or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Briefly: Apple shaves cost of Cinema Display line
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Briefly: Apple shaves cost of Cinema Display line

post #1 of 61
Thread Starter 
While unveiling a version of its professional desktop system that sports 8 cores of processing power on Wednesday, Mac maker Apple Inc. also cut prices on its matching array of Cinema Display flat panel monitors.

The new display pricing offers its steepest discount to the 30-inch Cinema HD model, which has fallen $200 in cost to $1,799.

Apple's other HD display offering, the 23-inch Cinema Display HD, shed $100 off its price tag and now retails for $899. Similarly, the 20-inch non-HD Cinema display pricing dropped down to 599 from $699.

No other changes appear to have affected the Apple display line, which otherwise includes a DVI Display Connector, 2 FireWire 400 ports, and a 2 port USB 2.0 Hub, on each model.

All three of the displays are VESA mount compatible. The 30-inch model requires graphics card with dual-link DVI.


post #2 of 61
I actually wrote this in the mac pro thread, but now that this is here it belongs here:

Good to see a monitor drop but they're still way to expensive as much a I want one to match my mbp. I wanted the 20 inch but at 699 canadian that's wayyy too much even if it offers a firewire and usb hub. It should be more like 549 or 499 canadian (and that's still pushing it imo). I'm thinking of getting the 22" benq since I don't need all the pro colour calibration and I could get 2 benqs or 2 acers for that price. (22" benq 314.99, 22" acer 319.99).

Lower it more apple, I can get a small hdtv for my bedroom for your 20" monitor price.

But then again maybe I can finally get a decent price on one from ebay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #3 of 61
Not even close to enough of a price drop. A widescreen Dell 20" monitor capable of the same resolution is $229. The Apple Cinema Displays are beautiful.... but not more than twice the price worth of beautiful.
post #4 of 61
The last price drop (last summer?) put Apple at a competative price for display's... this price drop is still well short of the market.

e.g. 20" Dell Widescreen (non-HD to non-HD) = $299 today versus Apple @ $599.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/p...1&sku=320-5123

With Apple's worldwide buying power on LCD (add up all those inches in ipods) and they certainly should have competative costing on quality panels from thier suppliers.

I'm certain I'm going to get flamed about some quality differences, but really, if you are comparing the 20" Apple non-HD display to any other brand, how can you defend Apple's advantage when you can't justify buying the 23" HD?
20" Intel iMac - Airport eXtream N - 16gb Black iPhone - Apple TV
Reply
20" Intel iMac - Airport eXtream N - 16gb Black iPhone - Apple TV
Reply
post #5 of 61
Boooh!
Monitors: No HDMI, still too expensive!!
Mac Pro: Still the underpowered 7300 as standard, just 1gb internal memory standard!

Lousy update.
post #6 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by dacloo View Post

Boooh!
Monitors: No HDMI, still too expensive!!
Mac Pro: Still the underpowered 7300 as standard, just 1gb internal memory standard!

Lousy update.

What on earth do you need HDMI for, the screen has no speakers and HDMI->DVI conversion is easily done.
post #7 of 61
I don't think Apple CAN lower the prices of these monitors much more. The price structure of the monitor, apart from the screen itself, is likely too high.

As far as I know, they are the only company producing monitors with aluminum cases and supports. That alone, is raising the price over what it could be.

They would need a newly engineered series of monitors for them to be able to lower the price substantially. That's if they didn't introduce a series with heavy features and specs.
post #8 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandros View Post

What on earth do you need HDMI for, the screen has no speakers and HDMI->DVI conversion is easily done.

HDMI is a feature that all new monitors will eventually have, at least those over 17 inches.

I recently bought my wife a new Samsung 225BW widescreen 22" monitor for a bit over $320. It has an HDMI connector with HDCP.

As it appears to cost little to add, there is no reason not to, and every reason reason to.

It will matter later this year when most companies will be moving to the 1.3 HDMI spec, which has many advantages, but even without it, there's no point in not adding it. And if Apple wants to continuing to charge more, then there is no excuse at all.
post #9 of 61
My 2 cents...

I think that this is simply a channel-clearing action by Apple; in preparation for new Cinema displays, which will debut later this year.

