or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Supply of Apple's Thunderbolt Display reportedly drying up for second time in 2013
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Supply of Apple's Thunderbolt Display reportedly drying up for second time in 2013

post #1 of 55
Thread Starter 
Third-party retailers are reporting stock-outs, or near stock-outs, of Apple's 27-inch Thunderbolt Display, once again fueling rumors that the company is preparing to release an upgraded Retina display model.

Thunderbolt Display


A number of resellers, including Adorama, Fry's, CDW and MicroCenter are all sold out of the Thunderbolt Display, reports MacTrast, while PowerMax MacConnection and others are running low on inventory.

The supposed stock-outs mirror an identical situation seen in February, when even larger companies like Amazon and J&R noted Apple's Thunderbolt Display was sold out. At the time, it was speculated that Apple would soon reveal a thinner version of the product more in line with the redesigned iMac.

While it is unclear whether Apple is indeed preparing a successor to the current Thunderbolt Display model, which hasn't been updated since its debut in 2011, a high-resolution wallpaper discovered on Apple's servers hints at possible refresh. The image in question is the blue-and-green wave background seen in Apple's OS X Mavericks promotional materials. At 5,120-by-2,880 pixels, the wallpaper has dimensions exactly twice that of the current Thunderbolt Display and 27-inch iMac.
post #2 of 55
Wow, that's a spicy meatball! I would imagine that it would take a pretty beefy video card to drive a display at that resolution.
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #3 of 55
Only problem is that there isn't a display protocol that can handle 5120x2880, nor are any GPUs certified for that resolution either.
post #4 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

Only problem is that there isn't a display protocol that can handle 5120x2880, nor are any GPUs certified for that resolution either.

That might stop an off-the-shelf PC maker, but we are talking about Apple, Inc.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #5 of 55
27" Retina Thunderbolt display please! Thunderbolt 2 can hand it just fine, and the new Mac Pro has sufficient GPU for 3x 4k displays.

But I bet it will cost $8000, which is $50 more than it's worth to me.

Retina iMac? That will have to wait longer, I fear--due to price.

P.S. Make it all-black to match the Pro, AND for the love of Pete, make the keyboard and mouse black too! Why the white?? Apple hasn't made a white Mac in ages, yet the mouse and keyboard still have white!

Backlight the keyboard while you're at it.
post #6 of 55

Bring also a new wired numerical keyboard with built-in USB 3 as well as a 22 to 24-inch Thunderbolt display with Thunderbolt 2 and USB 3.

post #7 of 55

They pretty much have to come out with a new (different) monitor for the new Mac Pro anyway, so it makes sense to refresh the current one.  

 

Maybe they will have a "regular" for laptops and a "pro" for the Mac Pro. 

post #8 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

They pretty much have to come out with a new (different) monitor for the new Mac Pro anyway, so it makes sense to refresh the current one.  

Maybe they will have a "regular" for laptops and a "pro" for the Mac Pro. 

I hope so. I would like the option not to pay for a "retina" display, which at this point will cost a fortune. Also the pro one could be igzo and be thin like the iMac.
post #9 of 55

Well one that looks like the new iMacs would be a good start. And some 4k monitors for the mac pro

 

While at it why not bigger ones that could be used like a TV.

post #10 of 55

The thunderbolt display is fatter than the iMac and that makes no sense.

 

However... instead of something so thin that I could use to shave my beard, why not putting 2 f*cking 790GPU and 20 thunderbolt cables/ports/usb3/only god knows what more?

Now that would be nice and a 750m is enough for us, intel GPUs users.

 

Thanks in advance, .

post #11 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

They pretty much have to come out with a new (different) monitor for the new Mac Pro anyway, so it makes sense to refresh the current one.  

Maybe they will have a "regular" for laptops and a "pro" for the Mac Pro. 
Makes sense. For most people a retina 27" is totally overkill but for the lucky ones - WOW!
post #12 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelsalt View Post


I would like the option not to pay for a "retina" display, which at this point will cost a fortune.

 

Would it? I've seen 50" 4K TVs for $1100.

 

I think it would be a real coup to deliver a 27" 4K display for $999. It might eat some margin up front, but once again they would push people forward and make a new technology standard. It works for retina on the iPad.

post #13 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post

Wow, that's a spicy meatball! I would imagine that it would take a pretty beefy video card to drive a display at that resolution.

