price drop across the line which is, I suspect, what the original poster of that comment meant. The entry price for the customer is the same regardless of what you get for the same purchase price prior to and after the update.

 

[Leon Kowalski]

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 ...

You are spinning it pretty hard: from my perspective, its a $250 price drop.

The 20" 2.16 GHz white iMac @ $1500 was the standard, non-BTO,
"front line" product stocked by Apple retail stores. The 2.33 GHz
BTO option was/is exceedingly rare, and was exactly analogous to
the 2.8 GHz 'extreme' upgrade offered on the 2007 24" ALU iMacs.
Even the pricing of the CPU upgrades was identical ($250).

Your claim of an across-the-board $200-$300 price reduction is
utterly ridiculous. Apple's CEO directly and explicitly contradicts
you in his August '07 keynote address introducing the ALU iMacs:

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/specialevent07

Please watch the 2 minute segment starting at 08:35 -- then
come back and explain what SJ really meant by "same price."


...yo are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own FACTS,

LK

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

I understand your frustration - the simple question could be asked: why not offer the better panel in the mid-range 20" iMac? The answer is lies in stepping outside of the details look that you are giving this screen, and stepping into the shoes of the buyer Apple is targeting - who does not care about these details, who hardly even notices there is a difference at all. Apple focused their offerings to optimize features, build cost and price, and moved away from a place that works for you. That is unfortunate for you. The argument gets thin for me when what is unfortunate for you is extended to everyone, where it does not necessarily apply.

Agreed. It's all towards reducing manufacturing costs while at the same time maximizing profit. The same thing applies to glossiness across the board. Apple obviously did research and knew that a high percentage of professionals would not consider glossy screen. They looked at the number and decided not to incur increased manufacturing costs of including a matte option (especially given the current design) despite losing that number.

 

[beatz01]

I really can't see how anyone could defend the 20" display with its color gradient problem at all, given the strong emphasis on "for creative people" that Apple puts in their ads.It's not like Apple advertises only the 24" would be great for creatives but they sell *all* their machines as "superiour for creative work".

Now don't forget there indeed are (creative) people like me who switch to Mac because they tend to believe Apples own marketing hype but are no Mac insiders yet so have no clue that there is/should/can be a difference display-wise between 20" and 24" models - let alone such a serious issue like the gradient one.

Sorry, but the way Apple is marketing their machines no one should have to expect such a serious flaw from *any* of their computers.

Simple as that.

 

[trip1ex]

I really can't see how anyone could defend the 20" display with its color gradient problem at all, given the strong emphasis on "for creative people" that Apple puts in their ads.It's not like Apple advertises only the 24" would be great for creatives but they sell *all* their machines as "superiour for creative work".

Now don't forget there indeed are (creative) people like me who switch to Mac because they tend to believe Apples own marketing hype but are no Mac insiders yet so have no clue that there is/should/can be a difference display-wise between 20" and 24" models - let alone such a serious issue like the gradient one.

Sorry, but the way Apple is marketing their machines no one should have to expect such a serious flaw from *any* of their computers.

Simple as that.

There isn't a serious issue though. You're misinformed. Most people whining don't even have 20" iMac. The others are spinning the difference between Very Good and Excellent into the difference between Crap and Excellent. They can't tell the forest from the trees.

I will agree that Apple did eliminate a pricepoint in their iMac lineup for those who wanted the best display out there when the aluminum iMacs debuted. The $1499 model now doesn't have the same panel as before (although Macworld says in their review, "At the same time, compared to the older 20-inch white iMac, the new 20-inch version is much brighter and sharper when viewed straight on.")

But, at the same time, Apple did lower the price of the 24" aluminum iMac $200 compared to the old 24" iMac and they did give the low-end iMac a 20" display instead of a 17".

So again I think folks are picking a tree and ignoring the forest on this issue too.

 

[128k]

Sorry, but the way Apple is marketing their machines no one should have to expect such a serious flaw from *any* of their computers.

Simple as that.

It's purposeful; designed to drive Mac PRO and ACD sales. They made the previous (white) a little too good- The 24" display was on par with any ACD at the time- They increased the separation by making the new imac in to a piece of consumer only hardware- With ever increasing requirements from pro software for greater ram and processor requirements, running anything but the ilife suite on an imac is a beach ball show- I bought into it initially myself, and purchased several 24" imacs for my studio- and sold them within a month and replaced them with mac pros- Night and day difference: endless ram, fast drives, display options and a real desktop architecture; imac benchmarks "that approach mac pro performance" mean nothing in the real world. I hope that apple pays big over the display class action and the judgement forces a return to its creative roots in building quality mid range hardware...

 

[beatz01]

There isn't a serious issue though. You're misinformed. Most people whining don't even have 20" iMac.

Sorry but it is you who is misinformed.To at least graphic designers, photo editors etc. this IS a serious issue.You can't judge a picture/vector artwork etc that itself purposely has gradients when the screen has a built-in gradient.Simple as that.And yes, i checked numerous 20" units in person at several stores in my city and they all have the same SERIOUS issue.

