blu-rays still way too expensive and not viable for Apples computers. apple's record profits are associated with offering a smaller, more efficient (to produce) computer lineup. manufactoring costs associated with blu-ray need to make a serious efficiency jump/price decrease before consideration is even made for offering one.
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.
iMac (aluminum) Hardware Updates for Spring 08 Speculation
- Thread starter takeabyteoutta
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
blu-rays still way too expensive and not viable for Apples computers. apple's record profits are associated with offering a smaller, more efficient (to produce) computer lineup. manufactoring costs associated with blu-ray need to make a serious efficiency jump/price decrease before consideration is even made for offering one.
iMac revision is at the earliest in late April/early May when Montevina is released. A Matte option is extremely doubtful.
southerndoc
Contributor
I was very thankful of the Apple exec's phone call. It gave me a lot of comfort knowing my letter was at least read and acknowledged. Whether they actually start offering matte screens remains to be seen. If enough people write letters, they will see that not everyone likes glossy displays.
Amen. Can't wait. Matte screens in iMacs are a thing of the past. Glossy screens "wow" potential buyers in the stores. It's called curb appeal
inkswamp
macrumors 68030
Curb appeal or not, the glossy screen is bass-ackward. Matte screens are hardly a "thing of the past."
If you're old enough to remember the old CRT era, you'll know that the reflection and glare was an unwelcome part of the computing experience. It frequently led to eyestrain, headaches and a general sense of annoyance. An entire industry arose providing display hoods and shields and various methods to make the screen matte all of which sucked to one degree or another.
And in any case, it's hard to argue that Apple shouldn't have continued offering a matte option for the consumer-level machines, even at an additional cost to cover any manufacturing expense involved. There's just no excuse for not offering that.
This is a great thread. I have decided to wait until Apple refreshes the iMac before I buy. I suspect its nothing big, but I want the latest and greatest!
the world doesn't revolve around you. apple has incentive to be as profitable as possible for its stockholders. apple probablly figured a 3rd party manufactor would fill the hole by offering anti-glare mattes, but so far no ones stepped up. whats that mean? not enough demand. guess you're going to have make one yourself.
Same here. I have made a conscious decision to wait until Apple offer a better Graphics Card in their top-of-the-range iMacs. It doesn't have to be state of the art, but I would like something a bit more powerful than their current offerings (even if it is only a BTO option).
Come on Apple... my money is ready!
inkswamp
macrumors 68030
Didn't say it did. I'm just expressing my own reaction and frustration with Apple's dumb decisions.
Sure. And already I know two PC users who were considering switching by buying iMacs and in both cases, they were appalled at the glossy screen-only option and ended up not buying. I've been using Macs for 15+ years and I'm considering going with a PC where I can get decent hardware selection. If you look elsewhere, beyond a site like MacRumors where everyone is looking to defend Apple to the death, you'll see Apple is likely losing potential sales over this.
Wrong. There *are* products on the market already. So let me pose your question back to you: what's that mean? If glossy's so damn great, why do those products exist? Hmm...
Or go to a PC seller who offers more options than Apple is apparently capable of. It's pretty sad that Apple is as big as they are and can't seem to offer reasonable hardware options, huh? Guess that old argument about Apple catering to the user's needs is a bunch of bunk.
Look the iMac doesn't have matte option (personally I don't mind) and it doesnt have the latest and most powerfull hardware (again I don't mind because it runs great) but this is a consumer product focused on the average consumer who they are going to sell the most units to. If you are so desperate to switch to a PC with a matte option and better hardware, i seem to remember this product apple has for sale, i think its called a Mac Pro?
Getting away from the matte argument, what GPU updates do you think we'll see, from what i hear the HD3600 series offer almost literally no advantage for mac users, since the only update to the chipset is to include DX10.1/11 instructions with no speed enhancements.
However a high end card option would possibly tilde me from considering a MacPro, like an 8800M, or whatever AMD/ATI's new higher end mobile chipset is (HD2800M/HD3800M or something like that?)
However a high end card option would possibly tilde me from considering a MacPro, like an 8800M, or whatever AMD/ATI's new higher end mobile chipset is (HD2800M/HD3800M or something like that?)
1. People flame apple all the time on this website. You know two people. wow. this is a multibillion international company.
2. These products apparently exist for you and your glare filled home. Go buy one and stop wasting valuable thread space. why do you insist on complaining if there's a simple solution to this "deal-breaking" problem?
No 3rd party companies have seen fit to offer an anti-glare screen aimed specifically for the iMac. Atleast not that I can find on simple/generic google and msn searchs (anti-glare screen for iMac). That was my point before and whats that tell you? Not enough demand for it perhaps. I mean, if you and those two PC friends of yours bought imacs, maybe then there'll be enough.
Or maybe they think current anti-glare screens on the market are a perfectly fine solutiion for your problem...
3. Apple offers the best all-in-one computer on the market, packaged with the most user-friendly and efficient operating system in the world. How'd they do that? by not catering to users obviously.
I think we'll likely see something in the HD3800 series for the "upper end" iMacs. The pricing on this new GPU are pretty aggresive considering its pratically top of the line (released 11/07). Its apparently cheaper because it doesn't have a great cooling system, but placed next to a Montevina, overheating shouldn't be a problem.
inkswamp
macrumors 68030
Oh, so I'm "desperate to switch to a PC?" How about reading my posts before responding, huh? Too much to ask? I don't know why I bother. I've been on this site long enough to know that if you voice an opinion that goes against Apple, you get dumped on by people eager to be the biggest and baddest apologist.
