Apple LCD's must be collecting dust
The Cube was to bridge the gap between consumer and pro lines. With it's demise, the only Macs that can drive Apple's LCD displays are it's towers. I'm guessing that towers account for 25% of all Macs sold.
The 17" LCD display is amazing and would be a perfect addition to an iBook/Powerbook. user. Furthermore, the new iMac's screen while awesome, is only 15" and also cannot use these displays.
Doesn't it just make sense (financially) that you make a product that reaches a larger target audience. Doesn't it make sense that Apple's displays work with 100% (or at least 75%) of it's products?
Hopefully new LCD's will arrive soon (once promo runs out?) with VGA ports or some sort of simple connection.
The 17" LCD display is amazing and would be a perfect addition to an iBook/Powerbook. user. Furthermore, the new iMac's screen while awesome, is only 15" and also cannot use these displays.
Doesn't it just make sense (financially) that you make a product that reaches a larger target audience. Doesn't it make sense that Apple's displays work with 100% (or at least 75%) of it's products?
Hopefully new LCD's will arrive soon (once promo runs out?) with VGA ports or some sort of simple connection.
Comments
The iMac needs to be relatively cheap (okay at least the crt is still there) and simple, but there is no marketing reason to keep it from giving it a twin-view capability. Keeping an iMac artificially un-expandible just to seperate it from the pro line doesn't make sense. It is marketing double-speak. Let the iMac be the best consumer desktop and the PowerMac be the best professional desktop and let each develop with the fastest processors, etc. that is reasonable.
I think any iMacs that cannabalize a PowerMac sale is a good thing. It is a purchase from Apple and it kicks the pro design team in the butt each time.
<strong>personally, I'm not even sure why Apple switched so soon. None of my co-workers have bought the Apple Display, nor have I. What would a pro use it for? They aren't color accurate (pre-press) nor are they cheap. Further, even as a secon monitor you practically have to be straight on to the thing to avoid color shifts and blocking. Even for video, where color accuracy isn't soooooo much of an issue as for pre-press they aren't great. I agree, it's odd that a "consumer" product ended up being compatible only with the pro towers. Doesn't make much sense. I would assume that would explain the price promotion. Too pricey for my taste given the performance. I'll wait another five years or so befor I'll switch to "thin Screen" technology. Maybe if the "oled" thing takes off the xtra cost would be negated by the performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple displays are the highest quality LCDs out there. truly. they are price competitive and the majority of people who buy PowerMacs get the Apple LCD with them.
There is no reason except for prepress not to use one of the apple lcds. they handle everything fine and have wide viewing angles.
<strong>If I could run an Apple lcd display from my iBook, I'd buy one. VGA ports on the displays would be nice, but I'd love to see a DVI out port on all of Apple's computers. I understand that the displays are powered by the ADC, but why couldn't Apple make an adapter that separated the AC power (which would go to the wall socket), from the DVI, that could come from the iBook, or Powerbook, via a mini port similar to the miniVGA port on the current iBook. I want to buy an Apple monitor to use with my iBook at home, but if I want an additional monitor, I am forced to look elsewhere.</strong><hr></blockquote>
maybe because the adapter would cost a lot due to the need for a power supply.
there are already adapters that do just that and as result are expensive
[ 02-16-2002: Message edited by: agent302 ]</p>
I would buy a 3rd party LCD over an Apple LCD, just to save money, and because I'd be able to use the 3rd party LCD with a laptop.
IMO Apple should drop their display line entirely and focus on computers. They don't have what it takes to make a competitive LCD.
-keep ADC
-add all the USB, VGA(???), and powersupply plugs on the back
-have as an option that for $50, apple will ship the necessary cables to hook the display up to any other computer
i'm not sure if this is technically feasible, but it seems to be. if it is apple should do this
-Make dual ADC graphics cards, where a power supply board piggybacks on the graphics card and connects to a molex connector. Or have the power supply board on the motherboard. Apple's motherboards have plenty of real estate. Right now you can't 'upgrade' the computer's power supply for it to handle more than 2 monitors.
-For every ADC port ship an adapter as standard which converts ADC into DVI, VGA, USB and soft power.
Barto
Barto
But you're right, the screen itself is nice. The problem is with the design of the LCD.
I think what Apple should do is drop ADC.
1. ADC makes Apple displays incompatible with most other computers, thus hurting Apple sales.
2. ADC makes Mac video cards more expensive, thus hurting Mac users.
3. ADC makes it harder for a video card company to make a Mac video card, thus hurting Mac user's choice.
4. ADC offers no clear benefits over VGA. Nobody was complaining about a few extra cords prior to ADC. I personally think a computer with a nest of cords in back of it looks dead cool, sort of Borg-ish in nature.
5. ADC increases the cost of motherboards by forcing Apple to put a power supply for Apple displays in the mobo.
6. ADC forces Apple to use only LCD displays, or only CRT displays 17" and smaller, because the ADC cannot provide enough power for larger CRT displays. (but of course larger CRT VGA displays can be used).
All in all, ADC only hurts Mac owners. In some cases Apple's proprietary designs help mac users, like with Firewire, but ADC is simply being different for the sake of being different. VGA would cut the manufacturing costs for Apple, improving their margins. And nobody, I mean NOBODY, is going to buy a Mac because the monitor lacks a power cord. That's ridiculous.