 

[adrianr]

It's clear to me that Apple have permanently dropped the 20" high quality display in favour of a lower cost entry model. Probably targeting casual PC switchers who are used to cheap displays and don't want to pay big bucks for their computer.

I thought they still charged the same amount?

 

[VoodooDaddy]

Sorry but it is you who is misinformed.To at least graphic designers, photo editors etc. this IS a serious issue.You can't judge a picture/vector artwork etc that itself purposely has gradients when the screen has a built-in gradient.Simple as that.And yes, i checked numerous 20" units in person at several stores in my city and they all have the same SERIOUS issue.

Then buy the 24" and ****. How many times does this need to be said?

Also, Im sick and tired of this notion that only "creative" ppl should even be using a Mac. And that the 20" panel is such "crap" that its unusable by said "creative" ppl. There is no "SERIOUS" issue. These displays work exactly like they are suppose to.

edit - also, while I hate to even bring this out, I find it funny that Mr. Four-posts is here to tell everyone how it should be and how uninformed we are.

I thought to switch to *any* Mac would equal "no hardware issues anymore".



And i would'nt have ever thought that Apple could build a computer with such an essential flaw *at all* - big disappointment.

.

And I suppose while Im picking your posts apart, I might as well comment on this one. You thought switching to Mac would forever end "hardware problem"? What dream did you just wake up out of?? Hardware doesnt distinguish if its being used with OSX, Windows, or Linus. Failures can happen across the board.

And again, there is no flaw. The sooner you accept that the better. The screens work as they are suppose to.

 

[Leon Kowalski]

I thought they still charged the same amount?

Don't confuse the fanbois with facts.

* The white 17" 2.0 GHz got a larger HDD and was "promoted" from
a 17" TN display to 20" TN display -- with no price change: $1199.

* The white 20" 2.16 GHz got a larger HDD and a minor speed bump,
plus a MAJOR display downgrade -- with no price change: $1499.

* The white 24" 2.16 GHz got exactly the same HDD/CPU upgrades
as the white 20" -- but instead of a display downgrade, they got a
$200 price reduction: $1799.

...as Steve said: "Even better!" (for AAPL shareholders), "Upgraded!" (profits),

LK

 

[IJ Reilly]

Boy, you guys sure are beating each other up with your beanie-copters. I wonder if you all realize how little any of this technobabble matters to the vast majority of computer-buyers. And BTW, there were no "upgrades" or "downgrades" to the new line of iMacs. The new line of iMacs is just that -- a new line of iMacs. They are what they are, and people will decide whether to buy one the basis of what they offer, not in comparison to what came before.

 

[adrianr]

Don't confuse the fanbois with facts.

* The white 17" 2.0 GHz got a larger HDD and was "promoted" from
a 17" TN display to 20" TN display -- with no price change: $1199.

* The white 20" 2.16 GHz got a larger HDD and a minor speed bump,
plus a MAJOR display downgrade -- with no price change: $1499.

* The white 24" 2.16 GHz got exactly the same HDD/CPU upgrades
as the white 20" -- but instead of a display downgrade, they got a
$200 price reduction: $1799.

...as Steve said: "Even better!" (for AAPL shareholders), "Upgraded!" (profits),

LK

Which point did the IPS 20" fit into that? I thought that's what the white 20" iMacs had before the TN downgrade? I don't really keep ontop of all the changes and prices! Though i think all 20" models have been sold in the UK starting at £799, i could be wrong!

And too Voodoo: Perhaps you can afford to just buy the 24" instead, but it just isn't that simple for a lot of people. In the UK the base spec 20" to the base spec 24" heralds a £350 price difference. Which considering the 20" is £799 to begin with, that's a little under half, and just not feasible for some.

 

[VoodooDaddy]

And too Voodoo: Perhaps you can afford to just buy the 24" instead, but it just isn't that simple for a lot of people. In the UK the base spec 20" to the base spec 24" heralds a £350 price difference. Which considering the 20" is £799 to begin with, that's a little under half, and just not feasible for some.

I cant afford a Ferrari, but Im not here bitching about it either.

 

[inkswamp]

I cant afford a Ferrari, but Im not here bitching about it either.

Seriously, what good do you think that response does anyone?

I've been trying to figure you out since your attempt to "set me straight" for griping about the poor quality of the iMac displays and I keep seeing this kind of response from you. I think you operate on an inordinate amount of defensiveness. You know, people can complain about things that bother them without it being a personal affront to you. You are aware of that, right?

Is it possible that someone can complain about something without you accusing them of whining or bitching? Ever stop to think it might be a legitimate gripe?

 

[adrianr]

I cant afford a Ferrari, but Im not here bitching about it either.

Cute, but the point obviously went wide. Using that you could say before you could buy a Ferrari (Which will represent our IPS screen) for £120,000. Now that same £120,000 gets you a Ford F150 (You guessed it, our TN screen). The size isn't what people are complaining about, it's the fact you're now being charged the same and getting an inferior product.

