The desktop isn't quite dead yet. Some people need lots of screen real estate. Even a 17" laptop doesn't satisfy most photo and video editors, as far as screen size.
Agreed on all your points. The desktop is not dead. All one has to do is look at Apple's recent desktop sales. There is an old adage for certain types of work, 'you can never have too much screen real estate.'
We all know laptops now exceed desktop sales. I'm typing this on my iMac but my 26 year daughter is all about a MacBookPro 13" and an iPhone and doesn't want an iMac or even a Monitor and keyboard/mouse to attach to her MacBookPro.
Nobody needs the 30 inch. This makes a lot of sense. They will make more money by having fewer SKUs. And besides, the desktop is dead.
I have to agree with the other posters on this, I think they are still working on a larger display.
Note, there are studies (though I can?t vogue for their accuracy) that show a single, larger display is more productive than a couple smaller displays, even if the combined screen real estate of the two displays is more than the single larger display. I wonder if Apple may be working on a some oddball display that is extra-wide, perhaps even curved.
I like the ambient light sensor, but do hope the checkbox to disable it will show up just like it does on Macbooks.
Also, anyone complaining about the price has not shopped around for 27" LED-backlit IPS screens. Much less one with a camera, microphone, relatively decent speakers (for a display) and charger for your laptop.
i preferred the having a 30" "pro" model and a consumer model.
i can see dropping from a 30 to a 27" with the same resolution, and i'm sure the ambient light adjustment can be disabled in settings > displays, same as the macbook pro.
i think apple should offer a 20" or 21" model as well - who's going to buy a mini and then spend more on the monitor than on the computer? they'll get a $160 23" monitor from cdw, where apple could have a $250 - $300 version and make more revenue.
30 inch is needed for photo/video editing, engineering some a few other uses that just escaped my head. I guess that can be done with 27 inches too, but it won't be as roomy easy to see.
24 inch is much too small for a pro monitor,nowadays, which is why I guess they discontinued it.
Making a reflective screen for the pro market is a big no-no.
And of course - apple does not require their own monitors to be used with their computers, so we can always purchase 3d party as most mac mini and a fair share of mac pro users already do.
I?m sure it wouldn?t be cheap, but Apple has been pushing into new territory with displays. Not so much with high-end professional displays, but with technologies that many didn?t think were quite feasible right now, like the 10? IPS on the iPad and 326ppi IPS on the iPhone 4. If they think it?s the future of consumer interest I am sure they will commission it, fund it, market it, corner it and profit from it.
i preferred the having a 30" "pro" model and a consumer model.
i can see dropping from a 30 to a 27" with the same resolution, and i'm sure the ambient light adjustment can be disabled in settings > displays, same as the macbook pro.
i think apple should offer a 20" or 21" model as well - who's going to buy a mini and then spend more on the monitor than on the computer? they'll get a $160 23" monitor from cdw, where apple could have a $250 - $300 version and make more revenue.
a Mac mini with a 24" monitor is more expensive than a higher spec-ed 27" iMac.
The desktop is not dead. In manufacturing, no one uses notebooks for daily work. Desktops are all around. In the plant, office, and shop. I consider an iMac a desktop.
As far as what someone needs or doesn't need, that was a loaded statement from the start.
I'd have to agree. I have a 13" MBP that I usually leave plugged into my 24" Cinema Display. It's a nice set up but I feel 27" would just be overwhelming.
I have seen the 27 inch iMac, and find it very overwhelming. There is a thread on the Apple Community, stating that many cannot see the tiny fonts on the 27 inch iMac. So Apple is creating this single monitor for a select group of people with needs for real estate and ultra-high-def. With the release of the new trackpad, I do see the day when Apple will not make any computer with a power cord, but the Pro. Apple's lowest selling item is the desktop. AI recently had a couple of graphs showing this to be the case. Apple will become a very mobile based company some day.
Good point. I somehow missed the Al Gore rant by the OP.
As soon as politics gets dragged up when that was in no way related to the original discussion point I guess I lose any respect for the argument.
