I guess we'll find out in the next year? (Hopefully...)
Lemon Bon Bon.
Next year I hope not! Ideally the Mac Pro will have a 4K monitor to ship with it. There is an awful lot of power in that machine and a 4K screen would certainly be of interest to many. I just hope that Apple maintains a more mainstream priced monitor.
Actually there are two parts to the equation here. You need reasonably priced panels which is part of the equation but you also need to be able to drive those panels reliably and without performance artifacts. I suspect GPUs good enough to drive 4K panels with reasonable quality, at a reasonable price is a factor also. Many GPUs simply can't sustain the required data rates across the serial connections to the monitors. Further some bog down at the shear number of pixels to process. Like the panels the low cost solutions to these problems are just coming online.
Well official 4k driver support exists on many gpus. Some under Windows also have certification for 10 bit RGB (not sure about RGBA) out as well, even though that is only found on a small subset of all displays. I think integrated graphics must drive these things reasonably well if they want it to be more than a niche product. In any case it works out best when stable driver support precedes shipping hardware. Otherwise you have a product which is difficult to shoehorn in and a smaller number of potential customers. Generally the number of people who would buy something that works out of the box is going to be a lot lower than those who would replace a lot of additional hardware specifically to use one new item, assuming what they already use is still functional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Next year I hope not! Ideally the Mac Pro will have a 4K monitor to ship with it. There is an awful lot of power in that machine and a 4K screen would certainly be of interest to many. I just hope that Apple maintains a more mainstream priced monitor.
I would be surprised if that happens, but they have been more aggressive than I expected on several occasions. There is no way to tell. Since they entered the intel era, Apple basically kept their external display options in lockstep with the imacs. There's some staggering right now in that the thunderbolt displays have not updated their screen treatments, but I am still not sure they plan to break away from that. I'm also mildly curious what they'll do in terms of imac size options when that time comes. It's more an issue of fascination than a desire to purchase an imac.
Well official 4k driver support exists on many gpus. Some under Windows also have certification for 10 bit RGB (not sure about RGBA) out as well, even though that is only found on a small subset of all displays. I think integrated graphics must drive these things reasonably well if they want it to be more than a niche product. In any case it works out best when stable driver support precedes shipping hardware. Otherwise you have a product which is difficult to shoehorn in and a smaller number of potential customers. Generally the number of people who would buy something that works out of the box is going to be a lot lower than those who would replace a lot of additional hardware specifically to use one new item, assuming what they already use is still functional.
I would be surprised if that happens, but they have been more aggressive than I expected on several occasions. There is no way to tell. Since they entered the intel era, Apple basically kept their external display options in lockstep with the imacs. There's some staggering right now in that the thunderbolt displays have not updated their screen treatments, but I am still not sure they plan to break away from that. I'm also mildly curious what they'll do in terms of imac size options when that time comes. It's more an issue of fascination than a desire to purchase an imac.
To get a 27inch screen that's with the same screen specs as the current Thunderbolt is not that different in price from companies like NEC, it's just that those brands get discounted more because they have higher margins and they kind of have to discount them because the PC monitor industry is so competitive. But it still doesn't have Thunderbolt, but I'm sure DIsplay Port monitors should work.
Yeah, of course Apple will come out with a 4K monitor, but I suspect it will be around $2K or so. They are expensive, unless IGZO comes down in price. But it might be a bigger than 27 inch.
I still always thought Apple should come out with a more robust MacMini with the guts and ports of a high end iMac, kind of like another model priced between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro that's a higher end i5/i7 with lots of RAM, fast SSD, a better GPU, so it would attract the gamers and people that want a more workstation class machine, but just not the XEON based processors.
I still always thought Apple should come out with a more robust MacMini with the guts and ports of a high end iMac, kind of like another model priced between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro that's a higher end i5/i7 with lots of RAM, fast SSD, a better GPU, so it would attract the gamers and people that want a more workstation class machine, but just not the XEON based processors.
To get a 27inch screen that's with the same screen specs as the current Thunderbolt is not that different in price from companies like NEC, it's just that those brands get discounted more because they have higher margins and they kind of have to discount them because the PC monitor industry is so competitive. But it still doesn't have Thunderbolt, but I'm sure DIsplay Port monitors should work.
Yeah, of course Apple will come out with a 4K monitor, but I suspect it will be around $2K or so. They are expensive, unless IGZO comes down in price. But it might be a bigger than 27 inch.
