Apple Thunderbolt Display inventory dwindles, may hint at upcoming redesign - Page 2

 

This is just a ridiculous thing to say, and undermines any other comment you could make.  

Of course it would sell more if it were cheaper.  Why stop at $699?  Hell, sell it for $199 and it'll practically shut out the competition!! /s

We bought two of Apple's LED displays and never looked back.  It's not just the monitor, but the TB setup as well.  I use mine with a 2011 MBA, and my business partner uses his for his rMBP.  It's an awesome setup that does not infest our laptops with cables.  Ethernet, sound, USB, all on the monitor.  That's convenience that's difficult to explain to non-users.

Sure, I could have spent less on a competitors brand, but as usual Apple packages everything together in a much better way to justify the price in my opinion.

Here's some advice, if it's too expensive for you, move on.  There are other things I want but are priced out of my pay grade, yet I don't dwell on it.  

 

If Apple took out the speakers, the camera, and the hub so it matched the monitor you bought, it would be more than $500 cheaper, not your hoped for $300.  It would still be a better monitor than the one you bought though.  

When they add USB 3.0 they will most likely add a USB 3.0 connector at the computer end too. This accomplishes three things:
1. Ensures both USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt operate at full speed and don't interfere with each other.
2. Limits USB 3.0 to models of Mac that already include it.
3. Uses a cheap USB hub instead of a more expensive Thunderbolt to USB 3.0 converter.

There are two downsides:
1. The display would be less attractive to owners of 2011 Macs that have Thunderbolt, but lack USB 3.0.
2. The single cable to the computer would split into three arms instead of the current two. Apple and some of their pickier customers have an intense hatred of cables and three plugs in place of two would look to them like a backwards step.

Neither is really a big deal. Most 2011 buyers who wanted a display already purchased one so the potential sales aren't very high in this group and may actually accelerate purchase of 2013 Macs as replacements. An extra plug is well worth it if the result is better performance.

There is one other thing that needs to be mentioned. USB 3.0 causes WiFi interference. In Apple's cable-free world this is a terrible thing, but they've already included USB 3.0 in their computers so they can't use the interference excuse for not including it in their display.

 

Having an integrated GPU is certainly a fascinating idea, especially if paired with a MacBook Air. I'm curious how well it would work if used with a higher-end machine that includes a discrete GPU already. An interesting idea could be a Mac Pro or Mini with no GPU at all...?

 

Why would you want a fiber cable as standard? My understanding is that the benefit to fiber is longer distance - i.e., you could have a massive RAID array in a secure closet or perhaps industrial controllers/instrumentation in an isolated room. There are a few cases where the display would be distant and need a fiber connection, but the default should be a cheap, short cable.

Even then the only reason for that is to replace GigE or a SAN fabric with Thunderbolt.

The concept is based around machines like the Mini, MBA and 13" MBP that have integrated GPUs that aren't suitable for gaming or graphics intensive professional apps. Leveraging TB to have a GPU in that large display would allow for people to buy a cheaper Mac.

I doubt they'd do it as it would include significant cost.

Besides length electromagnetic interference or snooping are other considerations.

TB is a serial link just like any other. If multiple device try to use it congestion can happen. On the other hand most data transfer is bursty so most users won't have a problem.

I look at it this way the TB support adds about $250 of value. Given that your price is about right.

Sure would be nice if they put an Apple TV inside .....

 

 

 

For a few years I kept expecting to see a series of screens that can run off a single Mac Pro or Mini. 4 computing devices on one Mac. Or buy an iMac and a remote-screen to have 2 virtual computers - either connected by Thunderbolt or just networked. At this point I have no expectations.

 

Apple was developing a graphics technology to allow 6Mbps between the cpu and gpu a while back but afaik it didn't go far (hopefully someone will correct me). That would have seemed to make things possible on a Gbps Ethernet.

 

 

 

Similar to the above - put the AppleTV/iPad internals in the screen for basic graphics and apps, plus being a FAST remote screen so we can have 6 virtual iMacs (small ones... 21"? 17"?) in the house for a cheaper price. Nice for a small business too.

The reason usb 3 has not happened on the mac pro right now is because the sandy bridge xeons dont support usb 3 natively.  Apple has been waiting till the ivy bridge versions come out which do support usb 3 natively because usb is a processor function and is supported by the cpu directly, unlike firewire and thunderbolt which have there own stand alone platform processor independent.  Ivy bridge xeons just barely came out late late last fall.   To make a professional machine like the mac pro that is super stable and able to be a workhorse 24/7 takes time.  It will happen and the new one that comes out this year will have usb 3 and thunderbolt with ivy bridge xeons.

 

The reason the consumer machines like the iMac and pro desktops like the Macbook Pro have usb 3 is because all of there core i chips have been upgraded to ivy bridge versions.