Now the question is...is Apple listening?
Jobs claims that they do, when they unveiled the 14" iBook.
Surely, Apple must know this is an issue. Both their laptops and the iMac have a VGA output. Yet they discontinue all their CRT's and go ADC. It's like they're saying, if you need an additional monitor, don't give us your money, give it to NEC, or Sony.
Let's hope they get their act together and launch a slew of new LCD's once the current promotion is over.
No other brand of laptop that I can think of comes with DVI, so far they're all VGA.
How expensive are DVI to ADC adaptors? It's the same signalling, so it ought to be just a matter of providing power and changing pins. And bringing USB on board.
Apple could supply DVI-I (I think, maybe 'a'? whichever the version that carries both analogue and digital) instead of a VGA port on it's laptops. Then they could supply a simple box/powerbrick for externally powering a cinema display. Something that plugs straight into the wall like the new style power adaptor for iBooks and TiBooks. Two wires come from the power plug (not the notebook): one is ADC to the display, and another is DVI (with USB split off at the end) that you plug into your notebook.
Benefits?
1) You can retrofit existing displays, just buy the wall plug.
2) You'll need a powerplug anyway (to drive the display), so no additional boxes
3) Just DVI to ADC pinout = No expensive analogue to digital conversion.
4) You keep VGA out (on the same plug) not for use with the Cinema displays but for all the monitors and projectors still in use out there.
5) you keep DVI out for all the third party panels and projectors that will probably use that and not ADC.
6) it's all on one industry standard plug.
Additionally, you could just beef up the portables' adaptor to supply power to both a notebook and an Apple display. This way when you buy a notebook you don't need any additional wall plugs to run an Apple display, but you keep all the benefits described above. Instead of one port on the power adaptor you have two. Carry the cords you need, or leave a brick permanently plugged into your ACD/ASD at home/work.
<strong>A flat panel isn't any good if you can't use it with your computer, is it? Even Powerbook and iBook users cannot use the Apple LCD displays...that's a pathetic, terrible design flaw.
But you're right, the screen itself is nice. The problem is with the design of the LCD.
I think what Apple should do is drop ADC.
1. ADC makes Apple displays incompatible with most other computers, thus hurting Apple sales.
2. ADC makes Mac video cards more expensive, thus hurting Mac users.
3. ADC makes it harder for a video card company to make a Mac video card, thus hurting Mac user's choice.
4. ADC offers no clear benefits over VGA. Nobody was complaining about a few extra cords prior to ADC. I personally think a computer with a nest of cords in back of it looks dead cool, sort of Borg-ish in nature.
5. ADC increases the cost of motherboards by forcing Apple to put a power supply for Apple displays in the mobo.
6. ADC forces Apple to use only LCD displays, or only CRT displays 17" and smaller, because the ADC cannot provide enough power for larger CRT displays. (but of course larger CRT VGA displays can be used).
All in all, ADC only hurts Mac owners. In some cases Apple's proprietary designs help mac users, like with Firewire, but ADC is simply being different for the sake of being different. VGA would cut the manufacturing costs for Apple, improving their margins. And nobody, I mean NOBODY, is going to buy a Mac because the monitor lacks a power cord. That's ridiculous.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.) You buy a mac you own a mac. Apple is not in the market to worry about its compatibility hardware wise with PCs. They don't want PC users to buy and use their cool mac peripherals. same thing with the iPod. Mac only
2.) Apple has priced the ADC enabled cards at street price. 399 for the Geforce 4 Ti is what you would pay elsewhere. no increased cost there. Onyly problem is getting older cards.
3.) Nothing harder about it. Switching either the VGA or DVI port for an ADC port is trivial. It doesn't add much if anything to the cost and they only have to add the plug onto the card to access the power/usb slot on the motherboard.
4.) Maybe if you said over DVI you would have a bit better arguement but ADC offers a lot more of VGA, most notaby a digital connection. I don't want to see apple starting to implement analog circuitry again and getting a bad signal.
And again, a mac is supose to be elegant, easy to use, "clean", simple. ADC delivers on that. A single plug and you're set, no cable mess.
5.) Uh... there is no power supply "in the motherboard". ADC displays feed off the mac's main power supply
6.) You have no basis for comlaint here. You make no sense. ADC isn't limiting your CRT choices in the slightest. Not at all. So what exactly is your point?
Also, ADC is not proprietary and Firewire is DEFINITELY not proprietary. There is no basis for saying just using VGA would cut cost. If anything ADC may actually be cheaper for Apple as they only need to supply one power supply for both a tower and a display
Apple is trying to reduce the number of cables a machine needs to connect together. This is the soul idea behind ADC. When the PC world starts using this standard then things will change. It would be nice to see a docking station with a ADC port but that's not likely.
Funny how we all cry for change and then bitch when they do something totally different. How can you Think Different with out doing different? If Apple were like all the other companies their slogan would be "Fit in" or "Do the Same" or "follow the masses"
If they start loosing money in that area they will make the changes. Don't humble you self into thinking that you know more about running Apple then Apple's board. Unless of course you own a Fortune 500 company yourself.
If it bothers you then buy a nice Sony 18.1 they will be happy to sell to you.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: Elderloc ]</p>