I also dislike it when other 'professional' users of Apple gear get so condescending. Just because the new design is not the traditional fit for a particular niche use doesn't mean that the new design is worthless and crap!
For example: Mainstream SLR cameras used to be excellent for artistic use when everything was manual focus, manual exposure. Now you need to pay a little extra to make all the 'scene mode' icons disappear from the mode dial (ie: buy a pro model).
Does that mean Canon & Nikon have made terrible design decisions? From the PRO perspective, I guess, yes they have degraded the design of their more common cameras. From the CONSUMER perspective? Quite the opposite! Photography has never been bigger. People with limited skills are making better pictures with less expensive gear.
Not so fast. All you "market savants" forget (or ignore) that we pros have repeatedly said we don't want the shiny, reflective edge-to-edge glass, would prefer a Firewire port over a pair of tiny, crappy display speakers, have no use for a built-in camera, and want the damn screen to stay at the brightness we calibrated it to that morning, not be "ambient light sensitive" to make adjustments on it's own just because someone opened the door to the editing suite.
It's more of a consumer crap intrusion into a professionals' workplace. If you don't get that, it's because you aren't one. Apple's making "greener" products to please jackasses like Al Gore's lemmings and forgetting the folks that got them into the dance.
I'll get my next big monitor from EIZO like my current 24" CG241W, and I won't shed any tears about it costing over $3000 when I'm using it to make 30x that.
Thirty years in the graphic business and thousands of print/video jobs, so don't 'put' we in your formula.
Most of those years, with the exception of ten years cut and pasting up mechanicals, where viewed on bright, shiny, glossy and highly reflective CRTs if you didn't know how to place them. Just before LCDs came into vogue we had a dozen or so La Cies and Radius Precisions. All with hoods and well over 3 to 4 thousand each to boot.
Having built a few agencies and photo studios, there wasn't a day that went by that reflection was not an factor. But to suggest that it was a concern or issue with us pros would be exaggeration. Obviously we knew how to handle it.
But the bottom line, we never ever used even our most expensive monitors for pre-press approvals. Always realizing that getting a client to sign off on a screen view was no guarantee it would hold up in court.
What Apple has provided is a monitor that will satisfy the majority of those looking for quality and functionality. It will never satisfy everyone, in particular, those that have never even seen one. Hard to do so since it isn't even available yet.
But to suggest that it is crap, indicates that you are either dumber than a door nail or just plain ignorant. Perhaps you should do a little due diligence. Or would you like to tell those creative folks Apple has profiled on their Macs in Action section how much of an idiot they were using MacBook Pros, iMacs and displays most of which compised of very glossy monitors?
I do know that if I was setting up a new graphic studio and I gave the crew an option of any monitor they wanted, they would jump at the chance for the new display. But then they would want the same choice for a workstation. Most would however gladly settle for the new iMac, and ask for a raise to cover the difference. But I wouldn't begrudge them and not get at least one EIZO
And that "ambient" light thing, did you bother to read the Overview? Are you suggesting that Apple doesn't let you set preferences to your liking or for the rest of us. Perhaps, you should read your EIZO guides, particularly the section on their Auto EcoView/Bright Regulator which lets you set your own preferences, e.g., :?the [EUZO LCD MONITOR] records both the screen's and the ambient brightness for reference the next time you adjust the brightness." Sound familiar?
I doubt it, Apple likes the one size fits all approach and is convinced it is the ultimate authority on who needs what.
Nooooo, but Apple likes to have well-targeted products that responds to the needs of the largest possible audience. Unlike Dell for example that will built nearly anything for anyone - and has to support the infrastructure and resources to do that. The nice thing is, Apple recognizes (and has stated as such) that they have finite resources, and therefore target products that they can support with the resources they have. Perhaps you are running a more successful business with as broad a product line as possible that also has excellent capitalization and profitability. If that is the case, I will give deference to your superior wisdom, if not you are missing far wide of the mark.
Thirty years in the graphic business and thousands of print/video jobs, so don't 'put' we in your formula.
