Q: New iMac 27inch screen flickering/tearing/shutoff

Hello Star-fish,

I too would be most appreciative if you could better explain what you mean by "a work email". Are you saying that your employer distributed this email to all of their employees, or are you saying that Apple sent you this message at your work email address?

As I said in my previous message, the fact that the message states "Unfortunately multiple machines remain affected including machines we have repaired or replaced", it is contradictory to the contents of the alleged Apple internal memo that is on the Gizmodo site.

Again I ask, if Apple knows that the repairs haven't worked -- and screen replacement has been one of the repairs -- then why plan for a wide-scale panel replacement in three weeks? Is it just a placebo to placate people?

Personally, I have my doubts regarding the authenticity of the email message that you shared, because some of the grammar is incorrect, and I can't picture a professional company like Apple sending out an email with such mistakes in it. I am specifically referring to phrases like "Apple have indicated" and "Apple are working on". Obviously, being as Apple is an entity, it should be "Apple HAS indicated" and "Apple IS working on".

If it really is a letter from Apple, they had better give their employees some English lessons.

pazuita wrote:
skullcat........I stopped short of calling the names of the trolls on here for a good reason.....

I didn't want to unintentionally leave somebody out. There are more than a few.

Pazuita, I urge you to be careful how and where you bark. Making such accusations -- even if no names are mentioned -- without offering verifiable proof of your claims, is not a wise practice to follow, and will only serve to alienate you from some users here. Making such accusations only serves to sow division, mistrust and doubt amongst the ranks here, and is not going to help our cause. You have made your position known here time and time again, and quite forcefully; so much so that some folks here have become convinced that you must be an Apple employee. It's just a suggestion, but maybe you should turn down the burner just a little.

Warren Beasley wrote:
Hello Star-fish,

I too would be most appreciative if you could better explain what you mean by "a work email". Are you saying that your employer distributed this email to all of their employees, or are you saying that Apple sent you this message at your work email address?

As I said in my previous message, the fact that the message states "Unfortunately multiple machines remain affected including machines we have repaired or replaced", it is contradictory to the contents of the alleged Apple internal memo that is on the Gizmodo site.

Again I ask, if Apple knows that the repairs haven't worked -- and screen replacement has been one of the repairs -- then why plan for a wide-scale panel replacement in three weeks? Is it just a placebo to placate people?

Personally, I have my doubts regarding the authenticity of the email message that you shared, because some of the grammar is incorrect, and I can't picture a professional company like Apple sending out an email with such mistakes in it. I am specifically referring to phrases like "Apple have indicated" and "Apple are working on". Obviously, being as Apple is an entity, it should be "Apple HAS indicated" and "Apple IS working on".

If it really is a letter from Apple, they had better give their employees some English lessons.

Warren,

Thats exactly why I asked where the email came from.
I too have my doubts regarding the authenticity of the email message.

Hello Warren.
Completely off topic.
Every post you make is like a small & well written novel. (compliment)
Just had to get that one in... Carry on.

"pazuita, I appreciate your positive way of thinking, but at the end you will have to admit, that the problem was bigger you thought. "


Sorry Citrus, I just don't see it that way.

It could very well be the case that the problem is bigger than I see it, maybe by half a percentage point or so, but not likely more than that.

It should be increasingly obvious to everyone on this thread, that you cannot get reliable information here. There are too many contradictions, half truths, and outright lies posted.

Every post on this forum should be considered suspect, and everyone who is following this thread should take the time to check out other sources before they assume that even long time posters are posting correct information.

If someone states that Amazon has suspended deliveries, then go to Amazon and check it out for yourself (BTW they show quite a few available, although at some extremely inflated prices, over $3000,00 for a base configured i7)

The only place on the internet that even attempts to track the number of defects in the new models, still shows very small numbers.

http://imac.squeaked.com/results.php?func=b&id=flickering

Even adding a factor of ten, it is still a very small percentage of the total units of the new models sold, even if you consider the ridiculously low "estimate" of some on here who believe that only 150,000 of the new models have been sold.

Even though it is a very small percentage, Apple is still addressing the issue, and will ultimately repair, or replace all defective units.

It's not a matter of if, but more a matter of when.

Please help me to understand one thing: Isn't it so that all iMacs are made in the same way, I mean, is there not one 100% identical to another one. When there are errors in some machines, is it not so that these errors are in all machines? How can it be, that there are some defective and some not? I think there're only two possibilities:

All good or all defective.

It would be naive of anyone to think that there are not any trolls here.

There are few, if any forums anywhere on the net that don't have at least a few.

The reason I did not mention names, is exactly for the reason you stated. It is never a good idea to label someone a troll without substantial evidence. That evidence rarely ever exists on this type of thread, and even the newest of posters should not be more suspect, than the old timers.

Even some sincere posters do pass on bad information that they believe accurate at the time, so just posting bad information does not make one a troll.

I have traded private emails with several members of this forum, primarily discussing the possibility that one poster or another may be a troll. That is done in private, as it should be.

