They don't market it the same way, but they also don't market their Mac Pros the same was as their more consumer-focused products. They also have a long history of letting their displays languish at higher prices than would be expected. It's like they have it at the bottom item of each meeting and only get to it once every couple years.
Note that they used to have a 30" ACD and have never had a 30" iMac. I think they also have used multiple panels that were very different from their iMac line over the years. But that does bring up an interesting point. When will Apple finally make the move to make their iMacs "Retina" which would be a unique retinafying compared to all their other doubling resolution solutions as it would be exactly 1.5x the resolution if they go 4K in the 27" iMac.
I'm aware they never had a 30", but the older displays were definitely marketed to a different audience. Part of that was the price points chose the buyers to a degree. You should also remember that the imac covered a different audience at the time. It is suitable for a far greater range of tasks today where performance requirements have been outpaced by hardware improvements in some areas. Anyway during the era of the 30" display, it wasn't the only one. They had something like a 20", 23" later replaced by a 24", and a 30" display. They folded all of them into a 27" cinema display. It appeared to me as if they were trying to to maintain a profitable item through consolidation there. I did take note of the resolution disparity. My thoughts were that they would would start from something that could be doubled, not necessarily what we have today. There are 1080 27" displays. I've never looked at one close up, but I suspect it would be a doubling of that or a small change in dimensions, much like what brought about the current 27" panels. Take 25.5" panel (often marketed as 26" during its respective time example). Widen from 16:10 to 16:9. There's your 27" . I mean that I could see a small shift one way or the other, and there is a current basis for doubling, even if it's not one that Apple currently uses. If you have more familiarity with them than me, you can let me know if they look horribly out of scale. I'm just saying the doubling doesn't necessarily have to be in relation to what they have now. There's always some kind of range.
Quote:
Would they go 4K in the 24" iMac, too or use something that is also 1.5x the resolution. They already have the Scaling option in Display Settings to go halfway between 2x so I'm guessing that would be the new native for these machines. But when would Apple offer it? Seems like it will be a long wait if we are waiting for quality panels in that size at the current price points. We still don't have the MBA as Retina but I'm guessing that will happen with the next update.
It's possible that prices will come down faster than I thought. I didn't mention this one previously due to its oddball nature, but Dell is bringing out a 28" around $1000. That goes against the trend of bigger= more expensive, so I'm not sure what to say there. Bigger is typically more difficult to manufacture without defects, and they do incur a bigger loss on any of A- grade and below. If they hadn't redesigned the imac recently, it might have looked like an option. There are also signs that they are running into cost barriers relative to their desired margins. As for the mba, I think the 13" rmbp covers that well enough that people have an option in a very light/compact machine at that kind of resolution. The rmbp display is a considerable step up in terms of viewing angles too.
As for the mba, I think the 13" rmbp covers that well enough that people have an option in a very light/compact machine at that kind of resolution. The rmbp display is a considerable step up in terms of viewing angles too.
I think they will go Retina with the MBA but I think the rumors of a 12" make a lot of sense. Basically get it down to one model that is partway between the 11" and 13" and keep it smaller than the 13" MBP to help differentiate the sizes a little more.
He's actually easy to address if you just sort of ignore the initial hyperbole. There are plenty of other clueless display comments. It's one of the less understood areas for whatever reason. I only learned about it due to the need to assist artists in getting their own pipelines up and running.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Basically get it down to one model that is partway between the 11" and 13" and keep it smaller than the 13" MBP to help differentiate the sizes a little more.
That would make sense. I mean the 13" rmbp is not that much different. There are situations where every ounce counts, but not that many. For some reason the concept of a very light computer reminds me of my desire to hike overland trails. There's a 6 day hike in Tasmania that I intend to do one day. Unfortunately others I know do not share my desire to trek through mountains with known erratic weather patterns (sometimes snows in summer there).
I am thinking prices will come down very fast. They have been making the high density displays for iPhone and iPad for years now, and for 15" laptops for a year. The tech is not some research project any more. The desktop computers are the next logical step, Sharp and Dell are making the first move, but lets see what the 2014 iMac looks like.
Seiki 39" Class 4K 120Hz LED Ultra HDTV - SE39UY04 - TVs & Electronics - Televisions - All Flat Panel TVs
which is priced at between 500$ & $600 at various stores?
A TV panel is completely different from a computer monitor.
