[Doc HM]

So both 27in configs on the UK apple store have switched to 3 week shipping. Apparently the issues with these Macs have got so bad that Apple has completely shut down the production lines and suspended production/shipping until a proper fix for the flickering/yellow display is produced.

According to the always open and transparent Apple, these delays are due entirely to the popularity of the iMac itself.

riiiight.

[Simon]

I don't buy the popularity thing at all. For one Apple has internal memos outlining the issue. But mainly because delays have increased over time and actually became worse after the holiday shopping season. That's not what we have seen in the past with popular Apple product launches. To me it's crystal clear there's a manufacturing/shipping issue.

I also notice that so far the people trying to play down the issue on the web seem to be those who have already bought a new iMac. From a psychological POV I can understand that though.

[Big Mac]

Shame on the QA department for letting a shoddy model go out. To be fair, though, Apple's had pretty good QA in the last few years.

[mduell]

Apple agrees there are there are yellow issues: An Apple spokesman said again this week that "the 27-inch iMac has been a huge hit with customers and we are working to increase supply to meet up with strong demand." He added that production has continued while the company fixed the problems with flickering screens and yellow-tinted displays.

[imitchellg5]

Apple denies that the lines have been stopped.

[P]

There is certainly a shipping issue - we know that already (cracked glass etc). A production issue is possible, at least for the yellowing thing, but the latest research seems to indicate that that is also at least partially due to shipping.

I do not for a second think that the production lines are stopped, however. The massive data gathering on faulty machines shows that the rumors sites were wrong the last time they claimed that production lines were stopped: If you look through the lists, you will see that iMacs have been produced every single week since the launch. How could that be, if the lines were stopped for weeks like the rumor sites claimed?

Now the same sites claim that the lines are stopped again. I bet that it's the same "reliable" source feeding them the intel.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by P 

There is certainly a shipping issue - we know that already (cracked glass etc). A production issue is possible, at least for the yellowing thing, but the latest research seems to indicate that that is also at least partially due to shipping.

I do not for a second think that the production lines are stopped, however. The massive data gathering on faulty machines shows that the rumors sites were wrong the last time they claimed that production lines were stopped: If you look through the lists, you will see that iMacs have been produced every single week since the launch. How could that be, if the lines were stopped for weeks like the rumor sites claimed?

Now the same sites claim that the lines are stopped again. I bet that it's the same "reliable" source feeding them the intel.

stopped or not there is obviously a policy at apple to stop shipping. It's unheard of for a main stream product not at end of life to suddenly go to 3 weeks shipping from next day. Apple don't want these machines going out.

[ibook_steve]

From what I read (probably Gizmodo), the yellow issue would not have been caught by QA because it only happened after the machines were shipped. The shipping process shifted glass or a filter or something in the LEDs, causing the problem.

That doesn't mean, of course, that this should not have been caught by vibration testing, if that is the actual cause.

Steve

[P]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

stopped or not there is obviously a policy at apple to stop shipping. It's unheard of for a main stream product not at end of life to suddenly go to 3 weeks shipping from next day. Apple don't want these machines going out.

Stopping shipment is very different from stopping production. One means that there is a temporary delay after which you can quickly catch up the backlog and get back to normal, the other means a more long-standing problem.

If they had heard that outgoing shipments had been stopped, they would have written that outgoing shipments have been stopped. They didn't. They wrote something that was proven incorrect last time, and for this reason I don't trust them or their sources this time.

[P]

Originally Posted by ibook_steve 

From what I read (probably Gizmodo), the yellow issue would not have been caught by QA because it only happened after the machines were shipped. The shipping process shifted glass or a filter or something in the LEDs, causing the problem.

A diffusion filter for the LED backlight was the way I heard it.

Originally Posted by ibook_steve 

That doesn't mean, of course, that this should not have been caught by vibration testing, if that is the actual cause.

As I heard it, this isn't vibration-related - this is related to one big shove knocking something loose. The packaging (which is the thinnest and smallest I've seen for an electronics item) is just not up to the job.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by P 

As I heard it, this isn't vibration-related - this is related to one big shove knocking something loose. The packaging (which is the thinnest and smallest I've seen for an electronics item) is just not up to the job.

