[springtide]

Spotted this on "the register" ...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04..._class_action/

Looks like the new iMac 20" uses a TN panel, so not great for photo editing!

The 24" iMac does use IPS technology....

..........................

"Indeed, the new 24-inch iMacs display 16,777,216 colors on 8-bit, in-plane switching (IPS) screens, as did the previous generation of 20-inch iMacs. But the new 20-inch iMac monitors do not even come close, displaying 98% fewer colors (262,144).

While Apple describes the display of both the 24-inch and 20-inch iMacs as though they were interchangeable, the monitors in each are of radically different technology. The 20-inch iMacs feature 6-bit twisted nematic film (TN) LCD screens, the least expensive of its type.

The 20-inch iMac's TN screens have a narrower viewing angle, less color depth, less color accuracy and are more susceptible to washout across the screen."

[pixelpixel]

The 20" iMac display issue won't go away

[richard plumb]

part of the reason I bought a 24" one. The other being the size.

Don't see any reason to sue though. If I have a graphics card that can do millions of colours, but I buy a black and white monitor, so what?

Yes, I know apple sell the whole thing together, but I don't see why its an issue. Sometimes people are just looking for excuses to sue. If you want something for serious photo editing, then you should be more careful when you choose what display you have. I certainly did when I bought my last PC monitor.

[inkinoo]

Originally Posted by richard plumb

part of the reason I bought a 24" one. The other being the size.

Don't see any reason to sue though. If I have a graphics card that can do millions of colours, but I buy a black and white monitor, so what?

Yes, I know apple sell the whole thing together, but I don't see why its an issue. Sometimes people are just looking for excuses to sue. If you want something for serious photo editing, then you should be more careful when you choose what display you have. I certainly did when I bought my last PC monitor.

If Apple say it will display millions of colours and it can't then that is the issue.

Apple lied here and have got caught.

[springtide]

Originally Posted by richard plumb

part of the reason I bought a 24" one. The other being the size.

Don't see any reason to sue though. If I have a graphics card that can do millions of colours, but I buy a black and white monitor, so what?

Yes, I know apple sell the whole thing together, but I don't see why its an issue. Sometimes people are just looking for excuses to sue. If you want something for serious photo editing, then you should be more careful when you choose what display you have. I certainly did when I bought my last PC monitor.

I guess the point is, iMac's are being sold as a "premium brand" and a lot of people use them for media appliations that require colour accuracy, and the old 20" screens were IPS technology. TN technology is the budget range, next is S-PVA then IPS (I think).

So if you were a media company and you just swapped out a load of your 20" iMacs, I'm sure you would be very hacked off to find out that they were no longer useful for applications that require colour accuracy!

If Apple want to offer a budget iMac, they should really offer two versions of the 20" IMO.

The oer thing that I read that was really interesting, is Apple are now the biggest music retailer in the US. Wow, who would have seen that coming prior to iTunes being released!

[pixelpixel]

Originally Posted by springtide

The oer thing that I read that was really interesting, is Apple are now the biggest music retailer in the US. Wow, who would have seen that coming prior to iTunes being released!

Thats right Apple Studios do make a bit of money

[Just call me Al]

Originally Posted by pixelpixel

Thats right Apple Studios do make a bit of money

You pipped me to that one.

[springtide]

Originally Posted by pixelpixel

Thats right Apple Studios do make a bit of money

And Apples most clever part, if you've got iTunes then you have to listen to your music either on the computer or on an iPOD (I think!)

As they say, "they have people by the short and curlies" (sorry for any offence)!

iPOD sales must also be huge!

[senu]

At least you can convert itunes to MP3 ( and vice versa) if you know how

I wondered how long Sony would take to embrace MP3 having been greedy and missed a wonderful opportunity with Minidisc.. Great technology..greedy marketing.. lost opportunity..


Apple is only doing what large capitalist companies do, make a profit.. ( whatever it takes.. ) and only back down when it looks like it might backfire
As such, the legal action against Apple may run out of steam but if it serves to remind companies that they owe their buying public as much as they owe their shareholders then it may not be a bad thing. Im sure they can do without the negative publicity

[springtide]

Originally Posted by senu

At least you can convert itunes to MP3 ( and vice versa) if you know how

I wondered how long Sony would take to embrace MP3 having been greedy and missed a wonderful opportunity with Minidisc.. Great technology..greedy marketing.. lost opportunity..


Apple is only doing what large capitalist companies do, make a profit.. ( whatever it takes.. ) and only back down when it looks like it might backfire
As such, the legal action against Apple may run out of steam but if it serves to remind companies that they owe their buying public as much as they owe their shareholders then it may not be a bad thing. Im sure they can do without the negative publicity

I didn't think you could officially convert from the MPEG4 format to MP3

You are completely right with Sony. They did try with their original "digital" music players, needing Sony only software, its own file format etc and failed. Sony have finally opted to support MP3 having lost that battle.

