My 2012 27-inch iMac has image retention

lianlua said:

It's not just the casing. I'm not talking about bodywork. The panel is not what makes a great monitor great.

The analogy failed on you because like assuming the panel is the monitor, you're assuming the engine is the car, neglecting the chassis, transmission, suspension, and all the other pieces. Two cars sharing the same engine can be very different in characteristics, including price.

That is literally their business model. This is my industry. Production capacity is reserved for major OEMs, who reserve all A-grade capacity at the factory. B-grade panels are then sold at a much lower price to these off-brand manufacturers, and they manually bin them to pick out the ones that are good. That's why you see them consistently offer their "standard" and their "pixel perfect" versions of the same product when your more mainstream brand wouldn't be able to differentiate in their production process.

There's a huge sample bias in your assertion.


Tear one down. Not only will you see it visually, but you can compare the parts for yourself. You do get what you pay for.

Like I said, you may be happy with something that's 80% as good for 50% of the price, but that is not remotely the equivalent to: "it's the same panel so it's just as good".

Only if you don't understand how the display industry works, like this:

Click to expand...

Clearly you're the professional, hiding behind whatever username yours means.

I understand the A grade and B grade panels, but often there's VERY little to differentiate between them. And yes, I've compared, - admittedly a small sample, but it's at least a comparison. You still quote all these issues and problems with absolutely no sources to back them up. I'm a journalist. That's my field. Cite your sources.

If the iMac panels, Dell panels, Asus panels etc were flawless panels each and every time, we'd be having a different discussion. But given my experience with the Catleaps, QNIX etc etc, and having recommended them to a BUNCH of people, - honestly, those "second rate," "crappy," "poorly manufactured" displays are more consistent than any iMac panel I've used, and I've used quite a few.

And say, for argument's sake, you're right. The quality on them is crappy blah blah, and they might die after 6 months. Well, spend a little bit extra on a Squaretrade warranty, and Bob's your Uncle. The cost saving is far, far too hard to ignore.

Mid Nov. 2013, you buy an IPS Ultra sharp Dell 27" monitor along with an updated "full" i7 Haswell Mac mini (including HD5000 graphics series+Wi-Fi AC) and you pay around $2000 (maybe less)....and you are covered as normal home-user.......any comment?

WilliamG said:

Clearly you're the professional, hiding behind whatever username yours means.

Click to expand...

Like yours might be, it's part of my name. What that has to do with anything, I don't know.

I understand the A grade and B grade panels, but often there's VERY little to differentiate between them.

Click to expand...

There's very little to differentiate between a top-quality panel and one that doesn't work at all. The difference is that the B grade panels are guaranteed to have failed at least one uncorrectable QC measure. You may never notice or be affected by it, but they can't sell it under their profitable contracts and that's all that matters.

You still quote all these issues and problems with absolutely no sources to back them up.

Click to expand...

You've got everything you need. Tear down two, do a parts comparison. Use those journalistic skills to compare prices and specifications. It doesn't really matter to me--you still can't wrap your head around what the difference is, so my hunting down a parts list on a no-name product does no good.

If the iMac panels, Dell panels, Asus panels etc were flawless panels each and every time, we'd be having a different discussion.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your obsession with this idea is, but initial quality has little to do with what we're talking about. While the generics do have a higher rate of OOB defects, cheap parts aren't simply flawed or failure-prone versions of expensive parts that arrive broken more often.

And say, for argument's sake, you're right. The quality on them is crappy blah blah, and they might die after 6 months.

Click to expand...

That's not what I said.

I said the simple, inescapable reality that the two products are not equivalent. They are not the same monitor by a long shot. Various Dell, Apple, and NEC monitors have used the exact same panel in the past and yet their performance and characteristics are different, as is pricing. You simply do not get an $800 monitor for $300. No one in the industry has that kind of margin, Apple included.

Again, you may get a product that's 80% as good for 50% of the price and congratulations if that's all you need. But that is not remotely the same thing as saying you're getting the same thing for a fraction of the price. You most definitely are not.

Most people don't need high-performance monitors, nor can they even tell the difference between an okay monitor and a great one. That doesn't mean there isn't a difference. I'm not discouraging anyone from buying one--they're great, I'm just saying your premise is invalid.

lianlua said:

Like yours might be, it's part of my name. What that has to do with anything, I don't know.

There's very little to differentiate between a top-quality panel and one that doesn't work at all. The difference is that the B grade panels are guaranteed to have failed at least one uncorrectable QC measure. You may never notice or be affected by it, but they can't sell it under their profitable contracts and that's all that matters.

