that broken glass makes me cringe. ): i feel so bad for anyone who's received a damaged imac.
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.
27" Core i7 iMacs Arriving DOA or With Cracked Screens?
- Thread starter thejadedmonkey
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
that broken glass makes me cringe. ): i feel so bad for anyone who's received a damaged imac.
Their website did/does not make it obvious. It is not listed at the top of their iMac page as a picture. However, if one scrolls down the page to the table, looks for the 2.8 Ghz column, and then select one of the rows. When clicking on one of the corresponding row links, one still does not see "i7" explicitly listed on the resulting page. I did speak with a MacMall person to confirm this unit is "i7".
BTW, the Apple 'Remote' arrived yesterday. Its a sexy little thing.
sexy remote
ain't it though... looks & feels like the Remote was honed from a solid hunk of aluminum.
overall, i really like the design/aesthetic of the new iMacs and their accessories... the machine looks fantastic sitting on the desk (we also bought the 21" iMac which, unlike the 27", arrived in one piece). the iMac's all-in-one design and bluetooth keyboard/mouse leaves my desk free of clutter and wires, i love it.
now, if only Apple would do something about the shipping damage to the 27" models...
ain't it though... looks & feels like the Remote was honed from a solid hunk of aluminum.
overall, i really like the design/aesthetic of the new iMacs and their accessories... the machine looks fantastic sitting on the desk (we also bought the 21" iMac which, unlike the 27", arrived in one piece). the iMac's all-in-one design and bluetooth keyboard/mouse leaves my desk free of clutter and wires, i love it.
now, if only Apple would do something about the shipping damage to the 27" models...
So maybe Apple should, instead of fixing their inadequate packaging, refer to the 27" as the "modular Imac"?
Apple's new modular mac
umm, no kidding.
joking aside tho, the smashed screen on my brand new iMac was almost heart breaking. i quickly re-boxed the thing because i couldn't bear to look at it in such a tragic state.
umm, no kidding.
joking aside tho, the smashed screen on my brand new iMac was almost heart breaking. i quickly re-boxed the thing because i couldn't bear to look at it in such a tragic state.
i wouldn't say 'obviously' but given that we haven't seen reports of tons of store bought 27 inch imacs being damaged in the box, it does beg the question of whether the shipping handler could be partially to blame.
given the money involved etc, I doubt that Apple hasn't tested the boxes and packaging to make sure that it is adequate. but if a mis-calibrated sorting machine is pushing them off too hard or at an odd angle, or if they are being set on end with too much weight on top that could be a possible cause of damage. pallet shipped items are likely assembled by Apple trained personnel who would know the correct ways to load various bits and are likely supervised to insure compliance. but staff at a 3rd party carrier aren't necessarily watched as closely and are more likely to toss stuff around, pack it into the trucks however they can fit everything and so on. I've gotten boxes from both UPS and Fed Ex that were totally mangled several times, a couple of which were actually marked Fragile so I"m not willing to put 100% blame on Apple.
Oh please....
No other Apple system has suffered the shipping damage rates of the 27" Imac. UPS/FedEx/whatever haven't changed their procedures to target the 27" Imac.
If a significant number of systems are being delivered with broken screens - when the box shows no signs of abuse - one cannot avoid blaming Apple for the problem.
Automobiles have "crumple zones", so that in a collision the body absorbs the impact to protect the humans. Shipping containers are the same - bumps and insults will dent the box, but the contents are safe. I've often received FedEx/UPS shipments with significant damage to the box - but the packaging has protected the contents from damage.
We're seeing many reports of Imacs arriving with undamaged boxes - yet the Imac inside has a broken glass screen.
How can you look at the facts and not conclude that Apple has a packaging problem?
While we can't say for sure who is to blame, your posts continuously suggest it's most likely some other parties' mistake rather than Apple.
The cracking screens appear to be happening to one specific iMac size in predominantly the same place. If UPS is as negligent as you assert, they are doing a heck of a job of mishandling them so damage is consistent without destroying the exterior shipping cartons.
Going green has it's disadvantages.
Had Apple kept their original packaging for the iMac, this problem likely would never have emerged:
Going green has it's disadvantages.
Had Apple kept their original packaging for the iMac, this problem likely would never have emerged:
NO, if they went green, The gaps would be stuffed with hemp, this is just cheap. Its greener if they had proper packaging in the first place.
It seems that the flat boxes are not capable of supporting the weight and torque of the 27" machines.
With styrofoam, hemp, or Biodegradable Packing Peanuts: the large square boxes will offer better support, overall.
That, too. The extra wide surface area in relation to its relative 'thinness' also makes it vulnerable to fracture, due to torque, and pressure, as well as impact.
one specific size mostly. I have seen one report of a customized 21.5 inch that arrived damaged. so again, a built to order machine. which may not be shipped the same way as the store stock.
and not all custom ordered machines are turning up damaged.
if this was just a design flaw, and/or just a packaging design flaw then more machines should be showing up damaged. including those sent to the stores and those that were standard config onlines (which are probably sent out from the same warehouses as the store stock).
so to put 100% of the blame on Apple is suspect.
thank you... i was thinking the very same thing :~}
about laguna i mean, not yourself
In the UK, the law states that in the event of a faulty item. the supplier should replace/repair with little inconvenience to the buyer - so making you take your 27" imac to the nearest apple store - at your cost, is inconvenient and you should have insisted that apple come and collect their faulty product.