This will be timed to arrive with the new Mac Pro, which are ideal for this display.
post #14 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

Only problem is that there isn't a display protocol that can handle 5120x2880, nor are any GPUs certified for that resolution either.

Read AMD's information they have for some of the FirePro cards that will likely be in the new Mac Pro. They specifically state the hardware is capable of operating beyond what the display Port standard can use. In this regard Apple and AMD would have to have worked together on signaling an protocol to allow TB to take on the role of Display Port.

People really need to read up on AMD's capabilities in their latest chip sets. They are more than ready for greater than 4K displays. Given of course that Apple selects the right chip set. This actually can help us narrow down which chips will be driving the GPU cards in Apples new Mac Pro
post #15 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

Only problem is that there isn't a display protocol that can handle 5120x2880, nor are any GPUs certified for that resolution either.

ThunderBolt 2 and that is coming with the MacPro. It can drive 3 4K monitors or it could do a 4K monitor AND a retina 27".

post #16 of 55

I assume that there will be a Thunderbolt 2 monitor, but I'm really hoping for an update to the current one as well. Or perhaps one that can do both Thunderbolt 1 & 2, depending on what it's connected up to.  I currently have a 2012 mini, but want to get a monitor that will last me a few generations of machines.

 

As for Retina, just how close is everyone sitting to their 27" monitors these days?  I'm about 24" from my display, plus or minus a few inches depending on how I sit.  At that distance, the current 27" display looks Retina quality.  Anything over that resolution, and it's just going to kill most of the GPUs that today's Macs ship with.  Even if the GPU is capable of that resolution, it's still going to take a huge hit in performance.

post #17 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmileyDude View Post

...I'm really hoping for an update to the current one as well. Or perhaps one that can do both Thunderbolt 1 & 2...

That will be the Thunderbolt 2 model. No sense in having an equivalent of older tech.
Quote:
I'm about 24" from my display, plus or minus a few inches depending on how I sit.  At that distance, the current 27" display looks Retina quality.

I sit the same distance and can just about count the pixels. Retina would do wonders.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #18 of 55
My prediction: 4k displays are coming from Apple. They will reserve the "retina" brand for everything mobile, and adopt the 4k standard for iMac, Cinema Display, and Apple tv if it comes to life.

Can't wait for the 4k Cinema Display and the Thunderbolt 2 Haswell MacBook Pro.
post #19 of 55

If they split off a retina version, why discontinue the old one? I guess they could make it thinner.

post #20 of 55
Even if Retina isn't here yet, it needs to be updated with the better display from the new iMac, USB 3, and Thunderbolt 2.0.

That's more than enough of an update.

Throw in a 2TB HDD while keeping the already high price tag and I would complain either..
post #21 of 55
Kill the flat "regular" display.
Keep the Thunderbolt display $999

New Retina 27'' with the new slim design for $1499
4K with black aluminum design to match the new Mac Pro $2499
post #22 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Even if Retina isn't here yet, it needs to be updated with the better display from the new iMac, USB 3, and Thunderbolt 2.0.

That's more than enough of an update.

Throw in a 2TB HDD while keeping the already high price tag and I would complain either..

 

Other than the HDD, this is pretty much exactly what I am looking for -- assuming backwards compatibility to TB 1.0 as well.  If the resolution isn't 4k or Retina, there should be no downside to supporting TB 1.0.  But if they take this as an opportunity to jump the resolution as well, then they will probably have to jump to TB 2.  

post #23 of 55
What if they added a plastic section at the top and put an AirPort in there, and a HDD, and a WAN/LAN ports.

One killer desktop accessory that would be Display, Hub, Time Capsule, & Router...all connected to your Mac by a Thunderbolt cable.

Honestly I say go further. Add Thunderbolt 2.0, include an AMD Firecore, and allow MacBooks to seamlessly combine their built in GPU with the extra GPU in the Display for super charged desktop power.
post #24 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


That will be the Thunderbolt 2 model. No sense in having an equivalent of older tech.

 

I'm not expecting Apple to make an updated display that doesn't do TB 2, I'm just hoping for backwards compatibility with their entire Mac lineup as it is today.  That doesn't seem too unreasonable.  A TB 2 only display would mean that they would have to continue selling the current TB display, just as they also continue to sell the previous 27" Cinema Display as well.  I know that they could certainly do that -- and perhaps they might very well do that -- but they might be able to get a few more sales out of a TB 2 display that can also do TB 1 than they would by continuing to offer the previous model instead.

post #25 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Honestly I say go further. Add Thunderbolt 2.0, include an AMD Firecore, and allow MacBooks to seamlessly combine their built in GPU with the extra GPU in the Display for super charged desktop power.