That's still a major QA issue. If you know you are going to be minimising packaging then you really really need to test it. Especially if it's containing a high value item of considerable weight.

Given the severity of the issues and the length of time they have been manifesting I could see why Apple may want to stop churning out thousands and thousands of new iMacs that may need to be recalled for fixing so stopping production does make a lot of sense.

[richwig83]

Apple has been using rubbish displays for a few years now.... its about time they realised that they cant keep putting tat in their machines!!

My old macbook might as well have been 256 colours... dreadful panel!

[Eriamjh]

AppleInsider reports that the line has not stopped.

Apple on Tuesday officially denied that it has ceased production of its 27-inch iMac as some users have complained of screen flickering and discoloration. Also, the big-screen all-in-one desktop now has a ship time of two weeks.

I read on Gizmodo (or somewhere, can't remember or find the link) that someone disassembled his 27" iMac (screen and all) for whatever reason, and when it was reassembled, the yellow tint was gone.

It was theorized that uneven spacing between parts of the LCD panel contribute to yellowing. This means it is repairable.

[P]

Originally Posted by richwig83 

Apple has been using rubbish displays for a few years now.... its about time they realised that they cant keep putting tat in their machines!!

My old macbook might as well have been 256 colours... dreadful panel!

Good thing they stopped then - both new iMacs use high quality IPS panels instead of the terrible TN panels that they used to put in the low-ed iMacs and Macbooks. The issue isn't about the grade of panel, it's about defects. That might sound like the same thing, but it isn't: The old panels were inside spec, but the spec was loose. The new panels have a tighter spec, and some panels are outside it. One is Apple being cheap, the other is Apple's supplier not delivering on their promises.

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

I read on Gizmodo (or somewhere, can't remember or find the link) that someone disassembled his 27" iMac (screen and all) for whatever reason, and when it was reassembled, the yellow tint was gone.

It was theorized that uneven spacing between parts of the LCD panel contribute to yellowing. This means it is repairable.

Here, Ars quoted that as well. Basically, if the layer that diffuses the LED backlight isn't flat against panel as it should be, you can get effects like that. Supposedly. This is just one guy's guess though, so it's almost as badly sourced as the production stop rumors. Don't rely on it.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

Stopping shipment is very different from stopping production. One means that there is a temporary delay after which you can quickly catch up the backlog and get back to normal, the other means a more long-standing problem.

That's just your assumption.

If you have to stop shipment because you suddenly realize your packaging is crap and need to repackage tens of thousands of unshipped iMacs you have a serious problem. Even if it's not strictly a "manufacturing" issue. And no Apple PR stunt can spin that under the carpet.

[P]

No, but your production capacity is limited by what your line can produce - if it produces x Macs per hour and is stopped for y hours, that is y times x Macs fewer being produced. If Apple stops shipments for y hours, they still have those y times x Macs, only they need to be repackaged. The difference is that the production line is the bottleneck in the process so any stop there will cause a loss of production that cannot be repaired. A stop in the packaging is only a delay - unless you think that packaging is the bottleneck?

And that is still not the point. The rumor sites said that production was stopped; It wasn't; Therefore the rumor sites were wrong regarding Apple's production; Therefore I don't trust them this time.

[Simon]

Just because Apple PR puts out a statement doesn't mean I trust what they say. I don;t see why I should trust Apple any more than the rumor sites on this one. It's Apple who has something to lose.

[P]

Because Apple could be in serious trouble if they flat-out lie about something that might affect the stock price? Note how they almost never comment on rumors, partly for this reason. If the lines were stopped, the smart choice would be to keep silent, like they almost always do.

[Simon]

Right, they never lie because they could get in serious trouble. I guess that's why we've never seen Apple lie before.

[Simon]

Backlog in the UK for 27" iMac screen repairs now at over 230. Apparently Apple's run out of replacements.

http://gizmodo.com/5463415/the-fault.../full+(Gizmodo)

Gizmodo claims Apple has begun offering refunds for the full purchase price of affected iMacs, along with an additional 15 percent premium. The company is also allegedly covering the shipping costs for the returns.

So in other words Apple is essentially rewarding people for not buying a 27" iMac.

[Doc HM]

Apple sure are lucky that Toyota are soaking up all the shoddy product publicity this week.

