Apple Displays Compared to the Market

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
While I think the new displays are very nice looking, I think they should add the TV tuner to them. A quick browse through Google's new Froogle and one can easly find the same size diplays with built in TV tuners for the same or slightly lesser cost.



Steve said that the Mac and TV would not be combined, but there is nothing that indicates the displays and tv shouldn't. It would just make the nice displays all that more practical.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 28
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,415member
    Yeah I've notice them too but the only problem is most of the LCD with the TV tuners are lower resolution. Even the smallest Apple LCD 20" supports HDTV 1280x720 with it's resolution of 1680x1050. Models destined for built in Tuners will only utilize the resolution needed for video purposes.



    Here are some 20" with Tuners and their respective rez.



    SVA 640x480



    Sharp Aquos 640x480



    Viewsonic 640x480



    What we need is Apple's higher quality monitors and the option to add a tuner via PCI or external device. ATI just announced the HDTV Wonder for PC that gives you an ATSC Tuner and analog tuner as well.



    Man I hope El Gato or somene does something similar for Macs. I find it a bit more flexible to seperate the tuner from the LCD so that if I decide to change on item I can without losing both.
  • Reply 2 of 28
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Er, you mean like the Elgato EyeTV 500? Heh.



    http://elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetv500
  • Reply 3 of 28
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,415member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    Er, you mean like the Elgato EyeTV 500? Heh.



    http://elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetv500




    <smacks forehead> I knew about the Eye TV HDTV box. I remember it being announced just before WWDC. Not a bad unit at first I wasn't sure how they got the video back on the Mac but they have more info up. It just pumps it back through firewire. An internal card would nice (and cheaper) but this is pretty flexible in its own right.
  • Reply 4 of 28
    ensoniqensoniq Posts: 131member
    Apple's biggest mistake with the new displays is thinking that a 20" at $1299 is an appropriate "low-end" display.



    Where is the 17" wide-screen used on the iMac and PowerBook? That display at $699 would still be overpriced, but at least there would be a sub-$1000 unit to offer. Especially when they are trying to get the Wintel market's attention.



    Two weeks ago you could buy a PowerMac G5 and add a display (the 17" square) for $699. Now you need to pay $1299 for the 20". So a new PowerMac G5 with matching display effectively costs $600 more now. How exactly is this going to increase overall market share?



    $1299 low-end my arse. Another classic Apple blunder.
  • Reply 5 of 28
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Market wise the 20" is overpriced for the resolution, the 23" is good value compared to the market and the 30" is quite simply unique. An area that's holding back the use of these as TV's is the poor scaling and de-interlacing performance, which I guess is a Quicktime problem. Windows Media does this better at the moment. I'm hoping this is addressed in QT7 (my business plans kinda depend on it)



    The 23" works really well as a HD monitor @ 1920 x 1080 because there's no scaling involved. The 23's and 30's are going to sell really, really well.
  • Reply 6 of 28
    screedscreed Posts: 1,077member
    What's different about Apple's 20" is the response time: 16ms (which translates into ~62.5 fps). Most panels out there are only 25ms (40 fps). That's really important for video work (or play).



    The only other 20" panel with 16ms reponse time that I could find was the newly announced LL-T2015 from Sharp. Their price? $1299. But its aspect ratio is 4:3.



    I rarely say this but Apple's price seems to be on the mark this time.



    Imagine that.



    Screed
  • Reply 7 of 28
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sCreeD

    What's different about Apple's 20" is the response time: 16ms (which translates into ~62.5 fps). Most panels out there are only 25ms (40 fps). That's really important for video work (or play).



    The only other 20" panel with 16ms reponse time that I could find was the newly announced LL-T2015 from Sharp. Their price? $1299. But its aspect ratio is 4:3.



    I rarely say this but Apple's price seems to be on the mark this time.



    Imagine that.



    Screed




    Dell has had a 20" 1600x1200 16ms panel (2001FP) for almost a year now. It has VGA, DVI, S-Video, and RCA input, and Picture in Picture. You can get it for $899. I believe the same panel is used in a Viewsonic, but it's more expensive.



    I love Apple's designs, and I'd prefer a widescreen. But I can't justify the extra cost of the 20" ACD, especially since Apple raised developer prices with the latest refresh.
  • Reply 8 of 28
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Yeah I've notice them too but the only problem is most of the LCD with the TV tuners are lower resolution. Even the smallest Apple LCD 20" supports HDTV 1280x720 with it's resolution of 1680x1050. Models destined for built in Tuners will only utilize the resolution needed for video purposes.



    Here are some 20" with Tuners and their respective rez.