I prefer to sow skepticism, you may refer to it as mistrust and doubt if you wish, they are at least close by definition, but if you would suggest to anyone that they should accept everything printed here as "Gospel" I would strongly disagree with you.

I will repeat what I said initially. This forum is not a source of reliable information.

All who follow this thread should take the time to search out other sources, to either prove, or disprove what you read here.
When you find something, whether supportive, or dismissive, then bring it back here for the rest of us to view, and review.

Perhaps we can find some answers, not likely before Apple does, but it could happen, provided that we can keep the information accurate, and to the point.

BTW......I have made my position clear. I am not an Apple employee, although I did work for them briefly a couple of decades ago as a demo rep. About two paychecks worth before the local Compusa closed, and discontinued the program. I still do tech support on occasion, but as we all know, there's not much of a living in that line of work since Macs generally require very little help.

Can't really answer your question, (delivery issues, TNT..!?) but my "47 week" i7 iMac, purchased in early November is PERFECT!

Message was edited by: atlatnesiti

pazuita wrote:
It should be increasingly obvious to everyone on this thread, that you cannot get reliable information here. There are too many contradictions, half truths, and outright lies posted.

Every post on this forum should be considered suspect, and everyone who is following this thread should take the time to check out other sources before they assume that even long time posters are posting correct information.

So does that mean that the information that you provide here is likewise not reliable, or does your statement just apply to everyone else?

Can you please specify some of the "half-truths" of which you speak?

Can you please specify some of the "outright lies" of which you speak?

Again, if you are going to make such accusations, some verifiable supporting evidence would be much appreciated.

Speaking in ambiguities -- as you seem to have a propensity for doing -- helps no one.

Should we also consider your posts here suspect?

I think I will follow the wise advice of the user here who has repeatedly stated that we should take EVERYTHING here with a grain of salt . . . except my own posts, of course.

The bottom line is that the only reliable information is that which originates with Apple themselves, and as we all know, they aren't talking.

End of story.

It would be nice if it was that simple.

If this was a software issue, I think you would be absolutely correct. It should affect all machines identically, therefore a software fix should be able to resolve the issue.

When you are dealing with so many different components in manufacturing, the issue changes.

If a manufacturer accidentally mixes a batch of 1" long unshielded cables with a batch of shielded ones, then those components are used in the final assembly of a product like the iMacs, then a percentage of those units may be bad, but not all.

Apple is dealing with many different suppliers of components. Each manufacturer, no matter how stringent their quality control may be, will have a certain number of defects. If that defect rate is 1%, and the final manufacturer uses ten suppliers, then they have the potential final defect rate of their product of 10%, if those components are critical.

That is why I think most of us have come to the conclusion that this is a hardware problem, and not software. Software should react the same on all machines, since all machines receive the same OS. Only third party conflicts would contribute to the issue, which is not the case here.

Some hardware defects may be correctable through software, but that generally only hides the problem, and does not truly cure it.

Warren:
"Should we also consider your posts here suspect? "

If you read my post, then you can clearly see that I did not exclude myself from that statement.

Nor did I exclude you.

I do not need to point out the"half-truths", or "outright lies", or any of the "ambiguities" that you are referring to.

You have questioned more than several yourself.

citrus101 wrote:
Please help me to understand one thing: Isn't it so that all iMacs are made in the same way, I mean, is there not one 100% identical to another one. When there are errors in some machines, is it not so that these errors are in all machines? How can it be, that there are some defective and some not? I think there're only two possibilities:

All good or all defective.

Citrus, when you go to the supermarket and purchase a carton of eggs, if you open the carton and discover that one of the eggs is cracked, are you surprised to find that none of the other eggs are cracked as well?

All of those eggs are created in the same way, yet only some of them end up cracked.

In similar fashion, human children are for the most part all created in the same way as well, yet some of them are born with biological defects, while others are not.

What do these two examples have in common? While the basic process of creation may be the same for all of them, there are certain biological or environmental factors which may affect some of them, but not others.

Now imagine a complicated machine like an iMac which is comprised of a multitude of parts which originate in many different locations. Some are bound to end up like those cracked eggs, or those affected children.

Thank you Warren and pazuita, your answers are plausible.

BTW ... new negative reports are becoming rarer and rarer. It's a good signal.

Don't forget about delivery delays.

pazuita wrote:
I do not need to point out the"half-truths", or "outright lies", or any of the "ambiguities" that you are referring to.

Pazuita, I think you may have missed my point. I have never accused anyone here of knowingly speaking "half-truths" or of intentionally spreading "outright lies". On the other hand, you have, but refuse to validate your accusations with facts. That is the difference. I question some comments and sources -- as we all should do -- but I accuse no one, either in a general sense, or specifically. If you aren't willing to speak plainly, and tell us of whom you speak, then perhaps you shouldn't be making such accusatory comments in the first place, because it is divisive. That is my point. You can take it for what it is worth, or just ignore it. It's up to you.