Most of those years, with the exception of ten years cut and pasting up mechanicals, where viewed on bright, shiny, glossy and highly reflective CRTs if you didn't know how to place them. Just before LCDs came into vogue we had a dozen or so La Cies and Radius Precisions. All with hoods and well over 3 to 4 thousand each to boot.
Having built a few agencies and photo studios, there wasn't a day that went by that reflection was not an factor. But to suggest that it was a concern or issue with us pros would be exaggeration. Obviously we knew how to handle it.
But the bottom line, we never ever used even our most expensive monitors for pre-press approvals. Always realizing that getting a client to sign off on a screen view was no guarantee it would hold up in court.
What Apple has provided is a monitor that will satisfy the majority of those looking for quality and functionality. It will never satisfy everyone, in particular, those that have never even seen one. Hard to do so since it isn't even available yet.
But to suggest that it is crap, indicates that you are either dumber than a door nail or just plain ignorant. Perhaps you should do a little due diligence. Or would you like to tell those creative folks Apple has profiled on their Macs in Action section how much of an idiot they were using MacBook Pros, iMacs and displays most of which compised of very glossy monitors?
I do know that if I was setting up a new graphic studio and I gave the crew an option of any monitor they wanted, they would jump at the chance for the new display. But then they would want the same choice for a workstation. Most would however gladly settle for the new iMac, and ask for a raise to cover the difference. But I wouldn't begrudge them and not get at least one EIZO
And that "ambient" light thing, did you bother to read the Overview? Are you suggesting that Apple doesn't let you set preferences to your liking or for the rest of us. Perhaps, you should read your EIZO guides, particularly the section on their Auto EcoView/Bright Regulator which lets you set your own preferences, e.g., :?the [EUZO LCD MONITOR] records both the screen's and the ambient brightness for reference the next time you adjust the brightness." Sound familiar?
I could not agree more. I just got a Mac Pro & 30" ACD this year at work. Before this happened I had talked to the IT dept and tried convincing them that a 27" iMac would do the trick for me, but we are a big operation and these equipment purchases are proposed & approved at a much higher level at meetings I do not get invited to. I guess I have nothing to complain about but I know the company could have saved 50% or so on the iMac with no new display required. Oh well...I guess we are making enough money that it doesn't matter!
I love my 30" and I am sure they will release another 30+ monitor in due course. Desktop is alive and well for business and academic environments which all I care about anyway.
Not just for business and academic, content creation or anything serious as a whole. Word processing and communication... I guess laptops are doing it. But for anything requiring high performance of CPU or data through-put, laptops just don't cut it.
That moron doesn't realize that most of what he stares at is created on desktops. Shows how knowledgable about the industry and how deep his computing concerns run.
I'm sure he's a real Facebook 'power user' or better yet he's an 'iUser Shuffle'
I agree that the desktop isn't dead, especially in academic offices/computer labs, and creative/design offices. But honestly, aside from power users in graphic design firms and the like, the only Mac desktops I see are iMacs. I think the non- power users mostly choose the all in one form factor.
However, I still think that Apple should offer a smaller size. For a small home office or dorm room, 27 inches can be too overwhelming. I think offering something in the neighborhood of 20-23 inches would be a good seller for those who have small work spaces or a tight budget but still want Macs.
The only Mac desktops most people see are iMacs, but that's because Apple don't offer other form factors in the same price range.
Not too many years ago there were $1500 Mac towers that sold well to non-power users. There are a myriad of reasons why Apple no longer offers mid-range towers, but the most important is the fact that towers last significantly longer than all-in-ones. Not only were the original purchasers of the towers not replacing them often enough for Apple's stock to go through the roof, they were selling their used towers to prospective iMac buyers and thus taking away another sale from Apple.
Case in point: if web sites for little kids didn't rely almost exclusively on Flash my children would still be using a CPU upgraded Quicksilver G4 tower from 2001. They really have no need for anything better when they're not on the web.
Someone on a tight budget isn't going to pay a premium price for an Apple display of any size. They'll grab an inexpensive Acer, Benq, LG, Samsung or Viewsonic to go with their Mac.