I like NEC. Eizo was my favorite, but you can't buy a new CG211 anymore. Those remain the best IPS displays I've seen to date, even if they were limited to 21" in a now dead aspect ratio. Anyway NEC usually starts above Apple in pricing, then tends to bring prices down after the first year or so. In terms of a $2k display, it would be a break from their current model. Right now they sell displays that are meant to appeal to a fairly broad range. The thunderbolt display is effectively a display + dock for notebook users. I expected them to update it sooner to match the imac. Typically they go with the same design in both, giving whatever fraction of imac owners a matching option for a second display as well. It also means fewer parts to validate. I guess they could do that, but I would be genuinely surprised. As for displayport displays, thunderbolt 2 is compliant with displayport 1.2b. That is not the case with the first generation of thunderbolt. I've tested macbook pros with mini displayport to displayport cables. So far I haven't seen any problems.
Quote:
I still always thought Apple should come out with a more robust MacMini with the guts and ports of a high end iMac, kind of like another model priced between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro that's a higher end i5/i7 with lots of RAM, fast SSD, a better GPU, so it would attract the gamers and people that want a more workstation class machine, but just not the XEON based processors.
Parts of the pricing strategy are simply strategic. I mean by the time you're up to the top imac cpu, it's in line with the price of the cheapest mac pro cpu using launch time pricing for both. It would be pretty much a headless imac, as even though i7s exist beyond what is used in the imac, those use different socket types.
Seriously though it is a machine that would give us Mid range performance between a Mini and a Mac Pro. Well maybe a bit more than Midrange. The idea though is to get away from Minis thermal limitations.
Apple must have something in the works regarding their Cinema Display line. If they could somehow manage to get 4K Cinema Displays for $999 that work with the entry dual W5000 Mac Pros, that would be a pretty competitive system. I suspect they'd want these kind of displays in the iMac too so they can share the panels and keep the price low.
But this one from Sharp is $7500, or so the narrator tells us. How could Apple make it a mere 14% of that?
Apple must have something in the works regarding their Cinema Display line. If they could somehow manage to get 4K Cinema Displays for $999 that work with the entry dual W5000 Mac Pros, that would be a pretty competitive system. I suspect they'd want these kind of displays in the iMac too so they can share the panels and keep the price low.
But this one from Sharp is $7500, or so the narrator tells us. How could Apple make it a mere 14% of that?
The minimum retail price is determined by the build costs. The pricing that competitors currently use has other factors like the size of the market. 4K TVs retail at about $5k or more but there's a company selling 4K TVs for $700:
What companies often do is price high to see what the market demand is, like Apple did with the original iPhone and then when it takes off, lower the price. Display companies know that their volumes will be much higher on $300 displays than $1000 displays and that some of the people who spend $1000 can also afford $5000. If their margins on the $1000 display are 40%, they make 11x the profit selling a unit at $5000 - they make the same profit for 1/11th the volume. It's the same reason why Apple doesn't lower margins or prices on the iPhone any more - they are in business to make profit and if the market will bear their pricing, they will maintain it.
The same applies with software. Before Apple bought Shake and Color, they were very expensive software packages as they had a limited audience and they brought the prices down to well under $1000. Apple's audience for their ProApps is bigger than the audience that would find and purchase that software directly so they benefit from the economies of scale. They choose whatever strategy gives them the best return.
When it comes to the Cinema Display, they don't sell all that many at $1000 but I expect it will be competitive with the premium models from other manufacturers. Apple's 10K last year says they made $2.7b from peripherals that includes displays, networking and other components. If that was all displays, that puts a maximum volume at 2.7 million displays per year. The likes of Dell sells 5 million displays per quarter:
Dell, HP etc mostly sell to lower end customers but it's possible they sell similar amounts of higher end displays as Apple.
Apple doesn't lower prices over time though so they make better margins after competitors have lowered theirs to very low levels. I think this gives them an advantage over their competition. They obviously have to buy panels from other suppliers so the suppliers set a lot of the pricing but Apple has a plus here too because they already buy over 100 million display panels for the iOS line per year and over 15 million for the Macs that have displays. It's probably only Samsung that can claim this too but they make their own displays and they won't volunteer to vastly undercut PC competitors. Apple's decisions aren't driven by PC manufacturers in the same way, they make whatever decisions suit them and a 4K display at $999 would work well for them.
