17" monitor for the Mac mini?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Wouldn't it be a good idea for Apple to come up with a 17" (or even 15") monitor to complement the Mac mini? It makes no sense to spend some $499 on the puter and then some $999 on a monitor! I know I know, there are 3rd party options for people and some buyers already have a monitor. But I still think it would make sense!

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    I concur.
  • Reply 2 of 15
    Apple should make a cheaper version of their displays. It would help Apple sales of the Mac Mini a whole lot.
  • Reply 3 of 15
    mikefmikef Posts: 697member
    I would love to see either the 15" widescreen from the Powerbook or the 17" widescreen from the iMac G5/G4 as standalone models.
  • Reply 4 of 15
    ompusompus Posts: 163member
    You can buy 19" LCD displays for under $400. Given that, I'm sure Apple can sell a 19" LCD to "Apple" standards for $549. It would cost nothing to develop since LCD displays are all built around the same basic components.



    Even if I purchased a g5, I wouldn't plop down $999 for the 20 inch Cinema Display. Beyond price, I doubt I could fit an 18.5 inch wide display onto my desk.
  • Reply 5 of 15
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Um, a $549 19" display next to a $999 20" display?



    Were you beaten up by 20" cinema displays in your youth?



    I worried about this too, but it looks like Apple has to solve the more immediate problem of satisfying existing demand before they worry about stimulating even more demand.



    Not a bad situation to be in, really.
  • Reply 6 of 15
    cubistcubist Posts: 954member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Ompus

    You can buy 19" LCD displays for under $400. ...



    Surprisingly enough, this is true. They're only 1280x1024 resolution, so they're not in the same market as Apple's 20". Still, it's a good deal and I may buy one. Thanks!
  • Reply 7 of 15
    @amorph: not a bad situation?



    i think it's quite a bad situation.



    you know, apple have had lots of bad times in their past.



    now, they'd be able to grow and be a (more) serious competitor to microsoft.

    i think apple does ignor that oppurtuity.



    in a long term, apple needs to gain market share in their core business if they really want to survive.



    it's sad to see such a inovative company. innovative, but not growing? innovation is only the beginning... see iPod!



    another problem is: the average custumer is not as patient (long delivery time) as you guys are. ;-)



    it's a hard fact. but i (still) hope, apple's marketing & strategy will also concentrate on other issues than communication & innovation.
  • Reply 8 of 15
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Um, a $549 19" display next to a $999 20" display?



    Were you beaten up by 20" cinema displays in your youth?




    Um, so what? If the buyer doesn't understand what widescreen and better resolution do, he's probably better off not paying for them.

    Quote:

    I worried about this too, but it looks like Apple has to solve the more immediate problem of satisfying existing demand before they worry about stimulating even more demand.



    Not a bad situation to be in, really.




    It means there's money being offered and Apple is not taking it. Not a bad situation by any means but could be better.
  • Reply 9 of 15
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dschango

    @amorph: not a bad situation?



    i think it's quite a bad situation.




    Not as far as things go. Much better to not have enough than to have too much, which was the source of most of the "bad times in the past" that nearly killed them. It's certainly a familiar problem for Apple more recently, and it hasn't hurt them yet. On the other hand, inventory gluts have hurt them, terribly.



    Quote:

    now, they'd be able to grow and be a (more) serious competitor to microsoft.

    i think apple does ignor that oppurtuity.




    By releasing what is apparently (according to the product manager for the Mac mini) the best selling Mac in the company's history?



    Why offer a monitor for a machine you don't have in stock to sell? You can't take peoples' money if you have nothing to offer them in return. As you point out, most consumers aren't patient. When Apple catches up to demand, they can start fiddling with ways to increase demand again. Right now—and I realize this is hard for people to grasp—it's not in their interest to do much of anything besides what they've done. The ideal situation is that you have brisk demand that you are able to meet promptly—preferably, immediately.



    I agree that, down the road, Apple will want to visit this issue. But it can be solved by stocking third party displays and letting someone else eat the razor-thin margin.