No one is saying that it can't be used as a monitor and note that TVs are just monitors with TV tuners in them. Ask yourself why you would want a 39" monitor on your desk. Now ask yourself why you even a 4K monitor to begin with if the accuracy of the display when sitting less than 2 feet away is going to be poor. Finally, ask yourself why computer monitors cost so much more than a much larger TV monitor of the same resolution. We're talking a huge number of issues like input lag, refresh rate, color accuracy, gamut, and on and one. If the only thing you want to use your computer for is for a Paul Walker movie marathon then go for it but for real computer use i's not going to be a great experience.
Thank you Sol for explaining this in detail. When I got to the part [I]"a huge number of issues like input lag, refresh rate, color accuracy, gamut, and on and on"[/I] I thought you were describing my ex there for a minute. Happy weekend.
Thank you Sol for explaining this in detail. When I got to the part "a huge number of issues like input lag, refresh rate, color accuracy, gamut, and on and on" I thought you were describing my ex there for a minute. Happy weekend.
That's the problem with exes, she'd think I was describing you.
Apple is not really supporting the professional user base anymore. They just spent a fortune basically in marketing, which is the greatest value Apple gets from supporting pros. They are a consumer company now. So why on earth would they sink more money in R&D building a display that only a fraction of their loss-leading pro user base is going to buy anyway?
When all of their products support 4K then Apple will deliver a branded 4K display.
Apple is not really supporting the professional user base anymore. They just spent a fortune basically in marketing, which is the greatest value Apple gets from supporting pros. They are a consumer company now. So why on earth would they sink more money in R&D building a display that only a fraction of their loss-leading pro user base is going to buy anyway?
When all of their products support 4K then Apple will deliver a branded 4K display.
They have been pumping the new Mac Pro for months now. If that's not a professional machine then I don't know what is. I also consider their MBP line to be professional machines.
As for sinking money into display R&D they do plenty of this. You only have to loom at them offering Retina IPS displays on nearly all their products as proof.
I don’t think so. The Apple TV will eventually have support for 2K displays.
Why do people call it 4K? It’s 2K. We measure from the short distance, not the long. What, they think they can magically change it now and no one will notice? Or maybe people are TOO STUPID to understand that 2K would have 4x the pixels of 1080p, so we have to call it “4K” because “4 is four times 1”.
At least to me the 4K notation makes more sense. You're assuming the ratio of height and width will stay the same. What if they start making monitors with a wider width? Are you going to call 6K pixel monitor with 2K lines of resolution a 2K monitor?
Comments
They don't market it the same way, but they also don't market their Mac Pros the same was as their more consumer-focused products. They also have a long history of letting their displays languish at higher prices than would be expected. It's like they have it at the bottom item of each meeting and only get to it once every couple years.
Note that they used to have a 30" ACD and have never had a 30" iMac. I think they also have used multiple panels that were very different from their iMac line over the years. But that does bring up an interesting point. When will Apple finally make the move to make their iMacs "Retina" which would be a unique retinafying compared to all their other doubling resolution solutions as it would be exactly 1.5x the resolution if they go 4K in the 27" iMac.
I'm aware they never had a 30", but the older displays were definitely marketed to a different audience. Part of that was the price points chose the buyers to a degree. You should also remember that the imac covered a different audience at the time. It is suitable for a far greater range of tasks today where performance requirements have been outpaced by hardware improvements in some areas. Anyway during the era of the 30" display, it wasn't the only one. They had something like a 20", 23" later replaced by a 24", and a 30" display. They folded all of them into a 27" cinema display. It appeared to me as if they were trying to to maintain a profitable item through consolidation there. I did take note of the resolution disparity. My thoughts were that they would would start from something that could be doubled, not necessarily what we have today. There are 1080 27" displays. I've never looked at one close up, but I suspect it would be a doubling of that or a small change in dimensions, much like what brought about the current 27" panels. Take 25.5" panel (often marketed as 26" during its respective time example). Widen from 16:10 to 16:9. There's your 27"
. I mean that I could see a small shift one way or the other, and there is a current basis for doubling, even if it's not one that Apple currently uses. If you have more familiarity with them than me, you can let me know if they look horribly out of scale. I'm just saying the doubling doesn't necessarily have to be in relation to what they have now. There's always some kind of range.