You've got everything you need. Tear down two, do a parts comparison. Use those journalistic skills to compare prices and specifications. It doesn't really matter to me--you still can't wrap your head around what the difference is, so my hunting down a parts list on a no-name product does no good.

I'm not sure what your obsession with this idea is, but initial quality has little to do with what we're talking about. While the generics do have a higher rate of OOB defects, cheap parts aren't simply flawed or failure-prone versions of expensive parts that arrive broken more often.

That's not what I said.

I said the simple, inescapable reality that the two products are not equivalent. They are not the same monitor by a long shot. Various Dell, Apple, and NEC monitors have used the exact same panel in the past and yet their performance and characteristics are different, as is pricing. You simply do not get an $800 monitor for $300. No one in the industry has that kind of margin, Apple included.

Again, you may get a product that's 80% as good for 50% of the price and congratulations if that's all you need. But that is not remotely the same thing as saying you're getting the same thing for a fraction of the price. You most definitely are not.

Most people don't need high-performance monitors, nor can they even tell the difference between an okay monitor and a great one. That doesn't mean there isn't a difference. I'm not discouraging anyone from buying one--they're great, I'm just saying your premise is invalid.

Click to expand...

Thank you for all those sources.

Ah, that's OK. We can agree to disagree.

What exactly is it that you want?

The notion that they're identical monitors in different plastic cases is what requires affirmative evidence. Where do you get the idea that they're equivalent? Certainly not from any professional reviews or any qualified source, where even similarly-priced monitors from different companies using the same panel show marked differences, and certainly not from your own knowledge of display technology.

----------

I'm not going to buy one and tear it down just to make a price list for you. If you want to supply a complete list of part numbers (including backing up the assertion that you're in fact getting the same panel as a given Dell or Apple display), then we'll talk.

lianlua said:

What exactly is it that you want?

The notion that they're identical monitors in different plastic cases is what requires affirmative evidence. Where do you get the idea that they're equivalent? Certainly not from any professional reviews or any qualified source, where even similarly-priced monitors from different companies using the same panel show marked differences, and certainly not from your own knowledge of display technology.

----------

I'm not going to buy one and tear it down just to make a price list for you. If you want to supply a complete list of part numbers (including backing up the assertion that you're in fact getting the same panel as a given Dell or Apple display), then we'll talk.

Click to expand...

Your argument is: "I'm a professional and I know what I'm talking about." And, "I don't need to bother to prove my point because I'm right."

Seriously?

First, an Anandtech review of one of these rebadged IPS displays, from last year:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5885/the-achieva-shimian-qh270-a-350-27inch-wqhd-sips-display

Second:

Here's a YouTube video showing you the panel type, in this case, a Samsung PLS 27" 1440p, with part number LTM270DL02, taken from a Korean QX2710.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc_DJtvVBzA

Investigating that number brings you the following:

http://www.panelook.com/LTM270DL02_SAMSUNG_27.0_LCM_overview_12403.html

And the datasheet:

http://www.datadisplay-group.com/fileadmin/pdf/produkte/Displays/Samsung/LTM270DL02_Datasheet.pdf

And to round it off, here's a thread where you can read about the exact same 2009-2012 27" iMac IPS panels being used in these Korean housings:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1257538/microcenter-now-carrying-the-27-2560x1440-korean-ips-monitors/60

Both the iMac/Korean panels have part number: LM270WQ1

For giggles, here's Microcenter's 27" IPS panel teardown. Oh look, it's also a LM270WQ1:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1257538/lightbox/post/17329390/id/890643

Here are all the pictures:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1257538/...60x1440-korean-ips-monitors/210#post_17329390

And here's the actual listing on Microcenter:

http://www.microcenter.com/product/...WQHD_2560x1440,_HDMI,_DVI-D,_DisplayPort,_USB

And here, from the teardown of the Apple Thunderbolt Display. Oh look! It's another LM270WQ1:

http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Apple-Thunderbolt-Display-Teardown/6525/1

These are supposedly NOT B panels, but A- panels, with Apple/Dell being A panels. The difference is quite slight between them, if anything. Again, we're not talking aesthetics, here. We know these Korean panels have middling housings/bezels/stands etc.

Now, before you reply, consider this: I do not want to hear your opinion anymore. I know your opinion well. Bring to the table some facts, and we can continue this discussion. You'll know if you've done so, because I won't bother replying if you don't.

WilliamG said:

Your argument is: "I'm a professional and I know what I'm talking about." And, "I don't need to bother to prove my point because I'm right."

Click to expand...