    Gon: As far as the 19" vs. 20" display goes, yes, consumers go by absolute size, and Apple has to account for that. But since you didn't specify resolution, response time, dimensions, etc., it sounded like you were expecting some people to spend another $400 on the same area, arranged differently (a widescreen 20" has less area than a standard 20").
  • Reply 10 of 15
    Ironically if you stack a 20 inch Cinema Display on top of a Mac Mini you essentially get a 20 inch G4 iMac without the sexy dome for $1,500. Not only is it cheaper but the display is of a higher quality.
  • Reply 11 of 15
    @amorph

    Why offer a monitor for a machine you don't have in stock to sell?



    I agree with that point.

    Apple is a quality provider. Still with the mac mini. But if they offer a cheap lcd, apple would not have a chance to win against dell, acer and all.
  • Reply 12 of 15
    chipzchipz Posts: 100member
    If ChevalierMalFet is correct, why did Apple discontinue the G4 iMac? They could have just lowered the price. I do see why the mac mini is a separate unit, however. The primary target appears to be those wishing to change to the mac with the least expense. Since they would probably have the KB, Mouse and monitor already, the mac mini is the way to go.
  • Reply 13 of 15
    celcocelco Posts: 211member
    Were you beaten up by 20" cinema displays in your youth?





    ( I laughed, I cried, I amorphed... )



    The 20 inch display too expensive? Please. In sunny Australia the new 20inch apple display retails for $1599.00 Thou protest too much... BTW got my 20 inch display today !!!! There is a massive quality difference which I guess allows apple to rationalise the cost of their displays. At least thats what I am tell myself as I look at my credit card....\
  • Reply 14 of 15
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Gon: As far as the 19" vs. 20" display goes, yes, consumers go by absolute size, and Apple has to account for that. But since you didn't specify resolution, response time, dimensions, etc., it sounded like you were expecting some people to spend another $400 on the same area, arranged differently (a widescreen 20" has less area than a standard 20").



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gon

    If the buyer doesn't understand what widescreen and better resolution do, he's probably better off not paying for them.



    Did you mix my post with someone else's? My post clearly implies different resolution (1280x1024, like they all come) and dimensions (19", 4:3, non widescreen). That was the only post I made in this thread. My point was, 19" flat panel doesn't really overlap with a 20" widescreen flat panel much more than 17":s do. In the 19", you're getting enlarged 17" technology anyway.



    Response times are good in all Apple displays and that's a place I would definitely not skimp on if I were in Apple's shoes. Apple has been good at maintaining the illusion their displays are something else than the same ol' panels wrapped in different casing. If they put out a slow panel, even in the low end, people would pay more attention to what they're buying and they might end up with something other than Apple. Especially the 23" ACD is in a very hard spot. So far the 20" ACD:s competition with same panel is weak (just Dell and their quality-challenged widescreen. I wonder why there aren't any Viewsonic, etc. counterparts) and there is no direct competition for the 30" ACD.
  • Reply 15 of 15
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Celco

    The 20 inch display too expensive? Please. In sunny Australia the new 20inch apple display retails for $1599.00 Thou protest too much... BTW got my 20 inch display today !!!! There is a massive quality difference which I guess allows apple to rationalise the cost of their displays. At least thats what I am tell myself as I look at my credit card....\



    Hm... in Finland it's 1050e. Surprisingly competetive, since Dell 2005fpw costs as much as 840e here, with its known QC problems. Cheapest non-widescreen 20", Dell 2001fp, is 785e with others pretty close to that. That I think is better value than the 20" ACD but not much. In the end things depend a lot on what connectors you need. Everyone else has at least DVI and VGA, many have SVHS and composite, HP even has component in the 23", Apple has just DVI in every screen. In the US market with significantly cheaper Dells, IMO the $999 price of the ACD is pretty weak. If there was a Viewsonic/Benq/whatever with the same panel and decent QC it could beat both the Dell and the Apple.
Sign In or Register to comment.