The 20" iMac wasn't a bad option for the budding photographer/graphic designer needing a good screen (Providing you could put up with the other hardware shortfalls inherent with them). Now it seems Apple have realised the majority of the market won't notice, so they'll swap it out for something cheaper and take a little more off the top. It's completely ****** at best, and any complaints would be pretty well founded imho. Don't bitch about the bitchers.. You may actually have to bitch about something yourself someday.

 

[VoodooDaddy]

Seriously, what good do you think that response does anyone?


I've been trying to figure you out since your attempt to "set me straight" for griping about the poor quality of the iMac displays and I keep seeing this kind of response from you.

And what good does your crying do here besides annoy everyone?

Dont bother trying to figure me out. You have better things to do like whine about the 20" display in every thread in the forum. Look man, Ive said this several times but apparently you cant get it through your thin skull. Im perfectly fine with ppl complaining about something. But whats the point of beating a dead horse? The screens are not going to change, accept that and move on.

 

[VoodooDaddy]

The 20" iMac wasn't a bad option for the budding photographer/graphic designer needing a good screen

SURPRISE!!! There is a much bigger market out there for Apple than just "budding photographer/graphic designer." As MANY ppl have said, not just myself, Apple obviously is doing something right, just check their sales figures.

Ive said is 100x it seems, if you dont like the 20, DONT BUY IT. But why come here and complain incessantly? Its not changing anything.

 

[inkswamp]

Dont bother trying to figure me out. You have better things to do like whine about the 20" display in every thread in the forum. Look man, Ive said this several times but apparently you cant get it through your thin skull. Im perfectly fine with ppl complaining about something. But whats the point of beating a dead horse? The screens are not going to change, accept that and move on.

It's not a "beating a dead horse" when the discussions about the screen quality come up again after an update by Apple. It just seems to me that you have some personal reason for not wanting people to complain about it. Assuming the fact that you have a 20" iMac listed in your sig means you yourself own one, then I guess you're taking the criticisms personally.

Look, if the screen quality works for you, great. Some of us have more discerning eyes and higher expectations from Apple as well as the selling price. It's legitimate fodder for discussions and griping when Apple fails to meet those expectations, especially when they lower their standards from the previous models. Don't take it so hard.

SURPRISE!!! There is a much bigger market out there for Apple than just "budding photographer/graphic designer." As MANY ppl have said, not just myself, Apple obviously is doing something right, just check their sales figures.

Yeah, compare those sales figures to HP or Dell. Apple may be gaining users, but in the big picture, they're still fighting for scraps. Clearly, the iMac as it exists is not loved by as many as you wish. The day Apple deigns to get down from their high horse and put out a headless Mac that isn't the price-for-value slap in the face that the Mini is, I suspect they'll see some serious market share gains.

 

[beatz01]

Also, Im sick and tired of this notion that only "creative" ppl should even be using a Mac. And that the 20" panel is such "crap" that its unusable by said "creative" ppl. There is no "SERIOUS" issue. These displays work exactly like they are suppose to.

edit - also, while I hate to even bring this out, I find it funny that Mr. Four-posts is here to tell everyone how it should be and how uninformed we are.

See fanboy, here are a few things you don't seem to understand:

- I didn't say people here were uninformed.I said YOU are uninformed as that's what YOU actually are.Very lame trick to exchange the "i" with a "we".Doesn't work.

- Who ever said only creative people should use a Mac ?! You must have read that somewhere else.

- I gave you a perfect example of a situation where the gradient problem becomes a real issue.Apparently you have no clue about graphic design or picture editing (hence you=uninformed), otherwise you would have instantly got the point.

- Instead of giving me a counter example of why the gradient issue should not be a serious issue, all you manage to do is to say that they "work exactly like they are suppose to".Apart from wrong grammar (it's "supposed", not "suppose"), how exactly are they supposed to work then and who decides on that - you ?!

C'mon.

And yes, i only have made a few post so far - so what..?

As for "picking my posts apart" it seems you're only picking apart yourself.

Instead, i'd suggest you let me know why the example i gave you doesn't perfectly illustrate why the gradient issue is a serious issue or to be more exact, why YOU don't understand it.

I'll be glad to assist.

 

[xxjuicymintxx]

Whew, I popped my head in and all I can say is wow, I'm glad I'm not tangled in with this forum! haha.

 

[VoodooDaddy]

1 - Some of us have more discerning eyes


2 - Apple may be gaining users, but in the big picture, they're still fighting for scraps.

1 - guess Ill say it again....but the 24. Your complaining is akin to me complaining my car doesnt get 100mpg. No amount of whining is going to change that, so why do it?

2 - because 95% of the world runs on windows.

 

[VoodooDaddy]

See fanboy

I stopped reading after that. You lose all credibility.

BTW, you all will be happy to know this is my last foray into this "discussion." You and inkswamp can cry on each others shoulders all you want in here. Im sorry to tell you though, that that will not change the 20" screen either.

 

[eXan]

It seems that VoodooDaddy is approving and defending current 20" displays' quality because he has money to afford only the very low-end model... His posts make it sound so.