No, my argument is exactly what's documented in these reviews: they're not the same monitors. They're not $800 monitors being sold for $300 no matter how hard you try to convince yourself that's true. They're at best $400 monitors being sold for $300 by cheaping out on case materials and warranties.

You've provided links that prove exactly what you're pretending isn't true--the panels are lower cost, lower grade panels, and despite the fact that comparison monitors use the same part numbers, there are still obvious performance differences between them, not simply "housings".

To wit, AnandTech's review shows distinctions, and includes the concise conclusion on a monitor with no hardware scaler, limited adjustment in the image processor, limited inputs with stripped-down implementations, no optical coatings, and the cheating way they implement brightness/contrast controls:

If you're looking for an affordable, bare bones 2560 x 1440 display, definitely give the Achieva Shimian QH270 some thought. Just keep in mind the caveats associated with these displays (potential for dead pixels, unimpressive build quality, limited input choices, no easily serviceable warranty, etc...).

Click to expand...

You seem to be confused about what is inside a monitor--it's not just the panel in a plastic case. All of the surrounding electronics are different. Again, that's exactly why you see differences between Dell and Apple displays using the same panels. It is those electronics that make a midrange Apple or Dell display different from a premium Eizo or NEC monitor, and those some electronics that make these different from an Apple or Dell.

And to round it off, here's a thread where you can read about the exact same 2009-2012 27" iMac IPS panels being used in these Korean housings:

Click to expand...

Yes, and if you read that thread, you'll see some of the consequences of those "housings" despite your continued willful ignorance.

These are supposedly NOT B panels, but A- panels, with Apple/Dell being A panels. The difference is quite slight between them, if anything. Again, we're not talking aesthetics, here. We know these Korean panels have middling housings/bezels/stands etc.

Click to expand...

There you go again, ignoring your own links. "Housings/bezels/stands" are not the only difference. It's not "quite slight" at all. It's the difference between $50 worth of electronics and facing on a discounted lower-grade panel and $200 worth of electronics on a full price panel.

Until you manage to wrap your head around the fact that the panel is just one of many components in a monitor and start to comprehend that there is no magical unicorn-powered factory out there that can sell an $800 monitor for $300, you're just going to continue to be frustrated.

Again, supply me with a complete parts list for the monitor and I'll show you, if you can't see for yourself, the difference. However, since you don't seem to believe any of those parts exist in the first place, I won't hold my breath.

lianlua said:

No, my argument is exactly what's documented in these reviews: they're not the same monitors. They're not $800 monitors being sold for $300 no matter how hard you try to convince yourself that's true. They're at best $400 monitors being sold for $300 by cheaping out on case materials and warranties.

You've provided links that prove exactly what you're pretending isn't true--the panels are lower cost, lower grade panels, and despite the fact that comparison monitors use the same part numbers, there are still obvious performance differences between them, not simply "housings".

To wit, AnandTech's review shows distinctions, and includes the concise conclusion on a monitor with no hardware scaler, limited adjustment in the image processor, limited inputs with stripped-down implementations, no optical coatings, and the cheating way they implement brightness/contrast controls:


You seem to be confused about what is inside a monitor--it's not just the panel in a plastic case. All of the surrounding electronics are different. Again, that's exactly why you see differences between Dell and Apple displays using the same panels. It is those electronics that make a midrange Apple or Dell display different from a premium Eizo or NEC monitor, and those some electronics that make these different from an Apple or Dell.

Yes, and if you read that thread, you'll see some of the consequences of those "housings" despite your continued willful ignorance.

There you go again, ignoring your own links. "Housings/bezels/stands" are not the only difference. It's not "quite slight" at all. It's the difference between $50 worth of electronics and facing on a discounted lower-grade panel and $200 worth of electronics on a full price panel.

Until you manage to wrap your head around the fact that the panel is just one of many components in a monitor and start to comprehend that there is no magical unicorn-powered factory out there that can sell an $800 monitor for $300, you're just going to continue to be frustrated.

Again, supply me with a complete parts list for the monitor and I'll show you, if you can't see for yourself, the difference. However, since you don't seem to believe any of those parts exist in the first place, I won't hold my breath.

Click to expand...

I'm very well aware of the components that go into a display. That's why I've used the word "panel," throughout this discussion. I'm also well aware that not all these displays are the same in terms of brightness adjustment availability etc. Heck, some of these earlier models didn't have ANY brightness adjustments and you had to do it in software (crazy).

What I'm getting at is that SOME of these displays out there function, realistically, just as well as the iMacs/Dells etc. They just do. I've had them side by side with my iMac displays, my Eizo display, and they are just as good as the iMac (the Eizo is a little more special). I'm a photographer, need VERY specific colors for print, so I think I'd know, right?