    SVA 640x480



    Sharp Aquos 640x480



    Viewsonic 640x480



    What we need is Apple's higher quality monitors and the option to add a tuner via PCI or external device. ATI just announced the HDTV Wonder for PC that gives you an ATSC Tuner and analog tuner as well.



    Man I hope El Gato or somene does something similar for Macs. I find it a bit more flexible to seperate the tuner from the LCD so that if I decide to change on item I can without losing both.




    those are the reses for the tuner, standard sd, the computer connection works a lot higher than that.



    I dont like the idea of tv tuners any way, thats just one more box to keep by the computer if you want digital cable or use a satalite.
  • Reply 9 of 28
    cubistcubist Posts: 954member
    Due to my presbyopia I can't really use a big monitor, I have to sit up close (I could buy mid-focus glasses, but that's another issue) so what I'd like is a 17" widescreen monitor just like the one on the iMac. And I expect one will come out... once the stocks of the 4:3 17" monitor are depleted.
  • Reply 10 of 28
    I dont understand why more companies arent releasing widescreen LCD's
  • Reply 11 of 28
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by cubist

    Due to my presbyopia I can't really use a big monitor, I have to sit up close (I could buy mid-focus glasses, but that's another issue) so what I'd like is a 17" widescreen monitor just like the one on the iMac. And I expect one will come out... once the stocks of the 4:3 17" monitor are depleted.



    I never understood why 17 inch didnt go wide when the imac 17" hit, I mean just put the same pannal and light in a regular stand and vwala- 17 inch widescreen.
  • Reply 12 of 28
    pepsipepsi Posts: 55member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Ensoniq

    Where is the 17" wide-screen used on the iMac and PowerBook? That display at $699 would still be overpriced, but at least there would be a sub-$1000 unit to offer. Especially when they are trying to get the Wintel market's attention.





    Isn't it possible that the 15" and 17" widescreens (powerbook) displays will be used with the new iMac?
  • Reply 13 of 28
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,415member
    You know I think it's very possibly that Apple initially wanted to price the 20" less than $1299 but something tells me they decided to charge the same amount at the last minute. I do think this was a mistake because there are panes from HP and that Dell that simply offer specs too similar. Apple has DVI connectors now so they have the opportunity to reach a far larger market. We'll see how the sales go, the new displays are nice but the lowend model could have been priced more competitively IMO.
  • Reply 14 of 28
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Ensoniq

    Two weeks ago you could buy a PowerMac G5 and add a display (the 17" square) for $699. Now you need to pay $1299 for the 20".



    The 17" is not discontinued - just not updated. You can still buy a G5 and a $699 Apple display.
  • Reply 15 of 28
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by discstickers

    especially since Apple raised developer prices with the latest refresh.



    Huh?
  • Reply 16 of 28
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JLL

    Huh?



    the new 20 inch costs more than the older one did to developers. developers generally receive a 20% discount on all hardware. the new 20 inch is slightly lower.



    it could be to reduce demand. i was ready to purchase one using my developer discount when it was released and then i saw that the discount was not as much as it used to be and i held off.
  • Reply 17 of 28
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Ensoniq

    Apple's biggest mistake with the new displays is thinking that a 20" at $1299 is an appropriate "low-end" display.



    Where is the 17" wide-screen used on the iMac and PowerBook? That display at $699 would still be overpriced, but at least there would be a sub-$1000 unit to offer. Especially when they are trying to get the Wintel market's attention.



    Two weeks ago you could buy a PowerMac G5 and add a display (the 17" square) for $699. Now you need to pay $1299 for the 20". So a new PowerMac G5 with matching display effectively costs $600 more now. How exactly is this going to increase overall market share?



    $1299 low-end my arse. Another classic Apple blunder.




    I think it points to a larger plan, because your right, and Apple knows it, but we won't think so when we see the new iMac...



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...ht=zab+the+fab
  • Reply 18 of 28
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Heres for a 17 inch wide screen with metal stand/enclosure for $499!
  • Reply 19 of 28
    Apple displays are for PowerMacs.



    PowerMacs are for professionals.



    Professionals typically use 20" or larger displays.



    If Apple thought they would sell a lot 17" displays, they would surely do so.
  • Reply 20 of 28
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Michael Wilkie

    Apple displays are for PowerMacs.



    PowerMacs are for professionals.



    Professionals typically use 20" or larger displays.



    If Apple thought they would sell a lot 17" displays, they would surely do so.




    and thus we have come full circle, I am not on a "pro" budget but I will not buy an AiO, manny other geeks feel the same when looking at apple desktops, my answer is save extra for a PM (which I am doing) but may others will not.



    </beats dead horse>
Sign In or Register to comment.