23" iMac, when?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
With large LCD prices falling fast, is it only a matter of time?



Look at Dell and others for a true indication of the component costs involved in large panels. Apple, often a price leader at introduction of a large panel, has again fallen well behind the Market. 20-24" panels of similar (and better) quality are substantially cheaper than those offered by Apple at the moment. Although, I know of no one offering a comparable 30" just yet...



Given not only that Apple still likes to force consumers to buy display and CPU as one, and that even though they offer a headless desktop, they offer no affordable display, but also that their AIO offerings have traditionally offered a comparative deal in relation to their own line-up of standalone CPU's and displays, could the next slight of hand, beacon of boutique computing, be an all new, fabulously HD ready, iMac 23", or perhaps badged, iMac HD ?



iMac HD (23") 1999 -- $999 retail worth of display at anywhere but Apple plus about 999 retail worth of computer... hmmm...
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    pbpb Posts: 4,234member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu

    With large LCD prices falling fast, is it only a matter of time?





    I guess so. At least that's what I get from history with the G4 models. Furthermore, the new design removed any technical issues with proper weight balance. I believe the final goal for Apple of the new cinema-display-like-design of the G5 iMac, is to come one day with a bigger model. A 23" in particular. But something tells me this would not happen before 2006.
  • Reply 2 of 32
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Tell you why I think sooner than later.



    The 17" models all cost way too much. Unless Apple is stupid, they know this. For 1299, you don't even get a superdrive, and standard RAM and HDD are pathetic.



    If they adjust the prices to more appropriate 2005 levels, then they have a reasonably good chance of selling a lot of iMacs to people who've come in looking for Minis.



    This however leaves a gap. The goal is to have everyone come in and buy the next model up from what they'd originally planned. Ignore the eMac, it isn't the machine for people interested in a Mini.



    So, people wander in for a mini, and leave with an iMac 17 (for 999) but to entice the iMac 17" buyer, you need to drop the 20" slightly. And the potential 20" buyer needs some incentive to consider spending more again, what better hook than an HD ready iMac?



    something like this



    Mini 499 - 599



    iMac 17 combo 999

    iMac 17 super 1199

    iMac 20 super 1599

    iMac 23 super 1999



    Component costs allow at least that much, though since we are talking about Apple, I've been generous...



    I don't think Apple wants any consumer (or prosumer) to even consider a Powermac. A BIG screen (and attendant surface area) iMac allows some interesting opportunities too: room for a second internal HDD, a TV tuner, some of the Pro spec I/O -- FW800 and s/pdif, yadda yadda... profession applications too, video and 2-d in mobile studios, on-location trucks etc etc...



    As much as I dislike attaching a lot of expensive display (even with falling prices) to a computer, Apple is proving the reliability of their displays -- I would consider the biggest screen iMac
  • Reply 3 of 32
    pbpb Posts: 4,234member
    I don't know. All you say certainly make perfectly sense. Furthermore, if the past can serve as indication, after the January 2002 introduction of the G4 15" iMac Flat-Panel, Apple introduced in July 2002 the 17" model. I am not sure though if this analogy holds now. And I don't forget this is Apple we talk about \ .
  • Reply 4 of 32
    qchemqchem Posts: 73member
    It would take some redoing to get a HD iMac at 23", the HD resolution(s) doesn't match the native resolution (or any of the other resolutions available to me) of a 23" flat-panel.



    If you're already changing resolutions on iMacs/OS X then why not make the 17" iMac support the lower of the two HD resolutions - I suppose you could even see this in the supposed April rev of iMacs.
  • Reply 5 of 32
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    First, not all panels are created equal. Any vendor ordering panels will spec out exactly what tolerances they will be made to, which will affect the price. Higher tolerances mean higher prices, and the prices go up supralinearly. This is true of almost all manufactured parts, from guitar strings to plumbing fixtures.



    And that's just the panel. Then there's the quality of the backlight, the quality of the cooling (which will affect the lifetime of the display), and the nature and quality of the electronics, which, if poor, can introduce noise even in a nominally digital system.



    So the fact that Dell is severely undercutting Apple means nothing in and of itself. We'd need to know exactly what they're ordering, and exactly what Apple is ordering, to know conclusively, and somehow I don't think either vendor will be forthcoming. The model number is not enough. Consider that the 20" iMac uses the same panel as the 20" Cinema Display, but it's not as good as the Cinema Display.



    Since Apple now has the cash to play in the lower end of the market, and since the iMac is obviously built for low cost (among other things), I think we'll see lower prices before we see bigger iMacs.



    Which is not to say that I wouldn't like to see the 30" iMac HD, saying Boo-yaa to the PC world. But I'm not holding my breath.
  • Reply 6 of 32
    ibook911ibook911 Posts: 607member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Consider that the 20" iMac uses the same panel as the 20" Cinema Display, but it's not as good as the Cinema Display.