Again, not all of these panels are put into quality displays, but many of them are. And for the price difference, they're absolutely worthy of consideration if aesthetics aren't considered.

Now, you may ask why I own an Eizo and an iMac and not one of these Korean displays. Well, to be honest, I like pretty things.

WilliamG said:

I'm very well aware of the components that go into a display. That's why I've used the word "panel," throughout this discussion.

Click to expand...

What you've done is misuse the word 'panel' to further an argument of false equivalence.

What I'm getting at is that SOME of these displays out there function, realistically, just as well as the iMacs/Dells etc. They just do.

Click to expand...

For many purposes, it is true that most people wouldn't notice a significant difference. But that is not the discussion. The issue was that these products are "just as good" which is absolutely, incontestably false and a huge disservice to prospective customers.

They are absolutely worth considering. But they are cheap for a reason, and not because there are huge margins in the display industry that these Korean upstarts can simply come in and undercut. You're not getting remotely the same product. It may well be the case that what you give up isn't valuable enough to pay an extra couple hundred bucks for you, but that doesn't mean you're not giving it up.

lianlua said:

What you've done is misuse the word 'panel' to further an argument of false equivalence.

For many purposes, it is true that most people wouldn't notice a significant difference. But that is not the discussion. The issue was that these products are "just as good" which is absolutely, incontestably false and a huge disservice to prospective customers.

They are absolutely worth considering. But they are cheap for a reason, and not because there are huge margins in the display industry that these Korean upstarts can simply come in and undercut. You're not getting remotely the same product. It may well be the case that what you give up isn't valuable enough to pay an extra couple hundred bucks for you, but that doesn't mean you're not giving it up.

Click to expand...

Oy... right. Clearly I've misused the word "panel." Clearly...

Anyway, let's lay out a few facts and call it a day:

1.) Many of these LCD monitors use the same PANEL (yes, PANEL) as 2009-2012 iMacs. This is a fact.

2.) Many of these LCD monitors cost about $270-$300. This is a fact.

3.) An Apple Thunderbolt display costs about $1000. This is a fact.

4.) Many of these ~$300 displays perform SIMILARLY to a $1000 Thunderbolt display. I've used them, for gaming, photography etc. Therefore, to ME, this a fact. And I'M EXTREMELY picky. Sure, you don't get aesthetics, Thunderbolt, speakers, webcam, USB 2.0 hub, ethernet etc, but what if you don't need those things?

5.) You need to look at the value proposition of a $300 vs a $1000 monitor which use the same PANEL. I'm betting you that 95% of owners wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them. This is NOT a fact, just an assumption (which you'll no doubt attack me for). Did I say that ALL $300 IPS monitors out there are as good as Apple's or Dell's? NO! As I said earlier, some of them out there are utter crap, because the hardware/software SUPPORTING the panel is just craptastic. But there are excellent Korean monitors out there (aesthetics aside).

6.) If you honestly think these $1000 monitors actually cost the manufacturer ANYWHERE near that price to produce, you're sorely, sorely mistaken. Hell, you can buy a refurbished Dell U2713HM for $417. That's quite cheap, no?

In polite fashion, I'll just agree to disagree with you from this point on.

WilliamG said:

1.) Many of these LCD monitors use the same PANEL (yes, PANEL) as 2009-2012 iMacs. This is a fact.

Click to expand...

No. They use a discounted, lower grade version of the panel that failed QC. They're closely related because they were meant to be the same and may be visually indistinguishable, but they're not the same.

This is not an insignificant distinction, particularly in a cost analysis. It's like selling a returned item as new. If they were the "same" panels, they'd have been sold as grade A or A+ just like the others. As soon as it fails to attain the "A" rating, the economics change dramatically because it is no longer the same; they can't sell to the intended customer so they dump it at a loss because eating, say, 40% is better than eating 100%.

2.) Many of these LCD monitors cost about $270-$300. This is a fact.

Click to expand...

A fact not in dispute, but good work.

3.) An Apple Thunderbolt display costs about $1000. This is a fact.

Click to expand...

A Thunderbolt display, in addition to restoring about $200 in hardware costs omitted from the $300 monitor you to bring it up to similar Samsung and Dell products, also includes the following: an HD camera, dual microphones, a 2.1 speaker system, a full Thunderbolt host, a power supply with secondary switching to accommodate an Apple notebook, gigabit ethernet and Firewire 800 hardware, and a USB hub.

4.) Many of these ~$300 displays perform SIMILARLY to a $1000 Thunderbolt display.

Click to expand...

