I think that this is simply a channel-clearing action by Apple; in preparation for new Cinema displays, which will debut later this year.
Why? No integrated iSight.
Given the existence of the Leopard iChat and iChat Server, Apple would be fools not to include pros in on the party.
Not including isight has to mean these are soon to be discontinued displays, perhaps the less than dramatic price drop has something to do with the built in isight which will come with the new displays, hopefully around Leopard time. The isight camera is no show at the Apple store and if "Pros" want to ichat or video conference the only option besides third party camera is to ship with a built in isight.
What on earth do you need HDMI for, the screen has no speakers and HDMI->DVI conversion is easily done.
Nobody in his right mind wants the awful, tinny built-in "stereo" speakers on some LCD monitors. If you'll be using it for HDTV, it's a given that you'll be spending at least a couple of hundred dollars for a full surround sound system with a subwoofer.
Not even close to enough of a price drop. A widescreen Dell 20" monitor capable of the same resolution is $229. The Apple Cinema Displays are beautiful.... but not more than twice the price worth of beautiful.
Agreed. They are too late anyway. I got a 24" Dell for $600 a couple months ago and am quite happy.
I know it's not exactly worth the additional 300 to some people but also keep in mind these (Apple) displays do come with two built in USB 2.0 ports and two FireWire ports.
Except my 2 year old 20" Dell monitor has 4 USB ports, 4 video inputs (2 computer, 2 video, including component), rotates, and is height adjustable. And it was less then what Apple's charging now.
Apple's monitors are overpriced and feature-poor, esp. for consumers.
However, since the only people who'd be buying them are MacPro owners or, possibly, mac book pro owners, I don't know if they care on that. (I can't imagine anyone spending $600 on a mini and the same amount on a screen for it).
Except my 2 year old 20" Dell monitor has 4 USB ports, 4 video inputs (2 computer, 2 video, including component), rotates, and is height adjustable. And it was less then what Apple's charging now.
Apple's monitors are overpriced and feature-poor, esp. for consumers.
However, since the only people who'd be buying them are MacPro owners or, possibly, mac book pro owners, I don't know if they care on that. (I can't imagine anyone spending $600 on a mini and the same amount on a screen for it).
That was two years ago. That same Dell monitor no longer has the USB ports or the video inputs.
Sure Apple could remove the USB and FireWire ports and shave down the price another hundred or two hundred but Apple like to create a quality product.
Remember, the price difference is not just to help out margins but also for development cost, cost of QA, marketing, etc.
I am not trying to defend Apple by any means but there is more to cost than what meets the eye. With that said, they should shave the price another hundred
Apple's monitors are tired. They simply don't meet the latest specs from other companies products. This is better.
It's a damn good monitor. But, I think that Samsung just now replaced it with a newer, faster LCD, model.
It depends on what you want to display. If it's 3D models, or games, then no. But, if it's movies, as my wife likes to watch, then it's fine, because that what that chip was designed to show.
The 22 is 1680 x 1050.
She really wants the 24" iMac, but I won't get her one until the new ones come out. This is a stopgap, but it's a pretty good looking one.
Thanks, very tempting Samsung 22", color matches with MacBook color as well, i do not play games much. But Samsung has not replaced their 24" likewise the 19", 20", 22" they replaced recently
It isn't just brighter screens. LEDs offer the opportunity of a much wider color gamut. The new "deep color" standard of HDMI 1.3 can only be easily implimented with LED backlighting. The same thing is true for the black problem LCDs have. Selective black level change with LED lacklighting will help that as well. Longer lifetime is also an option, as well as, eventually, thinner screens.
Lifetime is really what I'm interested in. My MBP was purchased 6 months earlier than my dad's and his looks noticeably brighter than mine. Mine looks yellow in comparison to his, and it's only a 6 month difference.
That was two years ago. That same Dell monitor no longer has the USB ports or the video inputs.
Sure Apple could remove the USB and FireWire ports and shave down the price another hundred or two hundred but Apple like to create a quality product.
Remember, the price difference is not just to help out margins but also for development cost, cost of QA, marketing, etc.
I am not trying to defend Apple by any means but there is more to cost than what meets the eye. With that said, they should shave the price another hundred
Well, who would want the same monitor now, anyway. The Dell 2007 goes for $350 and offers all mine did (with the exception of composite vs component). The cheap dells don't have many features, but their more expensive (yet still way cheaper then apple's) have a ton more.
Oh, and Dell has a three year warranty. The best deal you can get out of apple is being able to put one on the applecare you get with your mac.
Arguing about the price difference being a matter of QA (what? using Apple and QA in the same sentence???) and development cost (maybe if they didn't spend all their time trying to make it look spectacular on your desk, and worried more about its capabilities, they could've saved some money) might be valid, but don't talk about marketing costs. Apple never markets its monitors.
It matters to anybody who needs accurate representation of colours.
In any single frame, a Dell 20" E207WFP is physically incapable of displaying more than 6 bits per colour per pixel. A 20" Apple display can reproduce 8 bits per color per pixel. That's 16777216 unique colours, always available in every pixel.