Given how the media love to build people up then knock them down it could be that Apple are due a huge media backlash. Without Toyota distracting journos this could have been it.

[miacomet]

I got a 27" iMac almost on Day 1 from my University Computer store. Can anyone link me to an article on this flickering Yellow issue?

I haven't heard about it, and I haven't noticed any problems on mine (so far). But I do have Apple Care!

[mduell]

Originally Posted by miacomet 

I got a 27" iMac almost on Day 1 from my University Computer store. Can anyone link me to an article on this flickering Yellow issue?

I haven't heard about it, and I haven't noticed any problems on mine (so far). But I do have Apple Care!

Flickering and yellow are separate issues. Here's a good yellow test.

AppleDoesn'tCare won't help, they'll refuse to exchange them as the Gizmodo editor discovered.

[Railroader]

Picked up a 27" iMac yesterday at the Apple store in Indianapolis (well, Castleton really), and the Apple Store employee knew nothing about halts, delays, or shipping stoppages. Said they haven't had a single iMac back for yellow tinting. He said they were flying off the shelves as fast as they come in and said "You got lucky, this was being unloaded when I went back to look for one for you." As I picked it up to carry it out of the store it was super cold.

EDIT: Oh, and I am having no issues at all except it is WAY BIGGER than I expected and my neck is slightly sore. I need to find a different sitting position.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

the Apple Store employee knew nothing about halts, delays, or shipping stoppages. Said they haven't had a single iMac back for yellow tinting. He said they were flying off the shelves as fast as they come in

Of course not. He's on message.

[Spheric Harlot]

They've resumed shipping a few days ago, as per news sites.

Also, "they're flying off the shelves as fast as we can get them" is an excellently phrased response. It doesn't actually say anything about whether they're getting any.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Of course not. He's on message.

Well, he's a very patient guy as I took him to a few web sites and he sat and read them in front of me. Very impressive.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Also, "they're flying off the shelves as fast as we can get them" is an excellently phrased response. It doesn't actually say anything about whether they're getting any.

Three of them left the store in the twenty minutes I was there at 10am in the morning on a weekday. I can't imagine what an evening or weekend looks like.

[solofx7]

I noticed a couple of people were posting that they were getting their 27inch iMacs.
I am thinking about one in the next week or so, and wanted to know what the thoughts were on the processors?
I really want an i7, but that config appears to only be an online order thing and 2+ weeks is a long time.

[voodoo]

Ugh the screens might be yellow, blinking or just doing kaleidoscope patterns - I'm not sure any of that would be as annoying as the reflection of everything my background.

Unless I turn off almost all lights, pull the curtain and position the iMac just right - it's going to be more of a mirror than a monitor.

Fix that.

[P]

Originally Posted by solofx7 

I noticed a couple of people were posting that they were getting their 27inch iMacs.
I am thinking about one in the next week or so, and wanted to know what the thoughts were on the processors?
I really want an i7, but that config appears to only be an online order thing and 2+ weeks is a long time.

Absolutely pick the i5 over the Core 2 - the price difference is tiny and the performance boost is huge - but the i5 or the i7 is probably less relevant in the short run. Hyperthreading can add 20%, but only if there's enough work to keep 8 threads loaded. Today there rarely is (although recompressing a full DVD9 to DVD5 in little over 2 minutes is nice...) and your guess is as good as mine on whether it will be worth the price in the future. My thinking is that the 27" model is big enough and expensive enough that the upgrade is cheap as a percentage of the purchase price, and I'll keep it long enough that it will be useful. YMMV.

I have to say that this iMac is probably the best Mac I've ever owned. My LC III back in the early nineties was a rock solid machine, but it was hobbled until I could upgrade the RAM. This one feels just as solid, and it's not limited in any way that matters to me. Given what we know of future plans for the various chips (no replacement for Lynnfield until mid 2011, mobile Radeon 5000 series no big boost over 4000 series), it feels like a very good time to buy as well. If I needed expansion, I'd probably wait for the MP update and pray for a good low-end model, but I don't think one is coming.

[voodoo]

I'm going to wait for a BD drive - I feel it is an unacceptable limitation to have just a DVD drive and that the Mac is incapable of playing BD movies, even with an external BD drive.