I had a similar situation with a second dud ACD - 'hey you can come and drop it off at apple store for a replacement' Um? no thanks - just give me a frigging refund.
btw, in my opnion, they should stop using this stupid glass panel that they insist on using.
Going green has it's disadvantages.
Had Apple kept their original packaging for the iMac, this problem likely would never have emerged:
My HP LP2475W 24 inch TFT Widescreen Monitor came in a similar sized box to that imac - the monitor was FACE DOWN securely lodged in two large polystyrene slabs - my thought when opening where 'oh that would have survived the transit' turn it on, low and behold, it wasnt faulty! yay!
This opposed to the two faulty ACD - when opening it, 'oh my, its been sent with the ACD stood up? it just felt a bit flimsey compared to how HP send their premium monitor. Was a bit 'oh i hope it has survived the transit?..
A possible solution would be to lay the imacs face down in two large slabs of polystyrene rather than stood up oh and to NOT USE GLASS MIRRORS, sorry, PANELS...
glass has better optical clarity than plastic.
given a choice, i'd always choose real glass over plastic.
btw, the new iMacs use plastic, not glass
Are you sure about this?
It's my understanding that the new 27" iMacs use glass:
21.5-inch and 27-inch displays.
The new iMac has come a long way from the first 15-inch iMac.
Take one look and you’ll see just how far.
A 21.5-inch or 27-inch display with edge-to-edge glass covers nearly the entire front of the enclosure....
glass or plastic?
hmm, well i'm looking at a new 21.5" iMac as we speak, and from what i can determine (by tapping on the screen surface), it sure sounds & feels like some type of clear plastic or polycarbonate, not real glass.
however, according to wikipedia, both models use glass covered screens.
when i received the 27" iMac with the broken screen, i didn't bother to remove the protective film or examine the screen close-up, so you may be right... it might be glass on the 27" model. which would be a good thing, imo, since glass has superior optics (to plastic) and would result in a noticeably better quality display (aside from the shipping damage, of course).
so, if both models (21" & 27") use glass over the display panel, how come my 21" iMac seems to be plastic?
maybe Apple changed the specifications, from glass to plastic, after realizing the machines were arriving at their destinations with cracked screens??
btw, i share your lack of enthusiasm for glossy screens (i prefer matte), however, i have to admit, the only time i actually notice any reflections on the iMac screen is when the display is off (no image on the screen), otherwise it looks pretty darn good, there are no annoying/distracting reflections while the machine is in-use. although, i'm still acclimating myself to Apple's wonky font rendering/smoothing technology (my eyes/brain are accustomed to ClearType), so the fonts on the iMac look fuzzy to me (not crisp & well defined like ClearType) especially when i first began using the machine... but i'm learning to live with the 'fuzzy fonts' (overlook it actually).
there is also something odd about the way LEDs light up different areas of the screen. images with deep shadows are sometimes not properly rendered, they end up looking just black (the details are lost). and the colours on the new 21" iMac are a bit over-saturated, red in particular. apparently, LED backlighting does have some peculiarities that can cause certain images to not be accurately reproduced.
for example, whereas traditional fluorescent backlighting illuminates ALL the pixels uniformly, LED backlighting is arranged in a matrix across the entire area of the display panel, so only selected areas of the screen are lit up at any given moment, depending on the image being displayed. in other words, backlighting is turned on only when/where it is needed, saving power and producing the deep blacks that everyone loves... but then the algorithms used to light the LED matrix, varying the brightness levels in real time, have to be sophisticated enough to reproduce more complex (darker) images, without dimming the LEDs too much, causing loss of detail in the shadows, etc.
that said, display technology is not my field of expertise, so maybe someone else with more knowledge on the subject would like to jump in here...
i know one thing, IPS display panels are far superior to the more common TN (twisted nematic) types. like the new iMacs, my aging thinkpad has an IPS panel, and it still looks way better than even the best TN panels on the market today.
thoughts?
hmm, well i'm looking at a new 21.5" iMac as we speak, and from what i can determine (by tapping on the screen surface), it sure sounds & feels like some type of clear plastic or polycarbonate, not real glass.
however, according to wikipedia, both models use glass covered screens.
when i received the 27" iMac with the broken screen, i didn't bother to remove the protective film or examine the screen close-up, so you may be right... it might be glass on the 27" model. which would be a good thing, imo, since glass has superior optics (to plastic) and would result in a noticeably better quality display (aside from the shipping damage, of course).
so, if both models (21" & 27") use glass over the display panel, how come my 21" iMac seems to be plastic?
maybe Apple changed the specifications, from glass to plastic, after realizing the machines were arriving at their destinations with cracked screens??