But I guess, Sony have now won the Blu-Ray battle, so as they say "you win some, you loose some..".

And some people think that it's just Microsoft that are at it!

[senu]

Originally Posted by springtide

I didn't think you could officially convert from the MPEG4 format to MP3

Well put it this way.. it is perhaps even easier than turning a wma ( with DRM) into anything..

But I guess, Sony have now won the Blu-Ray battle, so as they say "you win some, you loose some..".

Sony will claim BD is a consortium though and unlike Minidisc they had to share BD technology very early on. They did have to win ; They had sold the PS3 at a loss for upwards of 12 months and had to keep at it,

Toshibas lacklustre attitude also helped them but , ( i digress here,) unlike Digital 8 ( a Sony only product) which is now "dead" ( and its owners stranded) ...Even if ( for arguments sake) Sony dont support BD , it has a lot of backing from more of the industry.

[Liquid101]

Originally Posted by springtide

And Apples most clever part, if you've got iTunes then you have to listen to your music either on the computer or on an iPOD (I think!)

As they say, "they have people by the short and curlies" (sorry for any offence)!

I find it annoying when people moan about Apples DRM policies. You don't have to use iTunes to buy your music - neither do you have to buy an iPod. Your short and curlies are only at risk if you put them in Apples hand.

Originally Posted by senu

At least you can convert itunes to MP3 ( and vice versa) if you know how

Yes, if you don't mind breaking copyright laws


Going back to the OP - I would challenge anybody to tell the difference between a 20 and 24 inch monitor (assuming you took a 'crop' from each). This is all about litigation, and the way in which Americans love to make money from the success of others when they find it so unattainable themselves. Apple are sued every week for something or other.

A lie maybe - but thats marketing for you. Virtually every product on the planet is supported by semi truths

[senu]

Originally Posted by Liquid101

.
Yes, if you don't mind breaking copyright laws

Youll be amazed how many people dont actually own ipods but just love to prove it can be done but hey .. each to thier own
No ipods in my house..yet. I like my CDs and my girls dont mind Creatives brand of pink MP3 players
Seriously I agree: If you download itunes and Apple says dont share.. don't buy.. vote with your pocket!
.

This is all about litigation, and the way in which Americans love to make money from the success of others when they find it so unattainable themselves. Apple are sued every week for something or other.
A lie maybe - but thats marketing for you. Virtually every product on the planet is supported by semi truths

Which is why I wouldn't be too worried about Apple, they are probably not that different to the folk suing them ..now.
And are well able to care of themselves AFAIK they too will sue anyone tommorow ( and they do) who as much as calls anything i-XYZ.
They have and lost in the past so the Pseudo truths that drive marketing are not limited to Apples litigants..or Bill Gates for that matter..!

[springtide]

Originally Posted by Liquid101

I find it annoying when people moan about Apples DRM policies. You don't have to use iTunes to buy your music - neither do you have to buy an iPod. Your short and curlies are only at risk if you put them in Apples hand.


Yes, if you don't mind breaking copyright laws

Going back to the OP - I would challenge anybody to tell the difference between a 20 and 24 inch monitor (assuming you took a 'crop' from each). This is all about litigation, and the way in which Americans love to make money from the success of others when they find it so unattainable themselves. Apple are sued every week for something or other.

A lie maybe - but thats marketing for you. Virtually every product on the planet is supported by semi truths

I don't have any issues about DRM or any other proprietary format or other. It's just life in the current capitalist world, whether we like it or not!

As for the IPS vs TN, well that is something you will tell fairly quickly.

There is a noticable difference between TN vs S-PVA as well as S-PVA vs IPS, so I think TN vs IPS would be fairly obvious if colour was important.
Just to give some idea, the latest Dell 24" S-PVA panel is £400 and their budget TN is £250.
There are no TN panels recommended for photo editing on the PC. S-PVA panels are OK for photo editing, but if colour is important then IPS is the only choice. TN panels are very much "budget/cheap". They are OK for gaming, but that is about all.

So just to note, a TN panel is only "6 bit colour". So that means, only 64 shades of each colour is visable vs 256 on a "8 bit colour" S-PVA or IPS panel.
There are lots of sites on the internet that compare TN, S-PVA and IPS panels, and they are generally worth a read (or some of them are anyway).

Shame Apple have started using TN panels. You would hope that they used the best available.

[RobDickinson]

This is a classic bait & switch tactic and a bad move by Apple I think - and also targets one of apples key areas of use too.

[dood]

Out of interest what sort of panels are used in Macbooks and macbook pros? Just wondering as this could influence the decision between getting an imac or a macbook.

[richard plumb]

not sure, but the macbook ones are rubbish. very narrow optimal viewing angle. I wouldn't use one for photo editing, but its fine for web browsing/viewing stuff.

you could always get a macbook and a separate monitor? then you can choose a good one - not too expensive if you stick to a 20-22" one.