Apple ups orders for 20-inch panels ahead of new iMac

[AppleInsider]

Demand for 20-inch widescreen LCD panels is on the rise, with trendsetters Apple and Dell opting to include 20-inch screens on some of their new products over more popular-sized displays, according to DigiTimes.

The Taiwanese rumor site notes that Dell recently added a new 20-inch widescreen monitor, the UltraSharp 2007WFP, to its lineup.

Meanwhile, Apple in the coming weeks will take the wraps off its next-generation all-in-one iMac desktops, which will be available exclusively in 20- and 24-inch configurations. With the 17-inch iMac entering retirement, the new 20-inch model is expected to become the company's top-selling desktop.

Currently, sales of 22-inch LCD monitors are said to be better than those for 20-inch widescreen models, as the number of 22-inch LCD monitor suppliers is larger than that of 20-inch. According to DigiTimes, most PC vendors today are bundling 19-inch and 22-inch widescreen displays.

AU Optronics (AUO), LG.Philips LCD and Chunghwa Picture Tubes (CPT) are all expected to benefit from the Apple and Dell orders, as they are the three major suppliers of 20-inch widescreen panels.

However, DigiTimes cites sources who claim that 22-inch displays will eventually emerge as the next mainstream widescreen display size. Those sources indicated that LG.Philips LCD may soon start cutting 22-inch widescreen panels at its 7.5 generation (7.5G) plant to expand its 22-inch panel output.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Karelia]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

...which will be available exclusively in 20- and 24-inch configurations. With the 17-inch iMac entering retirement, the new 20-inch model is expected to become the company's top-selling desktop.

I just love how a simple idea or rumor can quickly spiral into a guarantee. [/sarcasm]

I hope Apple keeps the 17" just to egg the face of everyone that touted it's demise as absolute fact.

[britwithgoodteeth]

Originally Posted by Karelia

I hope Apple keeps the 17" just to egg the face of everyone that touted it's demise as absolute fact.

That will show them!

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by Karelia

I just love how a simple idea or rumor can quickly spiral into a guarantee. [/sarcasm]

Your just looking at one data point. They have had other 'sources' that have led them to believe this.

[MacTel]

Maybe we'll see a 22-inch iMac in the line-up too.

[acslater017]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Currently, sales of 22-inch LCD monitors are said to be better than those for 20-inch widescreen models, as the number of 22-inch LCD monitor suppliers is larger than that of 20-inch. According to DigiTimes, most PC vendors today are bundling 19-inch and 22-inch widescreen displays.

personally, i'm looking to purchase a 20-inch display for my MacBook. i haven't found anything smaller with enough pixels (1680x1050), and the ones slightly larger (21",22") seem to have the same resolution. so 20" seems like the sweet spot to me.

[cygnusrk727]

Originally Posted by Karelia

I hope Apple keeps the 17" just to egg the face of everyone that touted it's demise as absolute fact.

I could see them keeping the 17" iMac for the education market. A lot of primary schools want the most basic Mac they can get their hands on.

[l33r0y]

I think the next gen Macs will have HD video as the "killer app" this time around, so will probably opt for displays of 1920x1080 minimum - which rules out anything below 20"

On another note, most bundled PC displays are of inferior quality vs Mac (TN Film vs S-IPS respectively)

[melgross]

Originally Posted by cygnusrk727

I could see them keeping the 17" iMac for the education market. A lot of primary schools want the most basic Mac they can get their hands on.

As far as high schools here in NYC are concerned, we're moving to 20". Modern OS's and programs require more real estate.

Elementary schools might go for the 17" because of cost, but the 20" don't take up much more room, so even they are moving to them.

We saw this movement starting with the 12" models many years ago. They're right about the 22" models. I'm seeing many more of them, and the prices are about the same as the 20"s.

Not everyone wants a bigger screen because it has higher rez. A lot of people want the same rez in a bigger screen because they are easier to read. not everyone has great eyes.

[cygnusrk727]

Originally Posted by l33r0y

I think the next gen Macs will have HD video as the "killer app" this time around, so will probably opt for displays of 1920x1080 minimum - which rules out anything below 20")

That will be GREAT if resolutions go higher. But for the record, the 17" Mac Book Pro has a BTO option for a 1.920x1.200 pixel screen. It is $100 more.

Also, a dedicated 17" iMac for the education market could stay 'hobbled' while the rest of the line moves up.