 

I know Thunderbolt 2 is an improvement over 1, but it really isn't enough of an improvement to move the GPU out over the bus.  TB 2 has 20Gbits of shared bandwidth,  a PCIe v2.0 16x slot has a dedicated 64Gbits of bandwidth.  And that's the old 2.0 standard -- 3.0 just comes short of doubling that at 126Gbits.  

 

That might work for some people, but really, it's better just to have the internal GPU handle everything and send it out on the DisplayPort channel of Thunderbolt.  Thunderbolt is going to have to make quite a few more strides to replace PCIe on the GPU side of things.  

post #26 of 55

Apple has a 326 DPI iPhone 4 to 5 screen technology available to design newer resolution thunderbolt displays for the new mac pro's that will be released in the fall...

 

If they were to follow that model, a 326 DPI screen measuring 20 inches would have a resolution of 4800 x 3200. Of course this is not a perfect 21.5 inch display like those found in the iMac but it is considered a "retina" display because it is 2x the pixel density of the current displays found in today's monitors.

 

An iPhone 4S display costs 23 to make so the way they double their prices, and multiply this by 5 to make a 20 inch monitor with an aluminum casing that is of retina quality should cost 400 dollars to produce and would sell at 500 to 600.

iTunes Radio - Apple TV with Wifi AC - Gold Anodized Aluminum iPhone - Mac Pro: September - November 2013

 

Reply

iTunes Radio - Apple TV with Wifi AC - Gold Anodized Aluminum iPhone - Mac Pro: September - November 2013

 

Reply
post #27 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkdefender View Post

If they were to follow that model, a 326 DPI screen measuring 20 inches would have a resolution of 4800 x 3200.

5120x2880 at 27" is 217.57. As said screen is designed to be viewed at roughly twice the distance of the iPhone's, I imagine 2x is sufficient for retina status.

Never mind that 20" is absolutely not 5x the area of a 4" display. For the 4", 16:9 iPhone, It's a 6.84" square. But it's a 179.78" square on a 16:10 20" display. That's 26.28x the area. A 27" Thunderbolt Display at 16:19 display is 327.64" square, which is 47.90x the area.

Never mind that the cost grows near exponentially when compare a small display like this to a large one. It's not a linear "5x more".

Edited by Tallest Skil - 6/25/13 at 7:14pm

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #28 of 55
Higher resolution is nice, but I'd much rather see Apple put more effort into making their monitors colour accurate. The Thunderbolt display (and the iMac for that matter) is woefully inadequate if calibrated colour is important for your work. If they really want to make a "pro" display, it would be nice of they could give me a reason not to buy NEC or Eizo.
post #29 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

Only problem is that there isn't a display protocol that can handle 5120x2880, nor are any GPUs certified for that resolution either.

I just replaced my 2008 MacBook with a 15" retina pro, I wonder if the Nvidea 650M and 2.8GHz quad core i7 will handle it?

I'm still coming to terms with the jaw dropping display.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #30 of 55
I wonder if Apple is going to release a thinner (a la iMac) Thunderbolt display for all of their products and a 4K Thunderbolt display for the Mac Pro.

I'm still wondering what kinds of Thunderbolt 2 devices will be released.
post #31 of 55
Thunderbolt 2 display:
Features USB 3.0
Thunderbolt 2
Retina 27 inch
1080 p. FaceTime cam
1 TB HDD
Price $1000

Is this a ok spec list for $1000
post #32 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

Only problem is that there isn't a display protocol that can handle 5120x2880, nor are any GPUs certified for that resolution either.

That's not true.  There are quite a few experimental drivers which support resolutions even higher than this.

post #33 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmileyDude View Post

 

I'm not expecting Apple to make an updated display that doesn't do TB 2, I'm just hoping for backwards compatibility with their entire Mac lineup as it is today.  

You can rest easy.  TB 2 is backwards compatible.

post #34 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post


Throw in a 2TB HDD while keeping the already high price tag and I would complain either..

At the risk of sounding like Apple's own shill who frequently over posts on this site, (short quick posts) what would be the point of putting a drive in it?  The display could possibly last for 10 years.  However 10 years from now that drive will be useless even if it still works.

post #35 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The image in question is the blue-and-green wave background seen in Apple's OS X Mavericks promotional materials. At 5,120-by-2,880 pixels, the wallpaper has dimensions exactly twice that of the current Thunderbolt Display and 27-inch iMac.