Why? No integrated iSight.

Given the existence of the Leopard iChat and iChat Server, Apple would be fools not to include pros in on the party.
post #10 of 61
melgross, how Samsung 225BW (1680 x 1050 rite?) compared to 20 " Apple Cinema display?

I am contemplating between 24" Samsung & 23" Cinema display for my macbook, do not know whether integrated graphics good enough to drive 23" 1900 x 1200

or need to settle with 20" 1680 x 1050

price changes are welcome, but not update to mark for competition, hopefully newer design will bring the cost down

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply
post #11 of 61
LED version with iSight built in starting at 22" for the same price soon.
Currently clearing inventory.
post #12 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restalot View Post

The last price drop (last summer?) put Apple at a competative price for display's... this price drop is still well short of the market.

e.g. 20" Dell Widescreen (non-HD to non-HD) = $299 today versus Apple @ $599.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/p...1&sku=320-5123

With Apple's worldwide buying power on LCD (add up all those inches in ipods) and they certainly should have competative costing on quality panels from thier suppliers.

I'm certain I'm going to get flamed about some quality differences, but really, if you are comparing the 20" Apple non-HD display to any other brand, how can you defend Apple's advantage when you can't justify buying the 23" HD?

Im with you, show me the quality and contrast differences. If someone is going to shell out that much more then it should do so for significant better specs.
post #13 of 61
this is simple:

macs work with other manufacturer's monitors.
if you want a matching aluminum enclosure and a little white apple logo, you have to PAY for it.

don't complain about twice the price. you can buy your dress shirts at Wal-Mart for 19 bucks or at Bananna Republic for 98 bucks. both are made overseas, and the differences in quality are miniscule. apple is a well designed status symbol product. you're paying for that logo MUCH more than you're paying for aluminum enclosures.
post #14 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanmugam View Post

melgross, how Samsung 225BW (1680 x 1050 rite?) compared to 20 " Apple Cinema display?

I am contemplating between 24" Samsung & 23" Cinema display for my macbook, do not know whether integrated graphics good enough to drive 23" 1900 x 1200

or need to settle with 20" 1680 x 1050

price changes are welcome, but not update to mark for competition, hopefully newer design will bring the cost down

Apple's monitors are tired. They simply don't meet the latest specs from other companies products. This is better.

It's a damn good monitor. But, I think that Samsung just now replaced it with a newer, faster LCD, model.

It depends on what you want to display. If it's 3D models, or games, then no. But, if it's movies, as my wife likes to watch, then it's fine, because that what that chip was designed to show.

The 22 is 1680 x 1050.

She really wants the 24" iMac, but I won't get her one until the new ones come out. This is a stopgap, but it's a pretty good looking one.
post #15 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagerDragon View Post

LED version with iSight built in starting at 22" for the same price soon.
Currently clearing inventory.

Exactly, I think people are forgetting Apple's move towards LEDs.

Also, when you consider that the 30 inch cinema was 3 grand not long ago, this is a pretty decent deal, relatively speaking. And if Apple can release updated LED versions at the same price point. *I'll* be pleased!
post #16 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay View Post

Exactly, I think people are forgetting Apple's move towards LEDs.

Also, when you consider that the 30 inch cinema was 3 grand not long ago, this is a pretty decent deal, relatively speaking. And if Apple can release updated LED versions at the same price point. *I'll* be pleased!

I think LEDs is more for the notebooks where power, weight and size concerns are much greater, with an added bonus for being brighter for equivalent size. The desktop displays are plenty bright enough, and none of those other factors are major concerns on a desktop display.
post #17 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandros View Post

What on earth do you need HDMI for, the screen has no speakers and HDMI->DVI conversion is easily done.

Standard DVI doesn't have HDCP. It can be added with no impact on compatibility, but it's usually not done. I'd rather have HDCP over DVI than HDCP, there's no positive latching or screw-in mechanism to keep HDMI cables from working its way out of their socket.
post #18 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I think LEDs is more for the notebooks where power, weight and size concerns are much greater, with an added bonus for being brighter for equivalent size. The desktop displays are plenty bright enough, and none of those other factors are major concerns on a desktop display.