    Really? I've wondered about this myself. What differences can you notice? Thanks for the help.
  • Reply 7 of 32
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Amorph, I don't disagree with your post, however, having used DELL's panels, I can say that they're very good, and I have not noticed any quality issues, nor read any wide spread reports of such. If anything, most DELL LCD users, many of them mac users, are delighted with the displays. Thus, I really don't care where they get their components so long as they work well. You cannot compare panels using a spec sheet, you have to use your eyes. Dell's panels are very good.



    That said, to ape some of your comment, if Apple is already using different iMac panels than ACD panels, they too will have access to the the substantially more affordable glass used in competitors' displays. They may not want that for the ACD, but for the iMac, why not?



    I think a 23" iMac will be sufficient to flip the bird to the PC world!



    Qchem



    HDTV runs at 1920x1080 (16:9)



    Computer displays have standardized around a slightly taller 16:10 ratio.



    14", 15.4" 17", 20", 22", 23", 24" and 30" computer displays are available at exactly that ratio (16:10) Therefore, the current 23 ACD-HD can display the full HDTV screen with a very slight (120 vertical pixel) band left over for things like menubars. Recall that the first 23" ACD was billed by Apple as the HD Cinema Display!
  • Reply 8 of 32
    23" is a lot of display for a computer that will become obsolete in a few years. This has always been my problem with the iMac; the life-spans of a display and a computer are often vastly different, and so an AIO sacrifices the continued use of one component when the other breaks or gets too slow to work on.



    I'd rather see a few additions to Apple's display lineup, along with the addiction of a G5 mini with the iMac internals (+better video chipset). The AIO is still nice for cheap display/computer combos, but if I'm going to invest in 23" LCD, I want to be able to use it with any computer I may own in the future.



    Of course the problem for Apple is if they sold a G5 mini, nobody would buy the iMac, or even Apple LCDs. They'd take the mini and then go buy a Sony LCD or a cheap brand, depriving Apple of vital revenue. So I can understand Apple's conundrum regarding the AIO design.
  • Reply 9 of 32
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    ibook911: I'm relying on reports from more sensitive eyes than mine. I should have made that clear.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu

    Amorph, I don't disagree with your post, however, having used DELL's panels, I can say that they're very good, and I have not noticed any quality issues, nor read any wide spread reports of such. If anything, most DELL LCD users, many of them mac users, are delighted with the displays. Thus, I really don't care where they get their components so long as they work well. You cannot compare panels using a spec sheet, you have to use your eyes. Dell's panels are very good.



    As I said myself: The 17" Dell I work with looks just fine.



    I'm not saying that Dell's monitors are junk, I'm just saying that maybe they're an 80% or 90% solution. Not quite as good as Apple's stuff, but good enough for general use.



    When I see a review of a Dell panel that drools over it the way the reviewers drool over Cinema Displays, I'll concede that they're just as good for less money. For now, I think they're probably almost as good for less money. Which is fine. Not everyone needs a calibrated, color-accurate display, so if they don't have to pay for one, all the better.



    Quote:

    That said, to ape some of your comment, if Apple is already using different iMac panels than ACD panels, they too will have access to the the substantially more affordable glass used in competitors' displays. They may not want that for the ACD, but for the iMac, why not?



    That was my point, yes.
  • Reply 10 of 32
    gargar Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu

    That said, to ape some of your comment, if Apple is already using different iMac panels than ACD panels, they too will have access to the the substantially more affordable glass used in competitors' displays. They may not want that for the ACD, but for the iMac, why not?



    I don't know if that's true. Last week we had some people over for dinner and one of them just bought himself a Dell dual Xeon with a 20" tft.

    After he saw the screen quality of my 20"iMacG5, he was more than a little disappointed with the quality of his 20" Dell display.
  • Reply 11 of 32
    I think it's more of a placebo effect that makes people think Apple's LCD Panels (and other Apple internal hardware) are inherently better than others is due to the shell that they come in and the Apple brand (think of Sony and how their average products are usually highly regarded due to marketing and branding - just because it's a Sony). I am sure some are, just like some are better than Apple's.



    Apple and Dell (for example) order the same LCD Panels from the same ODMs (like Samsung, etc.) As long as each meet the require spec that they are selling (brightness, contrast, viewing angles, etc.) they can use any panel ODM (and often do so at random - which is why your neighbors LCD panel may look better than yours even though it's the same model).



    Are there crappy LCD makers out there? Yes, but Dell doesn't use them for their UltraSharp line neither does Apple for their ACDs. However, quality will vary from one reputable ODM to the next, so your mileage may very.



    The bottom line is, Apple has fat profit margins and chooses to charge way more than the competition. While they do need to charge more than say Dell because they don't have that kind of volume sales and they put more R&D and quality into their bezel designs, their prices are still unjustly inflated.



    Look at Dells new 24" Widescreen LCD for an amazing price of $1199 (though you can get it for much less with their on-going coupons). Love or hate the bezel (made by BenQ) the LCD Panel they use for this model is a Samsung and it is drop dead gorgeous (saw it in person). Extremely bright, deep rich colors, and great viewing angles and HUGE!. It also has built in unobtrusive USB 2.0 ports (very convenient) and an 8-in-1 high-speed memory card reader (more convenient).