btw, i share your lack of enthusiasm for glossy screens (i prefer matte), however, i have to admit, the only time i actually notice any reflections on the iMac screen is when the display is off (no image on the screen), otherwise it looks pretty darn good, there are no annoying/distracting reflections while the machine is in-use. although, i'm still acclimating myself to Apple's wonky font rendering/smoothing technology (my eyes/brain are accustomed to ClearType), so the fonts on the iMac look fuzzy to me (not crisp & well defined like ClearType) especially when i first began using the machine... but i'm learning to live with the 'fuzzy fonts' (overlook it actually).
there is also something odd about the way LEDs light up different areas of the screen. images with deep shadows are sometimes not properly rendered, they end up looking just black (the details are lost). and the colours on the new 21" iMac are a bit over-saturated, red in particular. apparently, LED backlighting does have some peculiarities that can cause certain images to not be accurately reproduced.
for example, whereas traditional fluorescent backlighting illuminates ALL the pixels uniformly, LED backlighting is arranged in a matrix across the entire area of the display panel, so only selected areas of the screen are lit up at any given moment, depending on the image being displayed. in other words, backlighting is turned on only when/where it is needed, saving power and producing the deep blacks that everyone loves... but then the algorithms used to light the LED matrix, varying the brightness levels in real time, have to be sophisticated enough to reproduce more complex (darker) images, without dimming the LEDs too much, causing loss of detail in the shadows, etc.
that said, display technology is not my field of expertise, so maybe someone else with more knowledge on the subject would like to jump in here...
i know one thing, IPS display panels are far superior to the more common TN (twisted nematic) types. like the new iMacs, my aging thinkpad has an IPS panel, and it still looks way better than even the best TN panels on the market today.
thoughts?
hmm, well i'm looking at a new 21.5" iMac as we speak, and from what i can determine (by tapping on the screen surface), it sure sounds & feels like some type of clear plastic or polycarbonate, not real glass.
however, according to wikipedia, both models use glass covered screens.
when i received the 27" iMac with the broken screen, i didn't bother to remove the protective film or examine the screen close-up, so you may be right... it might be glass on the 27" model. which would be a good thing, imo, since glass has superior optics (to plastic) and would result in a noticeably better quality display (aside from the shipping damage, of course).
so, if both models (21" & 27") use glass over the display panel, how come my 21" iMac seems to be plastic?
maybe Apple changed the specifications, from glass to plastic, after realizing the machines were arriving at their destinations with cracked screens??
btw, i share your lack of enthusiasm for glossy screens (i prefer matte), however, i have to admit, the only time i actually notice any reflections on the iMac screen is when the display is off (no image on the screen), otherwise it looks pretty darn good, there are no annoying/distracting reflections while the machine is in-use. although, i'm still acclimating myself to Apple's wonky font rendering/smoothing technology (my eyes/brain are accustomed to ClearType), so the fonts on the iMac look fuzzy to me (not crisp & well defined like ClearType) especially when i first began using the machine... but i'm learning to live with the 'fuzzy fonts' (overlook it actually).
there is also something odd about the way LEDs light up different areas of the screen. images with deep shadows are sometimes not properly rendered, they end up looking just black (the details are lost). and the colours on the new 21" iMac are a bit over-saturated, red in particular. apparently, LED backlighting does have some peculiarities that can cause certain images to not be accurately reproduced.
for example, whereas traditional fluorescent backlighting illuminates ALL the pixels uniformly, LED backlighting is arranged in a matrix across the entire area of the display panel, so only selected areas of the screen are lit up at any given moment, depending on the image being displayed. in other words, backlighting is turned on only when/where it is needed, saving power and producing the deep blacks that everyone loves... but then the algorithms used to light the LED matrix, varying the brightness levels in real time, have to be sophisticated enough to reproduce more complex (darker) images, without dimming the LEDs too much, causing loss of detail in the shadows, etc.
that said, display technology is not my field of expertise, so maybe someone else with more knowledge on the subject would like to jump in here...
i know one thing, IPS display panels are far superior to the more common TN (twisted nematic) types. like the new iMacs, my aging thinkpad has an IPS panel, and it still looks way better than even the best TN panels on the market today.
thoughts?
I remain convinced that the 21.5 inch iMacs have glass screens, even though, while tapping on my 24" right now, I agree that the resonance does sound "plasticky."
The IPS display on the 27" is riveting, and the LED lighting makes the color contrasts all-the-more vivid.
Until OLED gains the ability to produce greater pixel illumination, I see the IPS LCD remaining desirable for the next few years.
I have a matte screen 30" ACD which I love - however, the 27" iMac screen seems slightly more crisp, vivid, and provides more color contrast and saturation.
Matte screen covers are available for those who prefer matte - i personally appreciate the clarity of glossy, as reflections have not been a hinderance at all, while using the glossy iMac.
To each, his/her own.
If you try to slice the screen with a carpet knife, does it leave a scratch?
(Glass == no scratch, Plastic == big ugly gouge)
If you try to slice the screen with a carpet knife, does it leave a scratch?
wait, let me check...
D'OH!