Wow, $699 for 4K 39" TV. And $1199 for a 50". That is really nice, I just wouldn't want to hook that up to my Mac. There's a world of difference between TV screens and computer monitors. Pixels for one; TV's usually are rectangular and monitors square.
[...] That's why Apple releases the Beta versions of the OS, it gives the developers to do modifications of their apps, test it and they aren't at Golden Master yet.
Not true of Pro Tools. Every single time Apple issues an OS update it's at least six months before a compatible/approved version of Pro Tools becomes available.
Frank777's point was spot-on: Many apps will not be "Mavericks Approved" for months after the new urn is released.
Name one major application that wasn't updated within a couple of months from a major update and I'll tell you WHY it wasn't.
Who cares why? Whether it's the result of poor planning, code revisions or the phase of the moon doesn't make a lick of difference to the point, which is that some major software will NOT be Mavericks-ready until several months after release day.
Wow, $699 for 4K 39" TV. And $1199 for a 50". That is really nice, I just wouldn't want to hook that up to my Mac. There's a world of difference between TV screens and computer monitors. Pixels for one; TV's usually are rectangular and monitors square.
I couldn't find if this Seiki is a IPS panel, only interesting thing I found is that it drops to 30Hz when going 4k.
There are some quality differences between a monitor and TV but the pixels should be square on modern TVs. Pixel Aspect Ratio was a problem with old SD video due to anamorphic widescreen content:
They'd record wider frames into a 4:3 format and then stretch them back out on playback. Modern HD formats don't need to accommodate for this - 1080p maps direct to a 1080p display. There's a video here where they hook up a PC to the Seiki - the UI elements are a bit small:
[VIDEO]
I doubt that this model is IPS and 30Hz is not good for computer use at all as they show. At 11:00 they show some content and the image quality doesn't look too bad but I wouldn't want to use this model as a monitor. Part of the problem just now is getting the connection standards in place. It needs newer HDMI and Mini-DP 1.2. Someone hooked up a Mac to it here:
It shows that it's possible to retail a large high-res panel at a profit for $700. A higher quality panel would have higher build costs but I doubt it would be so much to push it to $5k+ retail. If the Seiki has a 20% margin, the build cost is $560. If a 4K IPS display running at 60Hz was $1000 to build, a 40% margin would retail around $1699. It could be IGZO too:
Well, that video says it all then. Just like you already wrote: 30Hz isn't good to be used as a PC monitor. And yes, I certainly expect Apple to introduce displays with 'more pixels' whether that will be Retina, 4k, 5k, whatever. I just want them to be available in matte, but looking at their history I'm not holding my breath.
OT I'm still baffled at the high prices of high-end video cards, never thought they would run this high. But I'm weird, I thought it was perfectly normal for Apple to ask $3299 for their 30" ACD when announced. Still, glad I only paid €1200 when it was EOL-ed.
OT I'm still baffled at the high prices of high-end video cards, never thought they would run this high. But I'm weird, I thought it was perfectly normal for Apple to ask $3299 for their 30" ACD when announced. Still, glad I only paid €1200 when it was EOL-ed.
Worst part is, they’ll STAY that high because all the more modern solutions (the system on a chip ones) are, well, system on a chip. They’ll be tons faster and far cheaper, but it won’t matter because they won’t be plug-in-abble.
I want a new GPU for my Mac Pro… Guess I’ll have to get an nVidia 7xx or Radeon 7xxx and then never upgrade again or something.
Worst part is, they’ll STAY that high because all the more modern solutions (the system on a chip ones) are, well, system on a chip. They’ll be tons faster and far cheaper, but it won’t matter because they won’t be plug-in-abble.
I want a new GPU for my Mac Pro… Guess I’ll have to get an nVidia 7xx or Radeon 7xxx and then never upgrade again or something.
You will be able to upgrade but it won't be cheap. The thing here is that the only discrete GPUs that will survive will be high end high performance models. In all likely hood what we call desktop GPUs will soon disappear and that will happen even faster with laptop chips.
In any event look at it this way if Apple didn't have a road map for discrete GPUs we would not have a new Mac Pro coming built around them. You can take that as a sign that the Mac Pro could become more expensive in the coming years.
Really all I care about is having a source for OS X drivers for future cards I might want. I don’t see needing more than one or two as the years go on. Does the Hackintosh crew actually make their own OS X drivers from scratch or do they just modify existing ones to work with unsupported (read: non-factory) cards?