Comments
The desktop isn't quite dead yet. Some people need lots of screen real estate. Even a 17" laptop doesn't satisfy most photo and video editors, as far as screen size.
Agreed on all your points. The desktop is not dead. All one has to do is look at Apple's recent desktop sales. There is an old adage for certain types of work, 'you can never have too much screen real estate.'
We all know laptops now exceed desktop sales. I'm typing this on my iMac but my 26 year daughter is all about a MacBookPro 13" and an iPhone and doesn't want an iMac or even a Monitor and keyboard/mouse to attach to her MacBookPro.
Best
Nobody needs the 30 inch. This makes a lot of sense. They will make more money by having fewer SKUs. And besides, the desktop is dead.
I have to agree with the other posters on this, I think they are still working on a larger display.
Note, there are studies (though I can?t vogue for their accuracy) that show a single, larger display is more productive than a couple smaller displays, even if the combined screen real estate of the two displays is more than the single larger display. I wonder if Apple may be working on a some oddball display that is extra-wide, perhaps even curved.
Also, anyone complaining about the price has not shopped around for 27" LED-backlit IPS screens. Much less one with a camera, microphone, relatively decent speakers (for a display) and charger for your laptop.
So why did you?
Probably for the same reason you did.
I wonder if Apple may be working on a some oddball display that is extra-wide, perhaps even curved.
I can only imagine what that will cost!
i can see dropping from a 30 to a 27" with the same resolution, and i'm sure the ambient light adjustment can be disabled in settings > displays, same as the macbook pro.
i think apple should offer a 20" or 21" model as well - who's going to buy a mini and then spend more on the monitor than on the computer? they'll get a $160 23" monitor from cdw, where apple could have a $250 - $300 version and make more revenue.
30 inch is needed for photo/video editing, engineering some a few other uses that just escaped my head. I guess that can be done with 27 inches too, but it won't be as roomy easy to see.
24 inch is much too small for a pro monitor,nowadays, which is why I guess they discontinued it.
Making a reflective screen for the pro market is a big no-no.
And of course - apple does not require their own monitors to be used with their computers, so we can always purchase 3d party as most mac mini and a fair share of mac pro users already do.
I can only imagine what that will cost!
I?m sure it wouldn?t be cheap, but Apple has been pushing into new territory with displays. Not so much with high-end professional displays, but with technologies that many didn?t think were quite feasible right now, like the 10? IPS on the iPad and 326ppi IPS on the iPhone 4. If they think it?s the future of consumer interest I am sure they will commission it, fund it, market it, corner it and profit from it.
i preferred the having a 30" "pro" model and a consumer model.
i can see dropping from a 30 to a 27" with the same resolution, and i'm sure the ambient light adjustment can be disabled in settings > displays, same as the macbook pro.
i think apple should offer a 20" or 21" model as well - who's going to buy a mini and then spend more on the monitor than on the computer? they'll get a $160 23" monitor from cdw, where apple could have a $250 - $300 version and make more revenue.
a Mac mini with a 24" monitor is more expensive than a higher spec-ed 27" iMac.
The desktop is not dead. In manufacturing, no one uses notebooks for daily work. Desktops are all around. In the plant, office, and shop. I consider an iMac a desktop.
As far as what someone needs or doesn't need, that was a loaded statement from the start.
I'd have to agree. I have a 13" MBP that I usually leave plugged into my 24" Cinema Display. It's a nice set up but I feel 27" would just be overwhelming.
Probably for the same reason you did.
Good point. I somehow missed the Al Gore rant by the OP.
Good point. I somehow missed the Al Gore rant by the OP.
As soon as politics gets dragged up when that was in no way related to the original discussion point I guess I lose any respect for the argument.
I also dislike it when other 'professional' users of Apple gear get so condescending. Just because the new design is not the traditional fit for a particular niche use doesn't mean that the new design is worthless and crap!
