New iMac's glossy screen to anger graphics pros?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by gregjp48, Aug 7, 2007.

  1. gregjp48 macrumors regular

    Oct 7, 2006
    Won't the new imac with a glossy screen anger graphics pros since there's no choice of a matte display for truer color? It seems like apple is using the display as the distinction between their consumer and pro lines now, just as they did with the macbook and macbook pro. No longer can a graphics pro get a cheap workstation, and all in one package that will do what they need it to do, with a matte screen. Now the mac-using designers, photographers, and graphic artists will have to buy an acd for their imac if they want a matte-finish screen, taking away the all in one form factor, or not buying an imac at all, narrowing their choices down to the mac pro in the desktop area, which is considerably more expensive and bulky, and overall not necessary unless a very powerful workstation is needed.

    I don't know what your impression was, but it seemed that throughout that whole imac part of the presentation, Jobs was trying to sell glossy screens, as he said the 'pros think they look more professional, and the consumers think they look more high end,' or something along those lines.

    Is jobs trying to corner pros into apple's more expensive offerings, or has he just gone completely insane?

    On another note, apparently the press didn't like the new imac very much, there was barely any applause at that point in the keynote, which is unusual when Jobs announces a new product. I think the previous design was much more aesthetically pleasing, anyway, not caring for the black trim around the edge of the screen. Like the aluminum though.
  2. QuarterSwede macrumors G3


    Oct 1, 2005
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Well, graphics pros shouldn't be using an iMac anyway because it's LCD is only 6-bit w/dithering. That ain't true color folks.
  3. bartelby macrumors Core

    Jun 16, 2004
    Why would a pro be using a consumer level computer anyway?:confused:
  4. gregjp48 thread starter macrumors regular

    Oct 7, 2006
    design firms etc.
    they really like imacs, and they really have enough power for most design/photo work, unless you want dual screens in aperture.
  5. bartelby macrumors Core

    Jun 16, 2004
    Well, it's their choice. It's still a consumer level machine.
  6. gregjp48 thread starter macrumors regular

    Oct 7, 2006
    true, but it's really much less noticeable difference than matte vs. glossy reproduction, no?
  7. synth3tik macrumors 68040


    Oct 11, 2006
    Minneapolis, MN
    The way I see it is that with the way computers are going the line between consumer and pro lines is getting smaller, now that Apple has decided to take the aluminum of the pro line and share it with the consumer line they need a reason for us to by Mac Pros, then comes the screen that for the life of us can we find usable, forcing us to get a Mac Pro. I was thinking a bit about getting the new iMac with the C2E BTO option until I saw the glossy screen crap.
  8. iBookG4user macrumors 604


    Jun 27, 2006
    Seattle, WA
    My parents are looking into getting an iMac to replace their current one and they don't like the glossy screen. So they are probably going to end up getting a Mac Mini instead, thus Apple lost $400 extra they could've had. If Apple gave them a choice then Apple could've had more money in their pocket, it was a bad move on their part.
  9. gregjp48 thread starter macrumors regular

    Oct 7, 2006
    exactly what i meant
    there are no CONSUMER and PRO machines anymore
    Look at the macbook and mbp, the only difference is screen-size, some expandability and Apple crippled the macbook with integrated graphics. A macbook with a good graphics card instead would run most pro apps easily. However, apple wants us to buy their pro and more expensive models, so they took the macbook and stuck a crappy graphics chip in it, making it of no use in final cut studio, and made the screen glossy only.

    Now they're doing the same thing with the imac screen.
    Not to mention it looks hideous. What happened to Apple's design skill?

    I wish there WAS a line between consumer and pro machines now. I mean, what consumer needs a Dual 2.xxGhz Processor to read and answer email, browse the web, and watch a couple of dvds, and edit a few snapshots? Oh well, I'm not complaining, pro power for consumer prices isn't such a bad deal. I'll definitely be hooking any macbook I get into an external matte display.
  10. atari1356 macrumors 68000


    Feb 27, 2004
    Because they don't need the extra power of the Mac Pro - and prefer an all-in-one unit?

    or, because that's all they can afford?
  11. Mac In School macrumors 65816

    Jun 21, 2007
    I went down to the local Apple store to check them out tonight, and those screens are absolutely gorgeous when you have no glare or reflective light to worry about. A try thing of beauty. Looked like a plasma TV.

    But, as a designer... I can't consider one for the reasons mentioned here. Doesn't matter to me since I'm happy with my current set-up, but it would be nice to have the option.