Basically I guess I’d want something in either a GeForce 8xx or Radeon Rx 200, whichever’s a better bang for the power draw. Something with more than 512 MB RAM… I’d love 4GB. Would I have to wait until Apple supports at least one of those series cards?
You will be able to upgrade but it won't be cheap. The thing here is that the only discrete GPUs that will survive will be high end high performance models. In all likely hood what we call desktop GPUs will soon disappear and that will happen even faster with laptop chips.
In any event look at it this way if Apple didn't have a road map for discrete GPUs we would not have a new Mac Pro coming built around them. You can take that as a sign that the Mac Pro could become more expensive in the coming years.
*nods head.
It will be interesting to see how/if the iOS platform threatens the viability of the low end Mac market (mini/air...) in the years to come...
With the possibility of bigger and more powerful iOS devices in the future...which include retina screens from the get go...and a far bigger software market...generally more reasonably priced.
For me, it's not 'if' the mac market gets eaten...but when...and from what direction.
Sure...not for a good few years.
But we could argue it's already begun with the Smartphone and iPad to a degree.
I'm still looking forward to the Pro's release and at least one sanely priced model.
But I'm not holding my breath with 'price hike' Apple.
Really all I care about is having a source for OS X drivers for future cards I might want. I don’t see needing more than one or two as the years go on. Does the Hackintosh crew actually make their own OS X drivers from scratch or do they just modify existing ones to work with unsupported (read: non-factory) cards?
Basically I guess I’d want something in either a GeForce 8xx or Radeon Rx 200, whichever’s a better bang for the power draw. Something with more than 512 MB RAM… I’d love 4GB. Would I have to wait until Apple supports at least one of those series cards?
Apple's drivers would have to support the cards but cards of the same group tend to work so when Apple releases drivers for 700 series mobile, support comes for 700 series desktop:
The 700 series is a rebrand anyway so it's the same cards as the 600 series. NVidia sometimes puts out Mac drivers (e.g Quadro) but not for many cards.
If the entry new Mac Pro comes with dual W5000 for $2500, it should perform in the same region as a 670/680:
It will be interesting to see how/if the iOS platform threatens the viability of the low end Mac market (mini/air...) in the years to come...
It has already impacted laptop use as right now I'm better off using my iPad for a good portion of my mobile use. The impact is so great that I'm seriously considering a desktop for my next "Mac". Apple needs to get the ball rolling with iOS though as it needs to morph into a more powerful platform.
With the possibility of bigger and more powerful iOS devices in the future...which include retina screens from the get go...and a far bigger software market...generally more reasonably priced.
The cost of software is a huge factor when it comes to iPad.
For me, it's not 'if' the mac market gets eaten...but when...and from what direction.
I still have this idea that people will drop back to desktop Mac hardware once they realize that they don't need a laptop anymore. That Mac might serve a largely different purpose though. It will be sued for apps that excel in a desktop environment and for file and media serving duties.
Sure...not for a good few years.
But we could argue it's already begun with the Smartphone and iPad to a degree.
Without a doubt. IPad and smart phones have crippled the PC market.
I'm still looking forward to the Pro's release and at least one sanely priced model.
Either a sanely priced Pro or a refactored Mini that doesn't shy away from performance.
But I'm not holding my breath with 'price hike' Apple.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Err holding your breath isn''t a bad idea. If you look at the AIR and some other recent hardware Apple is far more aggressive pricing stuff than they ever have been.
Comments
Lemon Bon Bon.
Next year I hope not! Ideally the Mac Pro will have a 4K monitor to ship with it. There is an awful lot of power in that machine and a 4K screen would certainly be of interest to many. I just hope that Apple maintains a more mainstream priced monitor.
Actually there are two parts to the equation here. You need reasonably priced panels which is part of the equation but you also need to be able to drive those panels reliably and without performance artifacts. I suspect GPUs good enough to drive 4K panels with reasonable quality, at a reasonable price is a factor also. Many GPUs simply can't sustain the required data rates across the serial connections to the monitors. Further some bog down at the shear number of pixels to process. Like the panels the low cost solutions to these problems are just coming online.
Well official 4k driver support exists on many gpus. Some under Windows also have certification for 10 bit RGB (not sure about RGBA) out as well, even though that is only found on a small subset of all displays. I think integrated graphics must drive these things reasonably well if they want it to be more than a niche product. In any case it works out best when stable driver support precedes shipping hardware. Otherwise you have a product which is difficult to shoehorn in and a smaller number of potential customers. Generally the number of people who would buy something that works out of the box is going to be a lot lower than those who would replace a lot of additional hardware specifically to use one new item, assuming what they already use is still functional.