[l33r0y]

Originally Posted by cygnusrk727

That will be GREAT if resolutions go higher. But for the record, the 17" Mac Book Pro has a BTO option for a 1.920x1.200 pixel screen. It is $100 more.

Sorry I don't see your point. Perhaps you are you saying that to bump resolutions up would incur a cost premium? I don't think this would be the case for the desktop market.

[cygnusrk727]

Originally Posted by l33r0y

Sorry I don't see your point. Perhaps you are you saying that to bump resolutions up would incur a cost premium? I don't think this would be the case for the desktop market.

My only point there was they make a 17" screen capable of a higher resolution. That was more in response to the first part of your quote: "....so will probably opt for displays of 1920x1080 minimum - which rules out anything below 20"

Personally I'm not interested in the 17 inch size either. I'm just saying Apple COULD keep it. Not saying they will.

[Zandros]

Originally Posted by l33r0y

On another note, most bundled PC displays are of inferior quality vs Mac (TN Film vs S-IPS respectively)

All Mac laptop displays as well as the 17" iMac use TN displays, and I haven't seen much evidence that the other iMacs use S-IPS either, though the Cinema Displays do.

Anyway, with LG.Philips starting production of 22" substrates, this means that the 22" segment won't be limited to TN, which is nice.

/Adrian

[Buck]

Suppose those newer iMacs will come with displays with higher dpis, would it make sense to unveil them before Leopard that's supposed to bring us resolution independed interface?

[ncbill]

Are any new models going to ship before Leopard arrives?

We are supposedly only a few weeks away from iMacs and yet no website has specs, much less pictures of new iMacs.

Except for keyboard pics anyone could have made in Photoshop.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by ncbill

Are any new models going to ship before Leopard arrives?

We are supposedly only a few weeks away from iMacs and yet no website has specs, much less pictures of new iMacs.

Except for keyboard pics anyone could have made in Photoshop.

No one here knows any more than you do.

[aaarrrgggh]

Awe heck... with today's margins, Apple should drop the 20" price to match the current 17", go for the 24" and why not add in a 27 or 30" while they are at it? If Apple puts in a big order for the large screens, I imagine they can get a sufficiently competitive price to just up the screen size across the board.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh

Awe heck... with today's margins, Apple should drop the 20" price to match the current 17", go for the 24" and why not add in a 27 or 30" while they are at it? If Apple puts in a big order for the large screens, I imagine they can get a sufficiently competitive price to just up the screen size across the board.

What has to be realized is that Apple simply doesn't sell enough iMacs for that to happen. Even if they did want to muddy up their line with all of those closely spaced models, it's not likely to add much in the way of sales. All of those SKU's would simply take their margins down, as it's the number of units sold per SKU that keeps the margin where it is.

An OEM gets a bigger discount when they buy more of the same model, not more of different sizes, but less of any individual model. The prices would go up. Apple also uses different manufacturers.

The most likely thing to happen is that Apple might see sales go up 10%, but see margins drop as different models cut into the sales of others.

What Apple needs to do to upscale their desktop sales is have a totally different model out there, that a much larger base of customer would want, but they show, so far, no interest in providing one.

[lottocarmen]

"The Taiwanese rumor site notes that Dell recently added a new 20-inch widescreen monitor, the UltraSharp 2007WFP, to its lineup. "

What do you think about this idea ?
....could this be similiar to the new Imac Model ?

http://www.hardware.info/en-US/artic...07WFP__Review/

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by Karelia

I hope Apple keeps the 17" just to egg the face of everyone that touted it's demise as absolute fact.

I hope Apple keeps the 17" for the purpose of maintaining a reasonably-sized budget computer. If Apple does indeed cut the Mac Mini, their cheapest computer will probably be $1200 USD or so.

That's not a very appealing aspect, and I can't imagine switchers being excited to take the plunge for that price.

A secondary benefit to keeping the 17" would be the aforementioned egg-facing of idiots who think they know everything.

I personally think Apple will keep a 17" model.

-Clive

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by ncbill

Except for keyboard pics anyone could have made in Photoshop.

I challenge anyone here to create those images using only photos of current Mac Products and Photoshop.

There's no doubt in my mind that the keyboard is a physically genuine model... It's just a matter of whether Apple made it, and furthermore, decided to use it as the next iMac keyboard.