My own insignificant opinion would be that this is for the Mac Pro .  The wall paper anyway.  It was even eluded to in the keynote.

 

The next logical thought would be that the iMac would support that resolution, but it would be hard pressed to do anything else at this point.  Unless the decreased heat from the Haswell chip allowed them to put a non-mobile graphics card or chip in the new iMac enclosure.  I'm only guessing.

 

My third thought, and going way 'out on a limb' so to speak, would be that the new display would be capable of supporting many different resolutions.  Halving the pixel count for a current computer on a display capable of displaying twice the resolution... it literally would look the same.  No one would notice, but the upgrade potential would be there.

post #36 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

However 10 years from now that drive will be useless even if it still works.

What makes you believe a hard drive will fail after ten years? What makes you think 2TB would be useless? Six years ago we hit 1TB. We're only at 4 now. Moore's Law doesn't apply.

I agree there's no point putting one in a display, but still.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #37 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


What makes you believe a hard drive will fail after ten years? What makes you think 2TB would be useless? Six years ago we hit 1TB. We're only at 4 now. Moore's Law doesn't apply.

I agree there's no point putting one in a display, but still.

If you agree then why ask?  Do you not like me?

 

Ten years ago the most popular USB drive was 250Meg, and the most popular drive was 80Gig.  Don't get me wrong, you can still do basic file sharing with something that small.  But how useful would they be today?  

 

Don't you have a troll to fry?...

 

Edit: I looked up most popular sales during that timeframe.  It may be skewed.  Also, from what I've witnessed about electronics.  They could last 10 seconds or could last 10 centuries.  I can't back up the later claim.

 

2nd Edit:  I'm agreeing with you.  Just let it be.  There shouldn't be a drive in a display.  The only proper way to do it would be solid state and in a few years, no matter what they put in there, it will seem antiquated.

 

I'm probably shooting my self here, but what's the "but still" part?  Please elaborate.


Edited by Vadania - 6/25/13 at 10:13pm
post #38 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

If you agree then why ask?

Because they're entirely different questions.
Quote:
Ten years ago the most popular USB drive was 250Meg, and the most popular drive was 80Gig.  Don't get me wrong, you can still do basic file sharing with something that small.  But how useful would they be today?

Hmm. If we extrapolate forward, I can see "small" hard drives having quite a bit of use, since Internet speeds aren't going to keep up with demand. Heck, the sneakernet is still the best way of getting files around in all but the most server-y of cases. Unless NAND prices plummet soon, I see a slower climb in the '10s than the '00s.

Hope I'm wrong, but it pays not to be optimistic about shipping products.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #39 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Because they're entirely different questions.
Hmm. If we extrapolate forward, I can see "small" hard drives having quite a bit of use, since Internet speeds aren't going to keep up with demand. Heck, the sneakernet is still the best way of getting files around in all but the most server-y of cases. Unless NAND prices plummet soon, I see a slower climb in the '10s than the '00s.

Hope I'm wrong, but it pays not to be optimistic about shipping products.

No, you did your typical "attack my statement because I didn't offer proof" mantra.

 

I was one of the people who asked for you to come back.  Only because you keep the real troll levels down.  Don't attack normal people please.

 

Moore's law is still at work in hard drives, SSD's, circuit boards, and processors.  Just because Haswell didn't improve in speed doesn't mean it didn't improve.  In this day the power reduction could really be seen as conforming to Moore's law.  ARM is also jumping towards that standard and is literally the most interesting thing in tech at the moment.

 

However, I agree with you agreeing with me.  There's no need to put a HD in the new Thunderbolt Display.  That, however, does not mean that Apple will not do it.

post #40 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

No, you did your typical "attack my statement because I didn't offer proof" mantra.

Guess that's called asking a question now...
Quote:
Moore's law is still at work in hard drives, SSD's, circuit boards, and processors.

Oh, absolutely! But in disk storage right now, is it still meeting the requirements? Like I said, unless those new NAND techniques break out of the lab, we're relying on spinning drives to hit 5, 6, 7 terabytes pretty soon, but where's any indication of that? 1frown.gif
Quote:
However, I agree with you agreeing with me.

This'll get real recursive real fast.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Supply of Apple's Thunderbolt Display reportedly drying up for second time in 2013