Next year I hope not! Ideally the Mac Pro will have a 4K monitor to ship with it. There is an awful lot of power in that machine and a 4K screen would certainly be of interest to many. I just hope that Apple maintains a more mainstream priced monitor.
I would be surprised if that happens, but they have been more aggressive than I expected on several occasions. There is no way to tell. Since they entered the intel era, Apple basically kept their external display options in lockstep with the imacs. There's some staggering right now in that the thunderbolt displays have not updated their screen treatments, but I am still not sure they plan to break away from that. I'm also mildly curious what they'll do in terms of imac size options when that time comes. It's more an issue of fascination than a desire to purchase an imac.
Well official 4k driver support exists on many gpus. Some under Windows also have certification for 10 bit RGB (not sure about RGBA) out as well, even though that is only found on a small subset of all displays. I think integrated graphics must drive these things reasonably well if they want it to be more than a niche product. In any case it works out best when stable driver support precedes shipping hardware. Otherwise you have a product which is difficult to shoehorn in and a smaller number of potential customers. Generally the number of people who would buy something that works out of the box is going to be a lot lower than those who would replace a lot of additional hardware specifically to use one new item, assuming what they already use is still functional.
I would be surprised if that happens, but they have been more aggressive than I expected on several occasions. There is no way to tell. Since they entered the intel era, Apple basically kept their external display options in lockstep with the imacs. There's some staggering right now in that the thunderbolt displays have not updated their screen treatments, but I am still not sure they plan to break away from that. I'm also mildly curious what they'll do in terms of imac size options when that time comes. It's more an issue of fascination than a desire to purchase an imac.
To get a 27inch screen that's with the same screen specs as the current Thunderbolt is not that different in price from companies like NEC, it's just that those brands get discounted more because they have higher margins and they kind of have to discount them because the PC monitor industry is so competitive. But it still doesn't have Thunderbolt, but I'm sure DIsplay Port monitors should work.
Yeah, of course Apple will come out with a 4K monitor, but I suspect it will be around $2K or so. They are expensive, unless IGZO comes down in price. But it might be a bigger than 27 inch.
I still always thought Apple should come out with a more robust MacMini with the guts and ports of a high end iMac, kind of like another model priced between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro that's a higher end i5/i7 with lots of RAM, fast SSD, a better GPU, so it would attract the gamers and people that want a more workstation class machine, but just not the XEON based processors.
I still always thought Apple should come out with a more robust MacMini with the guts and ports of a high end iMac, kind of like another model priced between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro that's a higher end i5/i7 with lots of RAM, fast SSD, a better GPU, so it would attract the gamers and people that want a more workstation class machine, but just not the XEON based processors.
You, me and a lot of other Mac users.
To get a 27inch screen that's with the same screen specs as the current Thunderbolt is not that different in price from companies like NEC, it's just that those brands get discounted more because they have higher margins and they kind of have to discount them because the PC monitor industry is so competitive. But it still doesn't have Thunderbolt, but I'm sure DIsplay Port monitors should work.
Yeah, of course Apple will come out with a 4K monitor, but I suspect it will be around $2K or so. They are expensive, unless IGZO comes down in price. But it might be a bigger than 27 inch.
I like NEC. Eizo was my favorite, but you can't buy a new CG211 anymore
. Those remain the best IPS displays I've seen to date, even if they were limited to 21" in a now dead aspect ratio. Anyway NEC usually starts above Apple in pricing, then tends to bring prices down after the first year or so. In terms of a $2k display, it would be a break from their current model. Right now they sell displays that are meant to appeal to a fairly broad range. The thunderbolt display is effectively a display + dock for notebook users. I expected them to update it sooner to match the imac. Typically they go with the same design in both, giving whatever fraction of imac owners a matching option for a second display as well. It also means fewer parts to validate. I guess they could do that, but I would be genuinely surprised. As for displayport displays, thunderbolt 2 is compliant with displayport 1.2b. That is not the case with the first generation of thunderbolt. I've tested macbook pros with mini displayport to displayport cables. So far I haven't seen any problems.