For example: Mainstream SLR cameras used to be excellent for artistic use when everything was manual focus, manual exposure. Now you need to pay a little extra to make all the 'scene mode' icons disappear from the mode dial (ie: buy a pro model).
Does that mean Canon & Nikon have made terrible design decisions? From the PRO perspective, I guess, yes they have degraded the design of their more common cameras. From the CONSUMER perspective? Quite the opposite! Photography has never been bigger. People with limited skills are making better pictures with less expensive gear.
So why did you?
Just like reaching down and touching your toes - it's nice to know that you can do that occasionally...
Not so fast. All you "market savants" forget (or ignore) that we pros have repeatedly said we don't want the shiny, reflective edge-to-edge glass, would prefer a Firewire port over a pair of tiny, crappy display speakers, have no use for a built-in camera, and want the damn screen to stay at the brightness we calibrated it to that morning, not be "ambient light sensitive" to make adjustments on it's own just because someone opened the door to the editing suite.
It's more of a consumer crap intrusion into a professionals' workplace. If you don't get that, it's because you aren't one. Apple's making "greener" products to please jackasses like Al Gore's lemmings and forgetting the folks that got them into the dance.
I'll get my next big monitor from EIZO like my current 24" CG241W, and I won't shed any tears about it costing over $3000 when I'm using it to make 30x that.
Thirty years in the graphic business and thousands of print/video jobs, so don't 'put' we in your formula.
Most of those years, with the exception of ten years cut and pasting up mechanicals, where viewed on bright, shiny, glossy and highly reflective CRTs if you didn't know how to place them. Just before LCDs came into vogue we had a dozen or so La Cies and Radius Precisions. All with hoods and well over 3 to 4 thousand each to boot.
Having built a few agencies and photo studios, there wasn't a day that went by that reflection was not an factor. But to suggest that it was a concern or issue with us pros would be exaggeration. Obviously we knew how to handle it.
But the bottom line, we never ever used even our most expensive monitors for pre-press approvals. Always realizing that getting a client to sign off on a screen view was no guarantee it would hold up in court.
What Apple has provided is a monitor that will satisfy the majority of those looking for quality and functionality. It will never satisfy everyone, in particular, those that have never even seen one. Hard to do so since it isn't even available yet.
But to suggest that it is crap, indicates that you are either dumber than a door nail or just plain ignorant. Perhaps you should do a little due diligence. Or would you like to tell those creative folks Apple has profiled on their Macs in Action section how much of an idiot they were using MacBook Pros, iMacs and displays most of which compised of very glossy monitors?
I do know that if I was setting up a new graphic studio and I gave the crew an option of any monitor they wanted, they would jump at the chance for the new display. But then they would want the same choice for a workstation. Most would however gladly settle for the new iMac, and ask for a raise to cover the difference. But I wouldn't begrudge them and not get at least one EIZO
And that "ambient" light thing, did you bother to read the Overview? Are you suggesting that Apple doesn't let you set preferences to your liking or for the rest of us. Perhaps, you should read your EIZO guides, particularly the section on their Auto EcoView/Bright Regulator which lets you set your own preferences, e.g., :?the [EUZO LCD MONITOR] records both the screen's and the ambient brightness for reference the next time you adjust the brightness." Sound familiar?
I doubt it, Apple likes the one size fits all approach and is convinced it is the ultimate authority on who needs what.
Nooooo, but Apple likes to have well-targeted products that responds to the needs of the largest possible audience. Unlike Dell for example that will built nearly anything for anyone - and has to support the infrastructure and resources to do that. The nice thing is, Apple recognizes (and has stated as such) that they have finite resources, and therefore target products that they can support with the resources they have. Perhaps you are running a more successful business with as broad a product line as possible that also has excellent capitalization and profitability. If that is the case, I will give deference to your superior wisdom, if not you are missing far wide of the mark.
Thirty years in the graphic business and thousands of print/video jobs, so don't 'put' we in your formula.
Most of those years, with the exception of ten years cut and pasting up mechanicals, where viewed on bright, shiny, glossy and highly reflective CRTs if you didn't know how to place them. Just before LCDs came into vogue we had a dozen or so La Cies and Radius Precisions. All with hoods and well over 3 to 4 thousand each to boot.