    How much is Apple's 23" Display? $1799 - and it's not $600 more than the Dell's because it has a better LCD panel inside, it's because it's over-priced to meet Apple profit margins (since we know the aluminum bezel itself doesn't cost $600 alone!). The price for Apple's 23" LCD should be in the $1499 area at the most.



    As far as the other Dell LCD models, the 20.1" panel is made by Philips (bezel by BenQ), and the 19" panel is Samsung or Hitachi (all this taken from years of reading Dell forums with those who use KoppiX boot CDs to get panel info).



    The bottom line is, Apple's Cinema Displays are drop dead gorgeous in terms of design and they will continue to sell them at their inflated priced because of it (unless they start to feel the heat from the competition). This doesn't however mean that their prices are justified. Charge a premium yes, just not that much.
  • Reply 12 of 32
    Doh! Got so caught up in LCD Panels that I forgot to add that I've been hoping for a 23" iMac G5 since the G5 iMac was introduced, so I would grab one in a second! It could be like a 'Pro' model with a nice 128MB+ GPU and hopefully 4 RAM slots.
  • Reply 13 of 32
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Patchouli

    Doh! Got so caught up in LCD Panels that I forgot to add that I've been hoping for a 23" iMac G5 since the G5 iMac was introduced, so I would grab one in a second! It could be like a 'Pro' model with a nice 128MB+ GPU and hopefully 4 RAM slots.







    Re: Panels, you've conflated two things: First, I don't doubt that Apple's panels actually are better than most. Nor do I doubt that there are as good or better. There are plenty of reviews from people, and from sites, that have no reason to put on rainbow-colored glasses when considering Apple's offerings, and they've generally reported excellent quality from Apple. (There have been a few noteworthy and well-publicized exceptions, of course.) Given the available evidence, I'm willing to believe that Apple does pay more for the parts used in their displays than most vendors do.



    As you point out, they charge a pretty fat premium on top of that, too. Higher parts cost and higher profit margins are not mutually exclusive. In fact, if you look at most "luxury" models, they're often true simultaneously.



    Anyway, that said, I'd love to see 23" and 30" iMacs as well.
  • Reply 14 of 32
    kedakeda Posts: 722member
    The iMac was released last August, so I'd guess that a 23" might be released aorund then. This would set Apple up for good holiday sales. I'd expect any summer releases to bump the internal specs on existing iMacs.
  • Reply 15 of 32
    gugygugy Posts: 794member
    I like the idea of a 23" Imac. But what I would really like to see on the Imac is support for an external display. Right now, they do just video mirroring. We should be able to have an additional screen hook up to the Imac to be able to have dual monitor support.

    My guess is Apple will not do that because they will be afraid this will cannibalize lower end Powermac sales. too bad!
  • Reply 16 of 32
    banchobancho Posts: 1,517member
    Rather than an external display (like spanning) option, I'd rather see an input to the display so I could use another machine with the iMac's display. That would also help futureproof it a bit. This would also make me feel more comfortable with buying the larger more expensive version with the larger display.
  • Reply 17 of 32
    gugygugy Posts: 794member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bancho

    Rather than an external display (like spanning) option, I'd rather see an input to the display so I could use another machine with the iMac's display. That would also help futureproof it a bit. This would also make me feel more comfortable with buying the larger more expensive version with the larger display.



    interesting idea. I think the problem is that Apple will always keep from going an extra step to offer dual monitor support and monitor connection to an external computer. It would be great for us consumers, but it would prevent Apple from selling new machines and cannibalizing the lower end Powermacs.

    Unfortunately, I don't see them doing that. even thought it would be a great additions to a nice machine.
  • Reply 18 of 32
    qchemqchem Posts: 73member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu



    Qchem



    HDTV runs at 1920x1080 (16:9)



    Computer displays have standardized around a slightly taller 16:10 ratio.



    14", 15.4" 17", 20", 22", 23", 24" and 30" computer displays are available at exactly that ratio (16:10) Therefore, the current 23 ACD-HD can display the full HDTV screen with a very slight (120 vertical pixel) band left over for things like menubars. Recall that the first 23" ACD was billed by Apple as the HD Cinema Display!




    HDTV also has the lower spec of 1280 x 720 (also 16:9), what I was trying to get at was that the 17" iMac is capable of resolutions greater than this. I guess it could also have a band down the side and still be considered a HD iMac??



    I wasn't aware that the cinema displays would be ok leaving a stripe for menubars (though it does seem obvious now you've mentioned it), thanks for filling me in.
  • Reply 19 of 32
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bancho

    Rather than an external display (like spanning) option, I'd rather see an input to the display so I could use another machine with the iMac's display. That would also help futureproof it a bit. This would also make me feel more comfortable with buying the larger more expensive version with the larger display.



    Yea, I would have bought an iMac long ago if it meant I could plug a PC deskop into it and have only on monitor on my desk.
  • Reply 20 of 32
    pbpb Posts: 4,234member
    Heh, after the IBM bomb with the 970MP, what about a 23" dual-core iMac ?
Sign In or Register to comment.