It isn't just brighter screens. LEDs offer the opportunity of a much wider color gamut. The new "deep color" standard of HDMI 1.3 can only be easily implimented with LED backlighting. The same thing is true for the black problem LCDs have. Selective black level change with LED lacklighting will help that as well. Longer lifetime is also an option, as well as, eventually, thinner screens.
post #19 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restalot View Post

The last price drop (last summer?) put Apple at a competative price for display's... this price drop is still well short of the market.

e.g. 20" Dell Widescreen (non-HD to non-HD) = $299 today versus Apple @ $599.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/p...1&sku=320-5123

With Apple's worldwide buying power on LCD (add up all those inches in ipods) and they certainly should have competative costing on quality panels from thier suppliers.

I'm certain I'm going to get flamed about some quality differences, but really, if you are comparing the 20" Apple non-HD display to any other brand, how can you defend Apple's advantage when you can't justify buying the 23" HD?

It matters to anybody who needs accurate representation of colours.
In any single frame, a Dell 20" E207WFP is physically incapable of displaying more than 6 bits per colour per pixel. That adds up to 262144 unique colours. The controller plays tricks like "blurring" consecutive pixels together, or quickly pulsing the pixel back and forth between two slightly different colours, to make it look like there are more colours than there really are.

A 20" Apple display can reproduce 8 bits per color per pixel. That's 16777216 unique colours, always available in every pixel.
post #20 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonShadow View Post

.... but not more than twice the price worth of beautiful.



As the old saying about economists goes, "they know the price of everything and the value of nothing."
post #21 of 61
I know it's not exactly worth the additional 300 to some people but also keep in mind these (Apple) displays do come with two built in USB 2.0 ports and two FireWire ports.
post #22 of 61
I also think they did a price drop for something bigger and better coming but they want to announce it in the spotlight, I.E. NABB
post #23 of 61
i.e. WWDC

jobs just can't possibly take up TWO keynotes with nothin' but iPhone.
post #24 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by dws View Post

My 2 cents...

I think that this is simply a channel-clearing action by Apple; in preparation for new Cinema displays, which will debut later this year.

Why? No integrated iSight.

Given the existence of the Leopard iChat and iChat Server, Apple would be fools not to include pros in on the party.

Not including isight has to mean these are soon to be discontinued displays, perhaps the less than dramatic price drop has something to do with the built in isight which will come with the new displays, hopefully around Leopard time. The isight camera is no show at the Apple store and if "Pros" want to ichat or video conference the only option besides third party camera is to ship with a built in isight.
post #25 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandros View Post

What on earth do you need HDMI for, the screen has no speakers and HDMI->DVI conversion is easily done.

Nobody in his right mind wants the awful, tinny built-in "stereo" speakers on some LCD monitors. If you'll be using it for HDTV, it's a given that you'll be spending at least a couple of hundred dollars for a full surround sound system with a subwoofer.
post #26 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonShadow View Post

Not even close to enough of a price drop. A widescreen Dell 20" monitor capable of the same resolution is $229. The Apple Cinema Displays are beautiful.... but not more than twice the price worth of beautiful.

Agreed. They are too late anyway. I got a 24" Dell for $600 a couple months ago and am quite happy.
post #27 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feynman View Post

I know it's not exactly worth the additional 300 to some people but also keep in mind these (Apple) displays do come with two built in USB 2.0 ports and two FireWire ports.

Except my 2 year old 20" Dell monitor has 4 USB ports, 4 video inputs (2 computer, 2 video, including component), rotates, and is height adjustable. And it was less then what Apple's charging now.

Apple's monitors are overpriced and feature-poor, esp. for consumers.

However, since the only people who'd be buying them are MacPro owners or, possibly, mac book pro owners, I don't know if they care on that. (I can't imagine anyone spending $600 on a mini and the same amount on a screen for it).
post #28 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louzer View Post

Except my 2 year old 20" Dell monitor has 4 USB ports, 4 video inputs (2 computer, 2 video, including component), rotates, and is height adjustable. And it was less then what Apple's charging now.

Apple's monitors are overpriced and feature-poor, esp. for consumers.

