This is something I've always hated. Given that imacs would probably need to leverage a wider range of users to maintain any real growth going forward, this hardly seems beneficial. I've mentioned before that the new design doesn't even cut the total footprint.
How can you say that without actually seeing the newiMac first hand, they say the screen is a lot better due to the screen being closer to the glass, so would you not be better equipped to make that judgement after seeing one for yourself, instead of prejudging it? This isn't just aimed at yourself but I don't see how anyone here can slate the glass wielding process until they see it themselves.
The last one was in need of some improvement. If you looked at the Apple site, the most frequent complaint in their rating system was reflectivity. Cutting the gloss factor was probably the biggest thing they could do to make the machine more desirable. Those that were expecting a massive bump in resolution on the imacs this year were setting themselves up for disappointment.
But we measure them with a radiometer. Pay no attention to the fact that expensive displays are not factory calibrated using consumer grade technology, regardless of brand
. They like sound bites, much like any other company. Tell the audience about an expensive tool that indicates very little regarding how it's used or their overall process. Desktop panels have undergone very minor changes since some point in late 2009. We saw display designs based around what was available then. The rest fell in price and implemented minor improvements. Apple probably used any savings to cover the costs of added hardware for the thunderbolt display.