With that 27" uber-HD display (despite the stupid gloss) it is unacceptable. These machines could be brilliant for BD movies, and will be.

I'll wait until Apple releases a Mac with a BD drive - and if they never will, well there's always Windows 7. It isn't all that bad.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by P 

I have to say that this iMac is probably the best Mac I've ever owned. My LC III back in the early nineties was a rock solid machine, but it was hobbled until I could upgrade the RAM. This one feels just as solid, and it's not limited in any way that matters to me.

How do you define rock solidness? I mean, how was the LC III any more rock solid than more recent Macs you've owned?

[solofx7]

Originally Posted by P 

Absolutely pick the i5 over the Core 2 - the price difference is tiny and the performance boost is huge - but the i5 or the i7 is probably less relevant in the short run. Hyperthreading can add 20%, but only if there's enough work to keep 8 threads loaded. Today there rarely is (although recompressing a full DVD9 to DVD5 in little over 2 minutes is nice...) and your guess is as good as mine on whether it will be worth the price in the future. My thinking is that the 27" model is big enough and expensive enough that the upgrade is cheap as a percentage of the purchase price, and I'll keep it long enough that it will be useful. YMMV.

I have to say that this iMac is probably the best Mac I've ever owned. My LC III back in the early nineties was a rock solid machine, but it was hobbled until I could upgrade the RAM. This one feels just as solid, and it's not limited in any way that matters to me. Given what we know of future plans for the various chips (no replacement for Lynnfield until mid 2011, mobile Radeon 5000 series no big boost over 4000 series), it feels like a very good time to buy as well. If I needed expansion, I'd probably wait for the MP update and pray for a good low-end model, but I don't think one is coming.

Thank you for such a detailed response. My main thought process was i5 or i7.
I have heard that in some instances it is 50% faster than the i5.
I know that the i5 is no slouch at all.
I guess I am just impatient. My local store has i5's in stock where the i7's are order online only.
Does anyone know where there is a side by side comparison of the 2?

[Simon]

iMac Core i7 versus other Macs
iMac Core i7 - 3D Apps at 1920x1200

[solofx7]

Originally Posted by Simon 

iMac Core i7 versus other Macs
iMac Core i7 - 3D Apps at 1920x1200

thanks a lot. that helps.
the more info the better.
that does look like a big difference.
darn, I really hate having to wait 2 weeks.
this is a grad gift from me to me

[P]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

How do you define rock solidness? I mean, how was the LC III any more rock solid than more recent Macs you've owned?

It never crashed, it never required updates, it always delivered even when it was stuff that I never thought about when I first got it. The Performa after it was horrible, and really rather slow at first. The G3 had a gimped graphics chip, started developing issues with the PSU fairly soon and it had a total of 7 major OS versions during its lifetime. The G5 was loud and not quite snappy, and it was always a compromise to use that GPU. This one feels better than either of them so far - we'll see how it works out in the long run.

[Big Mac]

It's hard to believe your LC III never crashed since the classic Mac OS wasn't exactly rock solid, but okay I understand the point you're making - it was a quality Mac for you.

[P]

It was. System 7.1 on 68k Macs was really quite solid - remember that the Type 11 errors only came with PPC, on 68k they were handled and resulted in a crash to the desktop.

The big difference wasn't that, however - it was that we didn't ask so much of the computers back then. No 3D graphics, only very basic Internet at the very end of its lifetime, and everything had been thoroughly tested. Then came PPC, little pieces of Copland shoved onto the 7.5 kernel, extensions integrated into the OS, various little libraries that were released independently of the rest of the OS (remember ObjectSupportLib?) and cheap garbage hardware.

The biggest improvement that happened with Apple's OS from OS 8 and on was that everything was updated at once. Before, we could update Quicktime, OpenTransport, Quickdraw GX, Powertalk and the OS all independently from each other. From OS 8 on, it was the OS and Quicktime - everything else was an application, not a system feature - and these days even Quicktime follows the OS release schedule. This reduces the number of configs you have to test on, improving stability more than any protected memory bullet point.

[polendo]

Back then I had the option of getting my first Mac ...the LC or the Quadra 605. I picked the Quadra. Piece of crap... the system (I believe it was OS 7.1) just crashed time and time again. I couldn´t do a damn thing with it. The worst computer I had ever had. I believe it used a Motorola processor running at 25 mhz.. Left the darn thing practically new and picked up an IBM P/S1. Glad to see someone whose Mac was running fine back then.