    Also, as a Web designer, I should have the choice of working with a "consumer level" machine. It's not like I work with images over 100k in file size. Mac Mini should be fine.

    That said, I'm still not gonna knock it. The thing was beautiful. I would not mind watching movies on it, that's for sure.
  12. iW00t macrumors 68040


    Nov 7, 2006
    Defenders of Apple Guild
    iMac = iProduct

    iProduct = for consumers

    If your designers need it for doing their work (I believe they are doing it salaried, which by definition makes them professional designers) they should be buying a Mac Pro or a Macbook Pro.

    iProducts are not advertised to be fit for any professional purposes!

    Most consumers do not care about distortion. The colour lab at Walmart will correct for it anyway... NOT.

    Professionals shooting weddings on their EOS 1DsIIs do.

    Starting to feel the sting of having no choices eh? This is what happens when everything comes from a single vendor.

    If that is all they can afford then perhaps they should reassess their profession.
  13. gregjp48 thread starter macrumors regular

    Oct 7, 2006
    I've seen your posts before and you are extremely anti-iMac. Don't you realize that the imac has all of the necessary power for most 2d graphics applications, and even light final cut studio work, for much less than a decently loaded Mac Pro? Why pay so much more for PCI slots and extra expandability if you aren't going to use it?
    If you need the mac pro's power, great. But that doesn't mean if you do something for a living, you have to automatically buy a PRO designated model, when the "consumer" model is quite powerful enough for what you need it to do. Plus, this thread is not a Mac Pro vs imac debate (or whether Apple needs a midrange tower or headless imac, which in my opinion it definitely does, allowing you to choose your own screen, with more expandability if you don't care about the thin form factor). It is about how the lack of a choice of a glossy or matte screen will affect sales of imacs to graphics professionals.

    Why throw away money buying extra power you don't need, just for a PRO label? just because you're a pro doesn't mean you need to own a PRO model, but pros still need decent displays. Heck, if the mac mini had a decent graphics card, a pro could even use that, albeit waiting a little longer for certain functions. But apple decided to cripple it with integrated graphics so that we'd HAVE to buy a mac pro instead, our only other choice if we want to use an apple cinema display as our only display for our mac (and not along with an imac). This kind of thing happens when a company has no competition (as if PC vendors are REAL competition ;), or rather no other vendor can use the mac OS on their hardware). It's really a shame that apple sank this low, though.

    Just because YOU have money to burn...
  14. iW00t macrumors 68040


    Nov 7, 2006
    Defenders of Apple Guild
    Nope, I have never been a fan about Apple making certain design decisions and market segmentation choices without regard for our needs, but each time I raise that argument there are bound to be countless fanbois who would shoot me down. What can I say... they are rabid fanbois...

    I am really enjoying today, said fanbois can eat their own feet.

    As for me? I have my MacBook Pro and on the desktop I have Semtex to thank for, and no, I will be a fool if I go out and buy a 19 month old workstation today for almost 2 year old pricing.

    Lack of competition, you see.

    Thanks Semtex! I have no guilt or remorse using OSX in breach of its EULA!
  15. The Man macrumors 6502

    Jul 7, 2004
    I totally agree. And in this regard, the old iMac displays were acceptable. I do some photography and some video editing with FCP on the side. The previous 20" screens were quite nice, non glare, with 178 degrees viewing angle. iMacs are quite powerful for most work. I cannot afford a pro thing. iMacs will do the job. And the new iMacs are nice, but I'm worried about the new screens.
  16. shecky Guest


    May 24, 2003
    Obviously you're not a golfer.
    i have been in many, many design studios and its very rare you see an iMac, with the exception of the receptionist or the business development people.

    so the question is, will glossy screens prevent designers from buying iMacs? i say its an irrelevant question since most pro designers would not buy an imac anyway.
  17. The Man macrumors 6502

    Jul 7, 2004
    OK, I know this thread is about graphics pros. And I see that THEY will want to buy a Mac Pro. But how about freelance/home/beginner designers or amateur photographers, etc. who do use their Mac to create nifty stuff, and do rely on their screen, but cannot afford a Pro machine? The previous iMac screen was not the best, but with calibration could be made to serve them. Also, I have seen iMacs at newsrooms. Won't the glossy screen become a problem in these work environments?
  18. iW00t macrumors 68040


    Nov 7, 2006
    Defenders of Apple Guild
    iMacs come with a DVI port so you can always buy a high quality matte screen to go with it.