However, since the only people who'd be buying them are MacPro owners or, possibly, mac book pro owners, I don't know if they care on that. (I can't imagine anyone spending $600 on a mini and the same amount on a screen for it).

That was two years ago. That same Dell monitor no longer has the USB ports or the video inputs.

Sure Apple could remove the USB and FireWire ports and shave down the price another hundred or two hundred but Apple like to create a quality product.

Remember, the price difference is not just to help out margins but also for development cost, cost of QA, marketing, etc.

I am not trying to defend Apple by any means but there is more to cost than what meets the eye. With that said, they should shave the price another hundred
post #29 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Apple's monitors are tired. They simply don't meet the latest specs from other companies products. This is better.

It's a damn good monitor. But, I think that Samsung just now replaced it with a newer, faster LCD, model.

It depends on what you want to display. If it's 3D models, or games, then no. But, if it's movies, as my wife likes to watch, then it's fine, because that what that chip was designed to show.

The 22 is 1680 x 1050.

She really wants the 24" iMac, but I won't get her one until the new ones come out. This is a stopgap, but it's a pretty good looking one.

Thanks, very tempting Samsung 22", color matches with MacBook color as well, i do not play games much. But Samsung has not replaced their 24" likewise the 19", 20", 22" they replaced recently

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply
post #30 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It isn't just brighter screens. LEDs offer the opportunity of a much wider color gamut. The new "deep color" standard of HDMI 1.3 can only be easily implimented with LED backlighting. The same thing is true for the black problem LCDs have. Selective black level change with LED lacklighting will help that as well. Longer lifetime is also an option, as well as, eventually, thinner screens.

Lifetime is really what I'm interested in. My MBP was purchased 6 months earlier than my dad's and his looks noticeably brighter than mine. Mine looks yellow in comparison to his, and it's only a 6 month difference.
post #31 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feynman View Post

That was two years ago. That same Dell monitor no longer has the USB ports or the video inputs.

Sure Apple could remove the USB and FireWire ports and shave down the price another hundred or two hundred but Apple like to create a quality product.

Remember, the price difference is not just to help out margins but also for development cost, cost of QA, marketing, etc.

I am not trying to defend Apple by any means but there is more to cost than what meets the eye. With that said, they should shave the price another hundred

Well, who would want the same monitor now, anyway. The Dell 2007 goes for $350 and offers all mine did (with the exception of composite vs component). The cheap dells don't have many features, but their more expensive (yet still way cheaper then apple's) have a ton more.

Oh, and Dell has a three year warranty. The best deal you can get out of apple is being able to put one on the applecare you get with your mac.

Arguing about the price difference being a matter of QA (what? using Apple and QA in the same sentence???) and development cost (maybe if they didn't spend all their time trying to make it look spectacular on your desk, and worried more about its capabilities, they could've saved some money) might be valid, but don't talk about marketing costs. Apple never markets its monitors.
post #32 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

It matters to anybody who needs accurate representation of colours.
In any single frame, a Dell 20" E207WFP is physically incapable of displaying more than 6 bits per colour per pixel. A 20" Apple display can reproduce 8 bits per color per pixel. That's 16777216 unique colours, always available in every pixel.

My buddy has the 30" Dell and I have the 30" Apple. In my opinion, mine just looks better, especially from an angle. The Dell was $1,799 when he bought it and it is down to $1,499 now. Which by the way is less than they are selling their 25" (made by NEC). Maybe your info about the 20" is also the issue with the 30".

I'll stick with Apple.

m

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #33 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feynman View Post

That was two years ago. That same Dell monitor no longer has the USB ports or the video inputs.

Two years ago? I bought my 2005FPW a year ago for maybe $369 and it has four USB ports, composite, VGA, DVI, and S-Video inputs. That was back when Apple was selling their 20" for $699 (maybe $799). I can't stand Dell products generally, but you can't beat their prices on displays.

And like another poster mentioned, the 3 year warranty is very nice.
post #34 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

My buddy has the 30" Dell and I have the 30" Apple. In my opinion, mine just looks better, especially from an angle. The Dell was $1,799 when he bought it and it is down to $1,499 now. Which by the way is less than they are selling their 25" (made by NEC). Maybe your info about the 20" is also the issue with the 30".