Would they go 4K in the 24" iMac, too or use something that is also 1.5x the resolution. They already have the Scaling option in Display Settings to go halfway between 2x so I'm guessing that would be the new native for these machines. But when would Apple offer it? Seems like it will be a long wait if we are waiting for quality panels in that size at the current price points. We still don't have the MBA as Retina but I'm guessing that will happen with the next update.
It's possible that prices will come down faster than I thought. I didn't mention this one previously due to its oddball nature, but Dell is bringing out a 28" around $1000. That goes against the trend of bigger= more expensive, so I'm not sure what to say there. Bigger is typically more difficult to manufacture without defects, and they do incur a bigger loss on any of A- grade and below. If they hadn't redesigned the imac recently, it might have looked like an option. There are also signs that they are running into cost barriers relative to their desired margins. As for the mba, I think the 13" rmbp covers that well enough that people have an option in a very light/compact machine at that kind of resolution. The rmbp display is a considerable step up in terms of viewing angles too.
I think they will go Retina with the MBA but I think the rumors of a 12" make a lot of sense. Basically get it down to one model that is partway between the 11" and 13" and keep it smaller than the 13" MBP to help differentiate the sizes a little more.
The comment I was replying to was saying he didn't want this 32" 4K display because it wasn't "Retina"
I said it's still a healthy amount of pixels... even if some people say it's not "Retina"
3,840 x 2,160 is an amazing resolution. At that point... who cares if it's "Retina" enough?
TS, I think you had that one coming.
He's actually easy to address if you just sort of ignore the initial hyperbole. There are plenty of other clueless display comments. It's one of the less understood areas for whatever reason. I only learned about it due to the need to assist artists in getting their own pipelines up and running.
Quote:
Basically get it down to one model that is partway between the 11" and 13" and keep it smaller than the 13" MBP to help differentiate the sizes a little more.
That would make sense. I mean the 13" rmbp is not that much different. There are situations where every ounce counts, but not that many. For some reason the concept of a very light computer reminds me of my desire to hike overland trails. There's a 6 day hike in Tasmania that I intend to do one day. Unfortunately others I know do not share my desire to trek through mountains with known erratic weather patterns (sometimes snows in summer there).
I am thinking prices will come down very fast. They have been making the high density displays for iPhone and iPad for years now, and for 15" laptops for a year. The tech is not some research project any more. The desktop computers are the next logical step, Sharp and Dell are making the first move, but lets see what the 2014 iMac looks like.
Ha ha, it's even worse! The price is in Euros, which in USD is $5,479!
Good for you mentioning that Euro conversion. I was going to, plus add on the tax as well. :no:You need to read the thread before commenting. Really.
What about the
Seiki 39" Class 4K 120Hz LED Ultra HDTV - SE39UY04 - TVs & Electronics - Televisions - All Flat Panel TVs
which is priced at between 500$ & $600 at various stores?
A TV panel is completely different from a computer monitor.
Why? You can use this as a monitor.
No one is saying that it can't be used as a monitor and note that TVs are just monitors with TV tuners in them. Ask yourself why you would want a 39" monitor on your desk. Now ask yourself why you even a 4K monitor to begin with if the accuracy of the display when sitting less than 2 feet away is going to be poor. Finally, ask yourself why computer monitors cost so much more than a much larger TV monitor of the same resolution. We're talking a huge number of issues like input lag, refresh rate, color accuracy, gamut, and on and one. If the only thing you want to use your computer for is for a Paul Walker movie marathon then go for it but for real computer use i's not going to be a great experience.
That's the problem with exes, she'd think I was describing you.
Nailed it
When all of their products support 4K then Apple will deliver a branded 4K display.
They have been pumping the new Mac Pro for months now. If that's not a professional machine then I don't know what is. I also consider their MBP line to be professional machines.
As for sinking money into display R&D they do plenty of this. You only have to loom at them offering Retina IPS displays on nearly all their products as proof.
I detest matte for their nasty diffused glare that destroys contrast and color.
I don’t think so. The Apple TV will eventually have support for 2K displays.
Why do people call it 4K? It’s 2K. We measure from the short distance, not the long. What, they think they can magically change it now and no one will notice? Or maybe people are TOO STUPID to understand that 2K would have 4x the pixels of 1080p, so we have to call it “4K” because “4 is four times 1”.
At least to me the 4K notation makes more sense. You're assuming the ratio of height and width will stay the same. What if they start making monitors with a wider width? Are you going to call 6K pixel monitor with 2K lines of resolution a 2K monitor?