    1. Glossy screens are cheaper to manufacture
    2. Most people are attracted to glossy screens
    3. Apple caters to "most" people

    If your needs are not satisfied by a particular product, then chances are you are not meant to be the target customer of said product. It is not you rejecting the product, it is the product rejecting you!
  19. The Man macrumors 6502

    Jul 7, 2004
    Yes, but Apple is forcing people more and more to a particular path. Previously, there were less strict lines between the product groups. All i-designated Macs are now glossy. And maybe the regular crowd just don't care. So people on these boards complaining are not regular--which simply means we won't be replacing our Macs anytime soon. Mostly I think it's the success of the MacBook with its glossy screen that made Steve make this decision. He saw that glossy=sell many, apparently. So glossy it is for the iMac, he thought. We will sell a tons of them.
  20. chaosbunny macrumors 68000


    Mar 11, 2005
    down to earth, far away from any clouds
    All you guys saying "why would a pro use an iMac" just don't get it. Can't a pro only use a product with the word "pro" in its name? Is there some law that a pro has to buy something with "pro" in its name? Is a pro not allowed to buy a cheaper machine if it fits his needs and he won't notice the speed difference to the mac pro?

    To make things clear: the my pro is perfect for 3D animators, video cutters, etc., stuff where you need every little bit of power. As a graphic designer, who does most of his work in Illustrator and InDesign, I don't even notice a difference between my 1,67 ghz G4 pb and the 2,3 ghz dual G5 at work. Only when opening real big images, which isn't the case everyday.

    I was dead set on the new iMac until I saw that glossy only crap. Right now I'm debating if I should just ignore that or not...

    Anyway, I refuse to buy a machine like the mac pro when 50% of its power will sit around doing nothing all the time. I think it's plain stupid that I have to buy a machine just because it has the word "pro" in its name.

    Yes I earn my money with it, and could even afford one, but I'd rather put that extra money towards new software, or a course in some program I don't know yet, or a holiday. Something I can actually benefit from, not 2 cores that don't help me anything with the software I'm using.
  21. iW00t macrumors 68040


    Nov 7, 2006
    Defenders of Apple Guild
    Yes, such a move would upset many of the more well informed users.

    However the corollary of that is Apple is neglecting the wants of many mainstream users when offering iMacs without a glossy option. Between catering to the wants of the many, and catering to the needs of a few, I guess Steve made his call.

    Especially when such a call actually has the benefits of:
    1. upselling more Mac Pros/ACDs to amateur pros who do not need the Mac Pro that badly
    2. cut down the costs of the iMac
    3. Oh look! Shiny! factor

    With the choice of GPUs Apple made with the new iMacs it also seems like Apple's intent is to target the HTC market rather than the niche gaming/techie/geek markets with this machine.

    Catering to all users with a glossy/matte BTO option diminishes economies of scale, complicates inventory management and increases production costs with little benefits to show for it.

    Apple is a corporation, they exist to sucker every last cent out of you. And considering they have NO COMPETITION, they are in a very good position to do so.
  22. netdog macrumors 603


    Feb 6, 2006
    If people "love glossy" so much, I wonder why Steve hasn't changed the ACDs to glossy. ;)
  23. bartelby macrumors Core

    Jun 16, 2004
    As far as you're concerned maybe.
    But Apple probably have a different view of things...
  24. darkanddivine macrumors member

    Jan 13, 2007
    I was hiding behind the sofa hoping my decision to go with the older iMac a few weeks ago was right. While I could have used the speed bumps as a designer, the glossy screen would have put me off. I do prefer the white design too.

    As I use the machine for GD, and I know plenty of others that do, the iMac is a great machine. It can be used in the home for general tasks as well as most pro tasks. As chaosbunney rightly points out, at home the machine will not take the pounding that one might at work (having CS3 open all day, opening huge files on a regular basis). Most designers I know have an iMac in their home for doing work outside of the office, so as a machine the iMac is immportant to designers in this position, and those on a budget.

    Overall the new spec is reasonably ipressive but i know a lot of designers will not buy the machine n its current revision and perhaps will not if there is to be no matte option in future.
  25. iW00t macrumors 68040


    Nov 7, 2006
    Defenders of Apple Guild
    Option 1:

    Throw Adobe Creative Suite into dust bin, shell out $1000 to rebuy Windows version

    Option 2:

    Perform your duty and shell out the extra $1000 for Mac Pro + ACD

Share This Page