I'll stick with Apple.

m

The new Dell 30" 3007WFP-HC should look better than the 30" ACD. I have the older Dell 30" and the 30" ACD but they aren't side by side.

Vinea
post #35 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Apple's monitors are tired. They simply don't meet the latest specs from other companies products. This is better.

Surely that's subjective?

The Samsung 225BW monitor you're singing the praises of has a lower dot pitch (same resolution, but 22" instead of 20") than the Apple and is only a 6bit TN panel as opposed to Apple's higher quality 8bit S-IPS. I also find a lot of the cheaper 22" monitors have glossy screens instead of Apple's anti-glare coating. Unfortunately those kinds of specs often don't get reported.

On the plus side, the cheap TN displays are fast, so if all you're doing is watching video or playing games, they're a good buy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's a damn good monitor. But, I think that Samsung just now replaced it with a newer, faster LCD, model.

226BW - same panel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It depends on what you want to display. If it's 3D models, or games, then no. But, if it's movies, as my wife likes to watch, then it's fine, because that what that chip was designed to show.

Interesting. You reckon it's not so good for games???

Personally, I prefer the higher dot-pitch on the Apple displays and some of the other manufacturers such as NEC who do a 20" the same resolution as Apple and using an S-IPS panel too so full 8bit. It's about £100 more than the Samsung 226BW but still £170 cheaper than the Apple 20", at least till Apple get around to reducing prices in the UK as they've done in the USA.

I've seen a few monitors also where the colour dithering on the 6bit panels is very obvious but I'm not sure if that was because it was running WindowsXP and the dithering is very obvious on text anyway unless you spend some time tuning it.
post #36 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

My buddy has the 30" Dell and I have the 30" Apple. In my opinion, mine just looks better, especially from an angle. The Dell was $1,799 when he bought it and it is down to $1,499 now. Which by the way is less than they are selling their 25" (made by NEC). Maybe your info about the 20" is also the issue with the 30".

I'll stick with Apple.

m

Some monitors use 6 bit screens because they cost less, and are faster (less smear for games and movies).

But, most monitors have gone to 8 bit screens.
post #37 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

The Samsung 225BW monitor you're singing the praises of has a lower dot pitch (same resolution, but 22" instead of 20") than the Apple and is only a 6bit TN panel as opposed to Apple's higher quality 8bit S-IPS. I also find a lot of the cheaper 22" monitors have glossy screens instead of Apple's anti-glare coating. Unfortunately those kinds of specs often don't get reported.

I think you'll probably find that some of segments of buyers prefer lower-than 100 dot pitch, and some of the market wants higher-than-100 dot pitch.

I wish an LCD manufacturer used a good anti-glare & anti-reflective coating, I haven't seen a good one on a display other than some of the higher range CRTs.
post #38 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I think you'll probably find that some of segments of buyers prefer lower-than 100 dot pitch, and some of the market wants higher-than-100 dot pitch.

I wish an LCD manufacturer used a good anti-glare & anti-reflective coating, I haven't seen a good one on a display other than some of the higher range CRTs.

As I wrote in the bit you chopped off - 'Surely that's subjective'.

Some people are ok with 6bit displays to get fast response times cheaply, and others aren't.

Personally, I've not got a problem with Apple's anti-glare coatings, and I used to spend days staring at a high end Lacie CRT too.
post #39 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

Personally, I've not got a problem with Apple's anti-glare coatings, and I used to spend days staring at a high end Lacie CRT too.

I haven't seen them, but I have an IBM and a Sony display that have coatings with pretty much the same effect as on anti-reflective glasses and optical lenses. The diffuse coating on Apple's display is just that, a diffusion with a rougher surface texture and tends to wash out the image a bit with the presense incident light. The coating Apple uses adds speckles to the image too.
post #40 of 61
does anyone know why apple still uses panels that are so slow?
they still use like 14ms ones when the faster panels are now like 4-6ms?
it really makes a difference with motion. i cant stand watching movies on the current apple screens. way too much motion artifact.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Briefly: Apple shaves cost of Cinema Display line