If you think those picts were created in Photoshop, you're an idiot. Please tell me that's not the case.

-Clive

[alansky]

Dropping the 17-inch iMac is an incredibly dumb move on Apple's part, IMHO. I know too many people who make very basic use of their computers and consistently pick the smallest, cheapest iMac they can buy whenever it's time for an upgrade. Seems like an awful lot of people will be forced to spend more than they want or buy more computer than they want. That's a bummer in my book. On the other hand, maybe the rumor isn't true!

[Knimbleknight]

Originally Posted by alansky

Dropping the 17-inch iMac is an incredibly dumb move on Apple's part, IMHO. I know too many people who make very basic use of their computers and consistently pick the smallest, cheapest iMac they can buy whenever it's time for an upgrade. Seems like an awful lot of people will be forced to spend more than they want or buy more computer than they want. That's a bummer in my book. On the other hand, maybe the rumor isn't true!

Nah - sooner or later the 17" will be forgotten. And the 20" will be the smallest, cheapest iMac that the people you know who consistently upgrade their iMacs can buy. And they'll be happy knowing they are buying the smallest, cheapest iMac that they can buy, while enjoying the bigger screen.

[l33r0y]

Originally Posted by cygnusrk727

My only point there was they make a 17" screen capable of a higher resolution. That was more in response to the first part of your quote: "....so will probably opt for displays of 1920x1080 minimum - which rules out anything below 20"

Personally I'm not interested in the 17 inch size either. I'm just saying Apple COULD keep it. Not saying they will.

Ah I see - well yes, it's possible but unlikely. I've not seen any widescreen 17" desktop panels out there that can do that res and I doubt there will be. There's a niche for the laptop market (only 6bit mind you) but not for dektop users at that size.

[ncbill]

I thought the latest iMac rumor had the 17" back in the lineup?

Originally Posted by alansky

Dropping the 17-inch iMac is an incredibly dumb move on Apple's part, IMHO. I know too many people who make very basic use of their computers and consistently pick the smallest, cheapest iMac they can buy whenever it's time for an upgrade. Seems like an awful lot of people will be forced to spend more than they want or buy more computer than they want. That's a bummer in my book. On the other hand, maybe the rumor isn't true!

[Zenga]

Originally Posted by MacTel

Maybe we'll see a 22-inch iMac in the line-up too.

20" 22" 24" would be a great line up + keeping the 17" for education.

I still think that Apple shouldn't kill the 17".

Let's wait..

[iPoster]

Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh

why not add in a 27 or 30" while they are at it?

Hmmm, at least they would be able to do away with the chin on a 30" model!

[l33r0y]

Originally Posted by Zandros

All Mac laptop displays as well as the 17" iMac use TN displays, and I haven't seen much evidence that the other iMacs use S-IPS either, though the Cinema Displays do.

My understanding is all iMacs were S-IPS, based on what others have said on this board, so yes, I may stand corrected. I'd be very disappointed to discover if they used TN Film.

Originally Posted by Zandros

Anyway, with LG.Philips starting production of 22" substrates, this means that the 22" segment won't be limited to TN, which is nice.
/Adrian

Cool

[l33r0y]

Originally Posted by alansky

Dropping the 17-inch iMac is an incredibly dumb move on Apple's part, IMHO. I know too many people who make very basic use of their computers and consistently pick the smallest, cheapest iMac they can buy whenever it's time for an upgrade. Seems like an awful lot of people will be forced to spend more than they want or buy more computer than they want. That's a bummer in my book. On the other hand, maybe the rumor isn't true!

Well, consider that most PC bundled screens are 19" 4:3 and more commonly now 20" widescreen, I can see why Apple would want to raise their minimum spec in line with that - not wanting to seem out of date in that respect alone.

Also, panel manufacturers would probably stop producing the 17" panels in favor of producing panels which are more in demand, you can see why dropping the 17" is more likely.

I can't see too many people complaining if the entry level 20" '07 iMac is introduced at todays 17" entry level '06 iMac price...

[jApple]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

According to DigiTimes, most PC vendors today are bundling 19-inch and 22-inch widescreen displays.

Assuming this is true, Apple staying with 20 and 24 inch sizes suggests to me that either S.J. is being his usual stubborn self, or their not going to change the form factor just yet.

