Should Apple release a very BIG Monitor

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Gateway is selling a 42" Plasma Monitor (TV) that they are rebranding as their own. The price is about half of what other current Plasma TVs are (about $3000) and I'm sure they are still making a profit on it.



Should Apple offer the ultimate Cinema Display - a monitor that is huge (42" or more) and be able to connect to a cable box as well as the computer? It would be help a Mac become the center of the digital hub.



I think they should. Profit per Monitor/TV would be huge (they could put an Apple Design spin on a Sony or something - helping that company have better economies of scale and lower prices). I'd buy a 42" Plasma Monitor/TV from Apple. Why not?

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 23
    I dunno, I think the current displays are large enough.
  • Reply 2 of 23
    I'd love to see Apple's price tag on THAT one.
  • Reply 3 of 23
    gordygordy Posts: 979member
    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> They'll probably use cheap LG Electornics (aka Goldstar) or some other cheap brand and charge well over $8000 for a 42" Plasma TV.
  • Reply 4 of 23
    jdbonjdbon Posts: 109member
    Well that plasma display is really not a monitor. Its native resolution is 852 by 480, whichis quite low compareed to the cinema displays. It is a good price as a plasma TV, but really isn;t practical as an LCD monitor in terms of resolution. However, It may not be a bad move for Apple to carry a Plasma TV, perhaps made by samsung, in their stores. They could demo how you can have your powermac connected to a Cinema HD and a plasma TV at the same time. The plasma TV could be playing a DVD while the user is busy editing an iMovie on the Cinema Display. It would be cool to show off the multitasking abilities of OS X as well as Apple's built in Monitor spanning capabilities in this fashion.
  • Reply 5 of 23
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    Plasma TVs suck and are a rip off. The new tech ELOD (or some acronym) is the next phase. LCDs are cool and make a better monitor and/or TV then plasmas do.
  • Reply 6 of 23
    [quote]Originally posted by KidRed:

    <strong>Plasma TVs suck and are a rip off. The new tech ELOD (or some acronym) is the next phase.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    You must mean Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) or Light Emitting Polymer (LEP)... Both of those should be less expensive than current LCD technology when they enter mass production, more energy efficient, and (get this) rollable! That's right, since they don't need backlights (mostly), they can be essentially a great big sheet of plastic that you roll up when you are done. Hanging one of these things on your wall would certainly be nice...



    OLED is already in use on some small scales in cell phones and other mobile devices.
  • Reply 7 of 23
    The reason that thing is so cheap is well cheap. Read the review on c/net and they said the colors are ok but something about the black background was not good at all. It would be nice to have a large screen like that but a good one will cost a load of money if Apple built/renamed one.



    yea 1st post. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />



    hey I am new, what do I know!
  • Reply 8 of 23
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    [quote]Originally posted by CryhavocQ:

    <strong>

    You must mean Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) or Light Emitting Polymer (LEP)... Both of those should be less expensive than current LCD technology when they enter mass production, more energy efficient, and (get this) rollable! That's right, since they don't need backlights (mostly), they can be essentially a great big sheet of plastic that you roll up when you are done. Hanging one of these things on your wall would certainly be nice...



    OLED is already in use on some small scales in cell phones and other mobile devices.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    Yea that's it. That's right, I was told you could roll it up like the sunday paper. How wierd would that be? Your family is over to watch a movie and you shuffle over to the $5k 40+" TV on the wall, take it down and roll it up and walk away with it.



    I assume it would be in a shell or casing of some kind tho. Really wierd tech and it's only a few years off from what I was told. I can't wait to get a 40+" one, I'm stuck at 36" HDTV flatscreen right now. I'd love to hang one on the wall, too cool.



    Anyways, plasma sucks! haha
  • Reply 9 of 23
    yep...OLED's are supposed to be the next big thing. Not only thin and rollable, but pump nice image resolution compared to current tech as well.



    I have to say the plasma has the best look as far as home video goes. Look at the Elite series from Pioneer for a look at their top of the line models. But with all of the input/output features available, you think that manufacturers would consider pushing more than 1280x960 (I believe for the top one) on such a high priced item. More people would consider such a purpose if it was their screen had more than one worthwhile purpose. Imagine having a HUGE desktop with your bluetooth mouse and keyboard alongside.



    Also, bigger is better. After working on both a 22" Cine and a 17" CRT for the last few months, I see the benefit of another monitor in the mix. Maybe it's a bit much to ask, but working between 5 programs at the same time is always better with more desktop.
  • Reply 10 of 23
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    I was in a Sam's Club a few days ago and they had one of those big digital TVs (not a plasma, it was one of those that costs only a little over a grand for a 40+ inch screen). It was horrible... it was about halfway between a passive and active matrix LCD screen. The brightness was terrible, the colors were somewhat off, and there was a lot of glare. The viewing angle was 45 degrees to either side, but it looked fairly crappy unless you were looking at it straight on.



    All I have to say is that if this is what people are spending their money on, then they are fools. Go out and get an old school type TV, they look better!
  • Reply 11 of 23
    krassykrassy Posts: 595member
    i want a 20" with a resolution 1600*1024 !!! (for 1200$)





    greets,

    krassy
  • Reply 12 of 23
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by Krassy:

    <strong>i want a 20" with a resolution 1600*1024 !!! (for 1200$)</strong><hr></blockquote>



    You're only $400 away from <a href="http://www.formac.com/p_bin/?cid=solutions_displays_gallery2010"; target="_blank">getting one</a>.



    OK, so it's 1600 x 1200.



    [ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 23
    krassykrassy Posts: 595member
    [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

    <strong>



    You're only $400 away from <a href="http://www.formac.com/p_bin/?cid=solutions_displays_gallery2010"; target="_blank">getting one</a>.



    OK, so it's 1600 x 1200.



    [ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    sorry - but i hate formac... once i had a formac tv-card and the support was really bad... and it's not an apple display and i can only afford the 1200$

    <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
  • Reply 14 of 23
    stunnedstunned Posts: 1,096member
    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />



    Apple should concentrate on improving its computer hardware first.



    One thing at a time. tats one way to get things right
  • Reply 15 of 23
    unless you have hundred if not thousands of engineers sperad out to all the different tasks, the only of which they have no control over is hardware.
  • Reply 16 of 23
    trevormtrevorm Posts: 841member
    I think for most users 23-24" is just fine. 42" is alittle overkill frankly.

    -I have used some apps (Protools etc) that require alot of screen realestate and just 2x17" or A single 17" does fine
  • Reply 17 of 23
    strobestrobe Posts: 369member
    OLEDs better be disposable too since they have an operation lifespan of 2000 hours.



    They better be cheap enough to be used as TP.
  • Reply 18 of 23
    Apple would be better served with a good quality monitor at an affordable price to make their computers more attractive than they currently are. The 17" monitors should be $599 tops ($499 would be better but that's a bit agressive pricing for Apple) based on the current sale prices on LCD displays. It wouldnt hurt if they added a VGC port on the back either, since most PM video cards support dual monitor configs, and have both ADC and VGA for people who want/need dual monitors.
  • Reply 19 of 23
    u never know, the iBook prices could be considered pretty aggressive right now. I think $549 would be a good price for a 17" lcd, but only if they made it the same screen that they use in the 17" fp iMac, that's a nice screen.
  • Reply 20 of 23
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    [quote]Originally posted by KidRed:

    [QB]. I can't wait to get a 40+" one, I'm stuck at 36" HDTV flatscreen right now.../QB]<hr></blockquote>



    poor baby.
Sign In or Register to comment.