I still always thought Apple should come out with a more robust MacMini with the guts and ports of a high end iMac, kind of like another model priced between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro that's a higher end i5/i7 with lots of RAM, fast SSD, a better GPU, so it would attract the gamers and people that want a more workstation class machine, but just not the XEON based processors.
Parts of the pricing strategy are simply strategic. I mean by the time you're up to the top imac cpu, it's in line with the price of the cheapest mac pro cpu using launch time pricing for both. It would be pretty much a headless imac, as even though i7s exist beyond what is used in the imac, those use different socket types.
An XMac ! ????????????????
Seriously though it is a machine that would give us Mid range performance between a Mini and a Mac Pro. Well maybe a bit more than Midrange. The idea though is to get away from Minis thermal limitations.
But this one from Sharp is $7500, or so the narrator tells us. How could Apple make it a mere 14% of that?
The minimum retail price is determined by the build costs. The pricing that competitors currently use has other factors like the size of the market. 4K TVs retail at about $5k or more but there's a company selling 4K TVs for $700:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/25/seiki-launches-39-inch-4k-tv-for-699/
What companies often do is price high to see what the market demand is, like Apple did with the original iPhone and then when it takes off, lower the price. Display companies know that their volumes will be much higher on $300 displays than $1000 displays and that some of the people who spend $1000 can also afford $5000. If their margins on the $1000 display are 40%, they make 11x the profit selling a unit at $5000 - they make the same profit for 1/11th the volume. It's the same reason why Apple doesn't lower margins or prices on the iPhone any more - they are in business to make profit and if the market will bear their pricing, they will maintain it.
The same applies with software. Before Apple bought Shake and Color, they were very expensive software packages as they had a limited audience and they brought the prices down to well under $1000. Apple's audience for their ProApps is bigger than the audience that would find and purchase that software directly so they benefit from the economies of scale. They choose whatever strategy gives them the best return.
When it comes to the Cinema Display, they don't sell all that many at $1000 but I expect it will be competitive with the premium models from other manufacturers. Apple's 10K last year says they made $2.7b from peripherals that includes displays, networking and other components. If that was all displays, that puts a maximum volume at 2.7 million displays per year. The likes of Dell sells 5 million displays per quarter:
http://www.techpowerup.com/191101/dell-captures-top-position-in-worldwide-pc-monitors-in-the-second-quarter.html
Dell, HP etc mostly sell to lower end customers but it's possible they sell similar amounts of higher end displays as Apple.
Apple doesn't lower prices over time though so they make better margins after competitors have lowered theirs to very low levels. I think this gives them an advantage over their competition. They obviously have to buy panels from other suppliers so the suppliers set a lot of the pricing but Apple has a plus here too because they already buy over 100 million display panels for the iOS line per year and over 15 million for the Macs that have displays. It's probably only Samsung that can claim this too but they make their own displays and they won't volunteer to vastly undercut PC competitors. Apple's decisions aren't driven by PC manufacturers in the same way, they make whatever decisions suit them and a 4K display at $999 would work well for them.
Excellent post Marvin; thanks.
Wow, $699 for 4K 39" TV. And $1199 for a 50". That is really nice, I just wouldn't want to hook that up to my Mac. There's a world of difference between TV screens and computer monitors. Pixels for one; TV's usually are rectangular and monitors square.
Pixel aspect ratio
I couldn't find if this Seiki is a IPS panel, only interesting thing I found is that it drops to 30Hz when going 4k.
[...] That's why Apple releases the Beta versions of the OS, it gives the developers to do modifications of their apps, test it and they aren't at Golden Master yet.
Not true of Pro Tools. Every single time Apple issues an OS update it's at least six months before a compatible/approved version of Pro Tools becomes available.
Frank777's point was spot-on: Many apps will not be "Mavericks Approved" for months after the new urn is released.
Name one major application that wasn't updated within a couple of months from a major update and I'll tell you WHY it wasn't.
Who cares why? Whether it's the result of poor planning, code revisions or the phase of the moon doesn't make a lick of difference to the point, which is that some major software will NOT be Mavericks-ready until several months after release day.