If consumers want 19" and 22" (and they're cheaper for Apple) then Apple should choose those sizes. Otherwise, there must be some engineering/production reason that Apple stayed with 20" and 24".

[l33r0y]

Originally Posted by jApple

Assuming this is true, Apple staying with 20 and 24 inch sizes suggests to me that either S.J. is being his usual stubborn self, or their not going to change the form factor just yet.

If consumers want 19" and 22" (and they're cheaper for Apple) then Apple should choose those sizes. Otherwise, there must be some engineering/production reason that Apple stayed with 20" and 24".

I suspect this is because Apple do not choose TN Film based panels for the iMac because of the relative poor quality viewing angle and colour reproduction compared with S-IPS or *VA panels. I don't think 22" screens have been produced in anything other than TN Film.

Read more about the various panel technologies here:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/which_screen_1.htm

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by Zenga

20" 22" 24" would be a great line up + keeping the 17" for education.

I still think that Apple shouldn't kill the 17".

I fear that if Apple puts out that many size choices, they'll pigeon-hole the performance of a given iMac into a certain screen-size. Previous iterations have done a decent job at this by offering just two options. Offering 17", 20", 22", AND 24"... that would be a nightmare.

I feel as though the price balance has gotten a little out of skew with the addition of the 24", which leans me towards cutting the 17", but I fear a 20" will be overkill for casual users.

Maybe a compromize? 19", 23", 27"?

19"-widescreen is a very popular basic size right now... and Apple offers a 23" Cinema Display. In fact, they could mime their ACD line with the same sizes... a 19" budget model, 23" lower-end, 27" mid-range, 30+" high-end.

*shrugs*

-Clive

[l33r0y]

I'd certainly consider a 23" iMac if it was the same panel as the Cinema Display and had an option for a DX10 spec GPU

[melgross]

Originally Posted by l33r0y

I'd certainly consider a 23" iMac if it was the same panel as the Cinema Display and had an option for a DX10 spec GPU

Oh, come on!

This is getting ridiculous.

Why don't we just have 17,19,20,22,23, and 24" iMacs?

That would please everyone!

[l33r0y]

I vote for:
20" (1680x1050),
23" (1920x1200 i.e. same as 23" cinema (mass buying power))
27" (1920x1200 with 92% NTSC color gamut - enhanced CCFL)

All S-IPS panels of course

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by melgross

Why don't we just have 17,19,20,22,23, and 24" iMacs?

That would please everyone!

Okay!

[melgross]

Originally Posted by l33r0y

I vote for:
20" (1680x1050),
23" (1920x1200 i.e. same as 23" cinema (mass buying power))
27" (1920x1200 with 92% NTSC color gamut - enhanced CCFL)

All S-IPS panels of course

Apple will be discontinuing that 23" display. Everyone has gone to 24".

[gar]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

... but I fear a 20" will be overkill for casual users.

Overkill for a casual user is a Mac Pro with 30" screen.
That overkill also includes most creative profesionals.

I don't think the casual user would mind a 20" iMac with a lower price tag.
Most PC's are sold with a 19"-22" screen (okay, I know the 19" resolution is 99% of the time 1280x768 but that's not the point)

Apple has always upped the specs and/or lowered the price of a new model.
I bought my 20"iMac G5 revA for $1,899 (actually more, because the euro sucked those days)
now, 2,5 years later we can buy a better, faster 20" iMac for $1,499

If Apple drops the 17" version, they'll also drop the price of the current 20" model to $1,299, which is the standard starting price of the iMac since its introduction back in 1998

Originally Posted by melgross

Apple will be discontinuing that 23" display. Everyone has gone to 24".

agreed.

[Kolchak]

Originally Posted by melgross

Not everyone wants a bigger screen because it has higher rez. A lot of people want the same rez in a bigger screen because they are easier to read. not everyone has great eyes.

I do have great eyes. But still, just because you can see tiny text doesn't mean you want to read it all the time. I'm waiting for the 27" displays to fall in price. They're just about the perfect combination of size and resolution. 30s are nice and big, but the resolution is too high, at least until Leopard's resolution independence can change things. Too bad the 27s are so stinking expensive right now. For that matter, I don't get why 24s are so much more expensive than 20s. 4 extra inches and 320 extra pixel columns don't warrant a tripling of price.

[shanmugam]

my vote

19" - 1440 x 900

22" - 1680 x 1050

24/27" - 1900 x 1200