Came back with my fingers crossed to the Mac world when the iBook G3 dual usb appeared.

[P]

Quadra 605 = LC 475, used a 68LC040. That one launched just after I got mine, and I was a bit peeved that I didn't wait, but I've also heard that it was unstable until the first updates - updates that were hard to get back in the days before Internet.

[polendo]

Mmm I thought the LC had the 68030 and my sole reason for getting the Quadra was because it had a newer processor. Nevertheless you didn´t miss anything at all.. and yes I believe that updating the OS would have fixed alot of issues. And I concurr with you, getting an update was difficult. The only good thing about that Mac is that it came with Word Perfect, which to me ranks high as a great word processor. I still think it is superior to Word.

-- I just checked and the LCIII was the one using the 68030.

[P]

Yes, LC III, also known as Performa 450, used a 68030@25MHz - that's what I had. There was also a machine that used a 68LC040. That machine had three names: Performa 475, LC 475 and Quadra 605. Same machine, but different names for different markets (home, education and office, basically). I think they had slightly different apps included as well.

[Simon]

LC: 68020 @ 16 MHz
LC II: 68030 @ 16 MHz [also sold as Performa 400, 405, 410, 430]
LC III: 68030 @ 25 MHz (33 MHz in the LC III+) [also sold as Performa 450, 460, 466, 467]
LC 475: 68LC040 @ 25 MHz [also sold as Quadra 605 and Performa 475, 476]

Back in the day I bought an LC III that I was using next to a IIsi (meh) and a IIci (awesome). Shortly after I got the LC III they released the LC 475. I managed to sell off my LC III an get the LC 475 instead. It was much faster than the LC III and could actually compete with the IIci (not in terms of expansion though). I remember really enjoying that update.

[MacPC]

I am very disappointed with Apple's QA. Did Apple hire the QA guys from Microsoft or Toyota? Being a long time Mac owner, I have very deep faith in Apples' products because Mac hardly give me any problem.

[macaddict0001]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's hard to believe your LC III never crashed since the classic Mac OS wasn't exactly rock solid, but okay I understand the point you're making - it was a quality Mac for you.

Nearly all the crashes experienced with the classic mac os are caused by mismanaged memory or extension conflicts.

[MacPC]

I agree. I had the Mac 128K when I was a kid, then moved on to Mac Plus, the Performa..., I have to say, before OSX, the Mac OSes were just as bad as Windows, it crashed often, it was slooooooow, memory overflow was the biggest issue. The only reason I stay with Mac is because I never like Microsoft, in fact I hate it!! More an ideology issue then tech issue. But when Apple switch to OSX, that's when Mac really started to shine.

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by macaddict0001 

Nearly all the crashes experienced with the classic mac os are caused by mismanaged memory or extension conflicts.

No. The crashes were caused by lack of protected memory. Errors in the extensions or an application could easily overwrite a critical area of the OS or another application causing the OS to go into an infinite loop.

With a brand new stock iMac (the original Bondi), just moving the mouse pointer would occasionally cause a lock-up.

[macaddict0001]

Originally Posted by msuper69 

No. The crashes were caused by lack of protected memory. Errors in the extensions or an application could easily overwrite a critical area of the OS or another application causing the OS to go into an infinite loop.

With a brand new stock iMac (the original Bondi), just moving the mouse pointer would occasionally cause a lock-up.

I think what we're arguing about is a difference in semantics.

[MacPC]

Originally Posted by macaddict0001 

Nearly all the crashes experienced with the classic mac os are caused by mismanaged memory or extension conflicts.

Originally Posted by msuper69 

No. The crashes were caused by lack of protected memory. Errors in the extensions or an application could easily overwrite a critical area of the OS or another application causing the OS to go into an infinite loop.

With a brand new stock iMac (the original Bondi), just moving the mouse pointer would occasionally cause a lock-up.

They are both right. The pre OSX had a terrible problem in memory management. it lacks of memory protection as msuper69 said, and the faults were not just Apple, but also on the application developers who weren't being careful with the memory usage and allow their apps wrote to the system heap and destroy the OS.