 

Is there a genuine reason it can't be 1/3 of it's current price?

 

I know they differentiate with aluminium construction, IPS, etc. but they make iPads with both these things that sell for less than half the price. 

 

It might make sense for professionals purchasing on corporate budgets, but what about consumers buying a mac mini? The sensible options are either, BYOD, purchase a non-apple display or get an iMac. I'd love to know what the attachment rate is on attempts to upsell a $1000+ display for customers buying a $600 computer!

 

When they go eventually go retina Apple could at least market a reasonably-priced, non-retina model instead of conceding the entire consumer display market to other manufacturers. Maybe they've decided there's not enough money in it to even try.

 

Size/resolution combined with panel quality kicks the price up.

 

The Thunderbolt Display at launch was cheaper than any other display that used a panel of that quality, and it had more features (ports, speakers, camera, etc.) than any of them.

 

Not that it can't (and won't) eventually be cheaper. The 30" was $3,299 at launch. THIRTY-TWO NINETY-NINE! And now look where we are.

Displays in general have come way down in price since then. When the 30" display debuted, it cost way more than that. Note $3300 and it required a $400 graphics card upgrade for your G5. If you wanted one, you were locked into at least $3700. I can't remember if this included the necessary dual link dvi cable. It's all relative to the current market. The defining feature of the thunderbolt display is the docking functionality. I know some people would still buy it because it's Apple or because it looks pretty. The docking station aspect is one of the most prevalent parts though. 

I think he meant the ivy bridge thing socket LGA1155 thing. It was chipset native as of ivy bridge. With the mac pro and thunderbolt display, the only options are third party usb chipsets. LGA2011 doesn't include it by default, and obviously the display is a completely different thing.

I think it depends on why you're purchasing the display. If the thunderbolt hub is the primary driving factor, the Apple display is the obvious option. If you're just looking for a nice 27" display around that price limit, I prefer NEC. One is $950 after price drops. The other is $1000. Most display brands reduce pricing over time to even out sales to a degree. Display technology is updated much slower than other things.

 

Why is the guy on the box cowering beside his purple chair?

He's probably horrified his new 123456789F monitor doesn't look like that, or is even shown to scale.

I also can't stand glossy, but certainly am not going to move furniture just so I have less glare. I buy a matte screen. Supposedly the current screens are way less glossy than before...

You're enjoying a 30" 2560*1600, aren't you?

Then you missed wizard69 price comment.

Thank you! That is the reason for it, but iForgot.

It did include the Dual DVI cable (was attached to the screen back then as well) and the PowerMac7,3 could be ordered with the GeForce 6800 (DDL)

Do these other 2 displays have the TB hub in there as well? If not, they seem overpriced - compared to Apple

Ret-i-na! Ret-i-na! Ret-i-na!

 

As I mentioned, very compelling for a MBA; personally I expect the 13" MBP to disappear soon - the only real benefit is the optical drive, and the new MBPs ditched them. Reduction of size & weight by elimination of the GPU & battery capacity needed when portable, coupled with the capacity to drive a big display properly when docked would be excellent.

 

For a Mini, it doesn't make sense to me - a reduction in cost of the computer is not enough to cover the GPU in the monitor; portability is not an issue.

 

 

Is there any evidence these are real considerations for using Thunderbolt? I have not heard any suggestion that TB is particularly susceptible to interference. Certainly, there are environments (i.e., high-energy laboratories) that could affect TB, but these would also affect almost every other part of the machine. As far as snooping goes, is there any evidence that it can be intercepted, any more than ethernet, USB, video cables, or the sound of typing on a keyboard? Plausible, sure, but not an issue for 99.999% of users. The few that are so paranoid are better off simply not using a computer, period.

Please, Apple, make the height on this display equal to the height of the 27" iMac. Presently, they don't match, which looks (and worse, functions) poorly.

Also, give us back the ability to mount iMacs and these monitors on arms via VESA mounts.

 

I have to agree with respect to VESA mounts.    This is just another example of Apples desktop engineering being less than user focused.    Even half the effort that goes into the laptops would be wonderful.

You guys are 100% wrong here. USB3 was tied to the chipset, not the processors. With Xeon EP chipsets, you get one per tick/tock cycle, meaning Ivy Bridge E5s do not gain any special features. They don't change anything regarding thunderbolt. They don't natively integrate usb3 unless intel completely changes course this late, and that is not likely. Sandy Bridge workstations from other vendors include usb3 using third party chipsets, as that is the only option until Haswell Xeons.