There are some quality differences between a monitor and TV but the pixels should be square on modern TVs. Pixel Aspect Ratio was a problem with old SD video due to anamorphic widescreen content:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_widescreen
They'd record wider frames into a 4:3 format and then stretch them back out on playback. Modern HD formats don't need to accommodate for this - 1080p maps direct to a 1080p display. There's a video here where they hook up a PC to the Seiki - the UI elements are a bit small:
[VIDEO]
I doubt that this model is IPS and 30Hz is not good for computer use at all as they show. At 11:00 they show some content and the image quality doesn't look too bad but I wouldn't want to use this model as a monitor. Part of the problem just now is getting the connection standards in place. It needs newer HDMI and Mini-DP 1.2. Someone hooked up a Mac to it here:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1469063/seiki-se50uy04-50-4k-display/30#post_23309193
It shows that it's possible to retail a large high-res panel at a profit for $700. A higher quality panel would have higher build costs but I doubt it would be so much to push it to $5k+ retail. If the Seiki has a 20% margin, the build cost is $560. If a 4K IPS display running at 60Hz was $1000 to build, a 40% margin would retail around $1699. It could be IGZO too:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57593044-37/apple-to-shift-to-igzo-displays-next-year-says-report/
There's an Asus 4K IGZO computer monitor out for $3500 - the PQ321Q:
[VIDEO]
Same panel as the Sharp one:
http://www.amazon.com/Sharp-Electronics-32IN-3840X2160-PNK321/dp/B00C4S25PY
http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-PQ321Q-31-5-Inch-4K-Monitor/dp/B00DJ4BIKA
The Dell Ultrasharp will be here Q4 too. Maybe next year would be best for Apple to go Retina on the desktop, they skipped the iMac already.
OT I'm still baffled at the high prices of high-end video cards, never thought they would run this high. But I'm weird, I thought it was perfectly normal for Apple to ask $3299 for their 30" ACD when announced. Still, glad I only paid €1200 when it was EOL-ed.
Worst part is, they’ll STAY that high because all the more modern solutions (the system on a chip ones) are, well, system on a chip. They’ll be tons faster and far cheaper, but it won’t matter because they won’t be plug-in-abble.
I want a new GPU for my Mac Pro… Guess I’ll have to get an nVidia 7xx or Radeon 7xxx and then never upgrade again or something.
You will be able to upgrade but it won't be cheap. The thing here is that the only discrete GPUs that will survive will be high end high performance models. In all likely hood what we call desktop GPUs will soon disappear and that will happen even faster with laptop chips.
In any event look at it this way if Apple didn't have a road map for discrete GPUs we would not have a new Mac Pro coming built around them. You can take that as a sign that the Mac Pro could become more expensive in the coming years.
Really all I care about is having a source for OS X drivers for future cards I might want. I don’t see needing more than one or two as the years go on. Does the Hackintosh crew actually make their own OS X drivers from scratch or do they just modify existing ones to work with unsupported (read: non-factory) cards?
Basically I guess I’d want something in either a GeForce 8xx or Radeon Rx 200, whichever’s a better bang for the power draw. Something with more than 512 MB RAM… I’d love 4GB. Would I have to wait until Apple supports at least one of those series cards?
You will be able to upgrade but it won't be cheap. The thing here is that the only discrete GPUs that will survive will be high end high performance models. In all likely hood what we call desktop GPUs will soon disappear and that will happen even faster with laptop chips.
In any event look at it this way if Apple didn't have a road map for discrete GPUs we would not have a new Mac Pro coming built around them. You can take that as a sign that the Mac Pro could become more expensive in the coming years.
*nods head.
It will be interesting to see how/if the iOS platform threatens the viability of the low end Mac market (mini/air...) in the years to come...
With the possibility of bigger and more powerful iOS devices in the future...which include retina screens from the get go...and a far bigger software market...generally more reasonably priced.
For me, it's not 'if' the mac market gets eaten...but when...and from what direction.
Sure...not for a good few years.
But we could argue it's already begun with the Smartphone and iPad to a degree.
I'm still looking forward to the Pro's release and at least one sanely priced model.
But I'm not holding my breath with 'price hike' Apple.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Apple's drivers would have to support the cards but cards of the same group tend to work so when Apple releases drivers for 700 series mobile, support comes for 700 series desktop:
http://www.tonymacx86.com/384-building-customac-buyer-s-guide-september-2013.html#gfx_cards
The 700 series is a rebrand anyway so it's the same cards as the 600 series. NVidia sometimes puts out Mac drivers (e.g Quadro) but not for many cards.
If the entry new Mac Pro comes with dual W5000 for $2500, it should perform in the same region as a 670/680:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/workstation-graphics-card-gaming,3425-8.html
A whole machine upgrade might cost a bit much but it comes with PCIe SSD too.