So, let me get this straight. You're actually saying the solution is to spend another $1000-1400 plus the cost of a display just to make up for Apple's dumb decision?
Riiiiiight. I wonder if Steve Jobs has any bridges he might want to sell me too. 🙄
The fact that there are no better solutions to this problem only highlights how badly Apple needs to offer more screen options or offer a headless iMac (something better than the sadly hobbled Mac Mini.) I think this is pretty pathetic on Apple's part regardless of whatever defenses might exist here.
You will also remember that CRT screens are curved (Trinitron's were curved on only one axis). This basically meant that CRTs were convex mirrors, which could reflect light from a significant number of directions right into your eyes.
As a true flat screen, LCDs, even with glossy screens, reflect light from few directions.
So, flat, glossy, LCD screens reflect less apparent light than the curved, semi-glossy CRT screen.
I'm not sure why people think that Apple will wait until Montevina is released before updating the iMacs. When you look at the average release schedule, Apple has waited between 6.5 and 7 months between iMac updates. That would mean a likely update in March.
Now, it is true that if Apple is going to wait until March, why not just hold out long enough to do Montevina in May? I think there are several reasons why not. First, other than bus speed, the big gains for Montevina (wifi/wimax, heat, and power consumption) are smaller factors for the iMac. These, however, are large factors for the MBP and no one is suggesting that an MBP update will be delayed until May for Montevina. I see the Penryn chips being as big if not bigger than a Montevina update in terms of benefit for desktop computers. Furthermore, Apple didn't put Santa Rosa in the iMac right when Santa Rosa was released. A May release of Montevina followed by an August update to the iMacs, just in time for school shopping, would put a healthy 5 or 6 months between an update soon and the Montevina update. Two updates a year would keep Apple competitive with all of their consumer-desktop competitors.
ABM
macrumors regular
First of all a decent 24" LCD is a lot less than $1000 and secondly instead of moaning about a glossy screen a quick google search gives you many online retailers who are willing to offer a anti-glare screen film for $35 (photodon.com if you care)
In no way do i insist everything apple do is perfect, but most of the time if you had a look around on google you will find solution to fix these
1. the law of averages never applies to apple. The last major update (alum) was 11 months after the september 06 update to Core 2 duo.
2.i see it the opposite way. Heat is a big issue with the iMac's thin form factor.
Penryn is huge for labtops because of the lower power consumption and lower heat production, whereas for the iMac, the improved bus speeds of montevina are more important.
3. I haven't heard anyone suggest this yet, but I think there's a chance Apple and Intel might team up to offer more customized chips, like the one in the MBA.
Actually it was 11 months (September '06 to August '07) and a large part of that delay may have been the redesign of the chasis - something that won't be a factor this time around. Anyway, I understand that releases don't obey a law of averages, but we have to be realistic that 11 month updates are far too slow, especially when your competitors already have Penryn chips in their products. All I'm suggesting is that competitive pressure will likely keep Apple from waiting too much longer than 7 months.
I did say "other than bus speed." I recognize that bus speed is important, but Penryn without Montevina is still a good step forward on its own. Furthermore, even with the iMac's small frame, it can still hold a more powerful fan than an MBP. Speaking only comparatively, heat is less of an issue in the iMac. And surely you agree that power consumption and wimax are also less important in the iMac than the MBP.
Unlikely. Intel has a clear roadmap to help their OEMs. While they will certainly break with the roadmap for some devices, why would they do that for a consumer level device that can fit full-sized chips? To deviate from their roadmap is expensive, so why would Apple want to raise the cost of their consumer computer unless there was some highly specific need for a custom chip? Instead, Apple will no doubt buy the chip that allows them to get the healthiest profit margins, and those will come from a chip that Intel can mass-produce and sell at lower wholesale prices, not a custom chip that deviates from the roadmap.
The updates are really dependent on the technology. Penryn's new coding structure is a slight step up, but the jump isn't necessarily justified by the cost. The newest chips are the most expensive. The performance boost to cost ratio probably doesn't justify upgrading, even if you factor in that you can use a smaller, cheaper fan. Other problems involve the supply of the penryn chips, which apparently is very small.
Also, I suspect the Montevina performance jumps will be much greater than penryn in terms of performance. When Apple updates, they usually like the performance increase to be in the 10-20% range, which is much realistic with the montevina bus speeds.
As for WiMax, I believe it is a big deal. There's been speculation as to apples future plans and involvement with the auction of analog tv signals. If I were running Apple, I would be trying to get atleast a small chunk of those frequencies, even if its a deal with google. Apple could set up its own wireless WiMax network for the iphone as well as labtops and even desktops. The timing is right too because Apple's deal with AT&T runs out right around the end of 09.
Power consumption negates your arguement for penryn as well as montevina, although I'd prefer my computer to be more energy efficient and I wouldn't mind if apple slapped some energy star stickers on the back.
As for competitive pressure, Apple is selling computers like hotcakes. I don't think they're really feeling any competitive pressure at the moment. They've achieved record profits and gained their largest market share of this decade. They're more likely to ride this wave as long as possible and get rid of as much stock as possible before updating.