 

 

 

You're confusing EP and EN. The ivy bridge xeons that came out year were based on the same thing you see in the imacs today. They're based on mainstream chip designs with a few extra PCI lanes. Apple has never used these in the mac pro. They're common in micro-servers and a couple lighter workstations, but the performance is no better than what Apple already offers. They only go up to 4 cores. They are capped at 20 PCI lanes instead of 40 or 80. In terms of time required, other brands released workstations based on these a long time ago. It doesn't take as long as you suggest to validate hardware.

This is a manufacturing issue. Think vertically. Horizontally all the screens are 2560 pixels. The manufacturing line can produce more screens if they cut the screens every 1440 pixels rather than every 1600 vertically. So they can make more screens cheaper, appealing to more customers

Also consider production yield. More bad pixels in 2560x1600 than 1440. The manufacturer has to throw away less screens therefore making 2560x1440 27" LCDs cheaper to produce and lower retail prices and higher market demand. Win win for the manufacturer.

The same applies to the diminishing availability of 1920x1200 screens VS 1920x1080 screens, but they can market those lesser screens as FullHD.

Weird thing, I have a Dell 2410 1920x1200 that still sells now for more than I paid for it in 2009. Not so weird if you understand the above.

Who cares how thin it is?  I'd rather have a better screen, more TB lanes, and USB 3.0 than "thinner".  When you're using the display it's impossible to know whether it's 1" thin or 2" thin anyways.

 

Also, I'd appreciate it if Apple stopped hiding ports like USB in hard to see and reach places.  On my Dell I can insert a flash drive without moving from my chair.  On an iMac/TB display, I have to give the display a reach-around to do the same thing.  This is another case of Ive's lack of practical sense.

I think it's safe to say that Apple does. No need to go into to the many valid reasons as to how a thinner and lighter display saves costs (that can be added to other parts to make a better display) and how they think it makes it more attractive to the majority of users.

I disagree. I've been using the SD slot on the back of my mini for over a year now and it slides in beautifully. At first I thought it was poor design myself as well, but using the ports on the backside gives me no trouble. At all.

 

So you believe there is no ergonomic difference between plugging a flash drive into the front of say, a Mac Pro, versus plugging it into the back of an iMac?

 

Interesting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point was regarding the purchase of a new display.  If the feature set is the same, but one is slightly thinner, what is the advantage to the consumer?  The new TB displays promise to have less glare, which is a good reason to wait for one.  Waiting because they're a bit thinner is just stupid.

 

 

I can see that on the mini, on the new iMac, I don't so much. Besides, on the iMac, it's more awkward to make connections without standing up and looking behind the screen.

Sure, if that's all they changed but as Apple ever just made a product thinner with no other changes added? I can't think of any. You already mention the lowered glare in the display, but also consider USB 3.0 added to take advantage of all the Macs that shipped last year with Ivy Bridge.

There will be other changes but most of them we may never realize. If they remove FW (which I think is highly likely) but then add better speakers, better color accuracy, brighter backlight and the like we'll see it on the spec sheet; but other changes like better internal HW we may never know about. I'd like the price to drop by $100 but I'm guessing that won't happen because a quality 27" display from Dell isn't much cheaper than the ATD yet looks a lot worse and is likely poorly configured at the factory.

 

Absolutely.  I'd buy that even without fiber TB cables.

 

The bonus for Apple is that they just made monitors something you replace before they roll over and die.

I have an open jack on a USB hub.

I switched away from a tower to recover a few cubic feet of space under my desk, and eliminate the uncomfortable heat it generates.


Wait, who was saying that?

I don't have any experience with an iMac (never used one) but the FW & USB ports on the back of my ACD go unused. I've tried them out, but yes, they seem like a hassle. That might be the case with USB on the back of a mini as well; I've only used the SD Card slot, and that works easy for me.

 

 

That's about the only solution for most Macs.  It's sort of ugly to have a hub and a bunch of wires on the desk, Ive would have been wise to design some accessable ports on Macs to pretty up the desktop.  He's really a shortsighted designer.

Either way, I need the hub because I have more devices than connectors, and it's not such a bad thing to hide the more permanent cables. A hub is better than having 4+ cords dangling in plain sight.

Wow. Just wow. Shortsighted indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_ive#Honours_and_awards

Honors and awards don't make it any easier to plug a flash drive into the back of the TB display or upgrade the HDD/SSD in an iMac, do they?

 

They don't make the TB's display height adjustable, do they?

 

So. Buy. Something. Else.

 

If you matter so much, they'll start building stuff you want.

I'd understand the concern more with an imac. The thunderbolt display's real feature is its functionality as a thunderbolt dock. If that isn't a requirement, there are several good display options surrounding that price point.

 

What else is there that runs OS X natively?  Give me an option and I'll consider it.

 

So I guess you need to stop complaining, then.

 

Anything can run OS X in VirtualBox if your complaint is software-based. You can have whatever magical hardware you want and still get OS X. Maybe then you'll understand why they don't make a computer like that.