Not long ago I switched from a beloved but aging eMac to a 20" Core Duo 2 iMac. The move was mainly noticeable for its utter painlessness, and the new computer is a step upward in every respect except one: the monitor screen.
I've always held that a good CRT screen (and the eMac's was very good) is better for photo editing than an LCD screen, and it took me weeks to get used to the inferior monitor screen of the new iMac (it looks normal to me now, finally). Everything about it is worse except for two things: it's bigger, which is nice, and it isn't covered with glass, meaning that I'm no longer intermittently bothered by ambient light reflections off the glossy surface as I always was with previous Mac monitors.
So now we learn that both of the new "aluminum" iMacs come with glossy screens as standard. Is this wise?
St. Jobs has a dictatorial streak, which is both an asset and a liability. He doesn't like giving end-users choices, generally. It's his way or no way. This goes back to ancient times (the first Mac I used was the very first Mac, the 128k, in 1984, and I've had a succession of them ever since). I recall my annoyance when I first bought a Mac with a CD drive but no disk drive, obligating me to use a $79 outboard drive to access everything I had on disks. St. Jobs was quoted at the time saying that people in the future would use CDs to load apps onto their computers. He was right (well, until we started downloading them). Except that it wasn't quite the future yet, and I still needed a disk drive at the time.
Anyway, it remains to be seen if photographers in particular, as distinct from computer consumers in general, are going to be well served by the glossy screen or not. I'll remain willing to stand corrected, but I suspect not.
P.S. "St." stands for "Steve," of course. What did you think?