Having built a few agencies and photo studios, there wasn't a day that went by that reflection was not an factor. But to suggest that it was a concern or issue with us pros would be exaggeration. Obviously we knew how to handle it.
But the bottom line, we never ever used even our most expensive monitors for pre-press approvals. Always realizing that getting a client to sign off on a screen view was no guarantee it would hold up in court.
What Apple has provided is a monitor that will satisfy the majority of those looking for quality and functionality. It will never satisfy everyone, in particular, those that have never even seen one. Hard to do so since it isn't even available yet.
But to suggest that it is crap, indicates that you are either dumber than a door nail or just plain ignorant. Perhaps you should do a little due diligence. Or would you like to tell those creative folks Apple has profiled on their Macs in Action section how much of an idiot they were using MacBook Pros, iMacs and displays most of which compised of very glossy monitors?
I do know that if I was setting up a new graphic studio and I gave the crew an option of any monitor they wanted, they would jump at the chance for the new display. But then they would want the same choice for a workstation. Most would however gladly settle for the new iMac, and ask for a raise to cover the difference. But I wouldn't begrudge them and not get at least one EIZO
And that "ambient" light thing, did you bother to read the Overview? Are you suggesting that Apple doesn't let you set preferences to your liking or for the rest of us. Perhaps, you should read your EIZO guides, particularly the section on their Auto EcoView/Bright Regulator which lets you set your own preferences, e.g., :?the [EUZO LCD MONITOR] records both the screen's and the ambient brightness for reference the next time you adjust the brightness." Sound familiar?
I could not agree more. I just got a Mac Pro & 30" ACD this year at work. Before this happened I had talked to the IT dept and tried convincing them that a 27" iMac would do the trick for me, but we are a big operation and these equipment purchases are proposed & approved at a much higher level at meetings I do not get invited to. I guess I have nothing to complain about but I know the company could have saved 50% or so on the iMac with no new display required. Oh well...I guess we are making enough money that it doesn't matter!
I bet you are wrong on all counts.
I love my 30" and I am sure they will release another 30+ monitor in due course. Desktop is alive and well for business and academic environments which all I care about anyway.
Not just for business and academic, content creation or anything serious as a whole. Word processing and communication... I guess laptops are doing it. But for anything requiring high performance of CPU or data through-put, laptops just don't cut it.
That moron doesn't realize that most of what he stares at is created on desktops. Shows how knowledgable about the industry and how deep his computing concerns run.
I'm sure he's a real Facebook 'power user' or better yet he's an 'iUser Shuffle'
I agree that the desktop isn't dead, especially in academic offices/computer labs, and creative/design offices. But honestly, aside from power users in graphic design firms and the like, the only Mac desktops I see are iMacs. I think the non- power users mostly choose the all in one form factor.
However, I still think that Apple should offer a smaller size. For a small home office or dorm room, 27 inches can be too overwhelming. I think offering something in the neighborhood of 20-23 inches would be a good seller for those who have small work spaces or a tight budget but still want Macs.
The only Mac desktops most people see are iMacs, but that's because Apple don't offer other form factors in the same price range.
Not too many years ago there were $1500 Mac towers that sold well to non-power users. There are a myriad of reasons why Apple no longer offers mid-range towers, but the most important is the fact that towers last significantly longer than all-in-ones. Not only were the original purchasers of the towers not replacing them often enough for Apple's stock to go through the roof, they were selling their used towers to prospective iMac buyers and thus taking away another sale from Apple.
Case in point: if web sites for little kids didn't rely almost exclusively on Flash my children would still be using a CPU upgraded Quicksilver G4 tower from 2001. They really have no need for anything better when they're not on the web.
Someone on a tight budget isn't going to pay a premium price for an Apple display of any size. They'll grab an inexpensive Acer, Benq, LG, Samsung or Viewsonic to go with their Mac.
the desktop is dead.
The troll is alive.