Similarly in many metrics, quite poorly in others and in both cases only when assessing particular aspects. A crappy computer built around the same processor may benchmark in the neighborhood of a much better computer because the benchmarks only capture a few parameters.

Sure, you don't get aesthetics, Thunderbolt, speakers, webcam, USB 2.0 hub, ethernet etc, but what if you don't need those things?

Click to expand...

Then you factor that in to your decisionmaking and that result favors going with the cheaper option. But for the nth time, not needing or wanting features or better parts that cost more money does not mean they're not there.

5.) You need to look at the value proposition of a $300 vs a $1000 monitor which use the same PANEL. I'm betting you that 95% of owners wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them.

Click to expand...

95% of owners can't even understand the benefits of owning a good monitor, to say nothing of being able to tell them apart. Again, for the nth time, the issue is your dishonest attempt to sell the monitors as the "same" thing for half the price, which is a flat-out lie.

6.) If you honestly think these $1000 monitors actually cost the manufacturer ANYWHERE near that price to produce, you're sorely, sorely mistaken.

Click to expand...

Another outright lie meant to mask the obvious component differences and resurrect the same unsupportable misdirection you've been peddling this whole time.

The equivalent Eizo to what we're talking about lists for $1600-1800 depending on configuration. Eizo's gross margin is 30%, and depending on which financials you look at, ends with an operating margin of about 8-12%. In other words, they pocket between $130-220 on each sale after business expenses.

Selling that monitor at exact cost with zero business overhead is still over $1100. The $300 monitor is simply not the same.

If you don't need the extra $800 in work and parts that goes into them, then good for you. It's still not the same as one that does have that extra $800 invested in it. They're wholly different classes of products. You need to compare them to other $300 monitors, in which case you'll find that in exchange for cheaper parts and stripped down electronics, you tend to get a better panel than you otherwise would for the price, which is a great thing if your top priorities are about color and viewing angle. But all you're doing is trading parts, looks, and brand support to make room for one higher-end part in a sea of barebones parts.

Does anyone know if the 27" iMacs released in October of 2012 that have the image retention issues are fixed when they show up in the refurbish website?

Nobody?

jehartley said:

Nobody?

Click to expand...

I'd guess a refurb has just as much/little chance of IR as a new system. And your system is extremely unlikely to experience it.

WilliamG said:

I'd guess a refurb has just as much/little chance of IR as a new system. And your system is extremely unlikely to experience it.

Click to expand...

Thanks! I guess I'd hoped that if the 27" refurb I ordered Friday had been sent in for IR, that maybe they fixed it before trying to resell. Thanks, again!

jehartley said:

Does anyone know if the 27" iMacs released in October of 2012 that have the image retention issues are fixed when they show up in the refurbish website?

Click to expand...

If the reason of return was an IR issue, I bet they have cleaned the dust and simply repacked the iMac carefully...as far as I understand, Apple doesn't handle a monitor with possible IR problem as defective....

ioannis2005gr said:

If the reason of return was an IR issue, I bet they have cleaned the dust and simply repack the iMac carefully...as far as I understand, Apple doesn't handle a monitor with possible IR problem as defective....

Click to expand...

Of course they do, if it fails their testing while it's in their possession or if it's documented in the return notes by an Apple tech. "Possible IR" obviously isn't enough--you need actual retention appearing quickly enough and that persists long enough.

I get IR on my 2012 imac. it was purchased in april 2013. This only happens though if I leave the same window open in the same exact position for 20 minutes or more. also the machine has to have been running awhile. I dont see it through regular usage though so it doesnt bother me.

Acorn said:

I get IR on my 2012 imac. it was purchased in april 2013. This only happens though if I leave the same window open in the same exact position for 20 minutes or more. also the machine has to have been running awhile. I dont see it through regular usage though so it doesnt bother me.

Click to expand...

this is the same with me.. like i posted before i believe they all have them to some extend some you have to look really really hard but it does show up. only on grey colored screens.

Guys,

I received my iMac and I have put in the code I found all over the Internet in terminal to see if I have an LG or Samsung display, but it doesn't return anything. It doesn't work. Is there a specific code to run for the 27 inch or am I missing something?

jehartley said:

Guys,

I received my iMac and I have put in the code I found all over the Internet in terminal to see if I have an LG or Samsung display, but it doesn't return anything. It doesn't work. Is there a specific code to run for the 27 inch or am I missing something?

Click to expand...

theres no new gen imacs with Samsung displays. All the imacs have LG displays.

Oh, okay. Thank you.

iMac 2012 Faulty Screen

Hi this has happened to my iMac late 2012 after just 4 months of sitting still on a desk, just woke up from sleep like this.