I can't believe they have no option for matte screens.

I hate it when even progressive companies such as Apple fall for the form over function temptations.

Very uncool, Steve, very uncool.

Yeah, it's a tough sell.

I do think glossy screens look better on balance though, and obviously this is more the case indoors where an iMac will typically live.

Ideally they'd have options for both - especially on the 24" model.

As long as I can calibrate the colours (so it's ain't so saturated)....if I can't do that then I'll be picking up a firesale white imac instead of this one

It's a strange move.

Thousands of design/photography professionals utilise the iMac range as an economical workstation in their studios. The glossy display just doesn't cut it in environments where colour calibration and reproduction is vitally important. Is Apple subtly trying to force professionals to adopt their 'pro' range?

The only real solid evidence I can find for the decision is something along the lines of "oooh, the glossy screen looks so pretty".

Looks like my next workstation will be a Mac Pro + Dell Display. I won't buy an Apple display because they're over priced compared to the comparably specced Dell panels.

The iMac is not and never has been aimed at a pro audience.

It is Apple's line of consumer machines, and anybody complaining about the fact that matte screens are not an option should chill out.

Totally agree

I'm sick of cheap-arse studios buying iMacs instead of Pros... they were never designed for Pro work!

I disagree.

Apple have been continually blurring the lines. Now we even see the iMac in aluminium! It's no suprise, the whole consumer electronics industry has been pushing the 'prosumer' tag hard and fast over the last few years and now Apple is jumped aboard.

Glossy screens are form over function, just as the single button mouse was for so long.

there are a number of pro's though where a Mac Pro is overkill. iMacs are handy as they are compact yet are perfectly grunty enough to do a decent amount of work....especially for photographers. I'd love to buy a Mac Pro for my work but can't justify it when an iMac can do the same job (more money to spend on lenses )....well...the old iMac at least. Performance of the new ones remains to be seen.

now...if there was a Mac Pro Mini.....

that's a bunch of elitist crap. if an iMac can do the job, why not use it?

You bet. Apple probably found that MacPro sales have been cannibalised by the 24" iMac in design studios etc. Seeing as the MacPro would be a much higher margin product than the iMac, wouldn't you push design clients who *should* be able to afford the high end stuff in that direction?

If colour calibration and reproduction are vitally important, why the fudge are iMacs being used? Who knows what the quality of display is on the consumer products......it would be like Ferrari using cheap chinese tools to build their engines :-)

As Bartron said, a smaller Mac Pro would be a better option (or even cheaper current one with only a single C2D).

Never owned a design studio have you, champ?

They're consumer machines, tiger.

The matte screen imacs are easily calibrated.

The glossy screens are very difficult to calibrate.

But they look so cool in the studio environment!!!

I actually work on a 24" C2D 2.16GHz iMac, and it performs pretty well for my web, and layout type stuff, although I really with my boss had at least splashed out on 3gb ram (and not just 2gb)
as it struggles a little bit with heavier photoshop work.....

So because they're labeled 'consumer' machines it's ok to mess with the integrity of the display just so it is aesthetically prettier?

Fanboys unite!

Exactly......
But they definately should at least have the option of a matte screen.

And it seems that many people have never heard of Hardware leasing...... IMHO it's the only way to go.