My buddy has the 30" Dell and I have the 30" Apple. In my opinion, mine just looks better, especially from an angle. The Dell was $1,799 when he bought it and it is down to $1,499 now. Which by the way is less than they are selling their 25" (made by NEC). Maybe your info about the 20" is also the issue with the 30".
That was two years ago. That same Dell monitor no longer has the USB ports or the video inputs.
Two years ago? I bought my 2005FPW a year ago for maybe $369 and it has four USB ports, composite, VGA, DVI, and S-Video inputs. That was back when Apple was selling their 20" for $699 (maybe $799). I can't stand Dell products generally, but you can't beat their prices on displays.
And like another poster mentioned, the 3 year warranty is very nice.
My buddy has the 30" Dell and I have the 30" Apple. In my opinion, mine just looks better, especially from an angle. The Dell was $1,799 when he bought it and it is down to $1,499 now. Which by the way is less than they are selling their 25" (made by NEC). Maybe your info about the 20" is also the issue with the 30".
I'll stick with Apple.
m
The new Dell 30" 3007WFP-HC should look better than the 30" ACD. I have the older Dell 30" and the 30" ACD but they aren't side by side.
Apple's monitors are tired. They simply don't meet the latest specs from other companies products. This is better.
Surely that's subjective?
The Samsung 225BW monitor you're singing the praises of has a lower dot pitch (same resolution, but 22" instead of 20") than the Apple and is only a 6bit TN panel as opposed to Apple's higher quality 8bit S-IPS. I also find a lot of the cheaper 22" monitors have glossy screens instead of Apple's anti-glare coating. Unfortunately those kinds of specs often don't get reported.
On the plus side, the cheap TN displays are fast, so if all you're doing is watching video or playing games, they're a good buy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It's a damn good monitor. But, I think that Samsung just now replaced it with a newer, faster LCD, model.
226BW - same panel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It depends on what you want to display. If it's 3D models, or games, then no. But, if it's movies, as my wife likes to watch, then it's fine, because that what that chip was designed to show.
Interesting. You reckon it's not so good for games???
Personally, I prefer the higher dot-pitch on the Apple displays and some of the other manufacturers such as NEC who do a 20" the same resolution as Apple and using an S-IPS panel too so full 8bit. It's about £100 more than the Samsung 226BW but still £170 cheaper than the Apple 20", at least till Apple get around to reducing prices in the UK as they've done in the USA.
I've seen a few monitors also where the colour dithering on the 6bit panels is very obvious but I'm not sure if that was because it was running WindowsXP and the dithering is very obvious on text anyway unless you spend some time tuning it.
My buddy has the 30" Dell and I have the 30" Apple. In my opinion, mine just looks better, especially from an angle. The Dell was $1,799 when he bought it and it is down to $1,499 now. Which by the way is less than they are selling their 25" (made by NEC). Maybe your info about the 20" is also the issue with the 30".
I'll stick with Apple.
m
Some monitors use 6 bit screens because they cost less, and are faster (less smear for games and movies).
The Samsung 225BW monitor you're singing the praises of has a lower dot pitch (same resolution, but 22" instead of 20") than the Apple and is only a 6bit TN panel as opposed to Apple's higher quality 8bit S-IPS. I also find a lot of the cheaper 22" monitors have glossy screens instead of Apple's anti-glare coating. Unfortunately those kinds of specs often don't get reported.
I think you'll probably find that some of segments of buyers prefer lower-than 100 dot pitch, and some of the market wants higher-than-100 dot pitch.
I wish an LCD manufacturer used a good anti-glare & anti-reflective coating, I haven't seen a good one on a display other than some of the higher range CRTs.
I think you'll probably find that some of segments of buyers prefer lower-than 100 dot pitch, and some of the market wants higher-than-100 dot pitch.
I wish an LCD manufacturer used a good anti-glare & anti-reflective coating, I haven't seen a good one on a display other than some of the higher range CRTs.
As I wrote in the bit you chopped off - 'Surely that's subjective'.
Some people are ok with 6bit displays to get fast response times cheaply, and others aren't.
Personally, I've not got a problem with Apple's anti-glare coatings, and I used to spend days staring at a high end Lacie CRT too.
Personally, I've not got a problem with Apple's anti-glare coatings, and I used to spend days staring at a high end Lacie CRT too.
I haven't seen them, but I have an IBM and a Sony display that have coatings with pretty much the same effect as on anti-reflective glasses and optical lenses. The diffuse coating on Apple's display is just that, a diffusion with a rougher surface texture and tends to wash out the image a bit with the presense incident light. The coating Apple uses adds speckles to the image too.
Comments
jobs just can't possibly take up TWO keynotes with nothin' but iPhone.
My 2 cents...
I think that this is simply a channel-clearing action by Apple; in preparation for new Cinema displays, which will debut later this year.
Why? No integrated iSight.
Given the existence of the Leopard iChat and iChat Server, Apple would be fools not to include pros in on the party.
Not including isight has to mean these are soon to be discontinued displays, perhaps the less than dramatic price drop has something to do with the built in isight which will come with the new displays, hopefully around Leopard time. The isight camera is no show at the Apple store and if "Pros" want to ichat or video conference the only option besides third party camera is to ship with a built in isight.
What on earth do you need HDMI for, the screen has no speakers and HDMI->DVI conversion is easily done.
Nobody in his right mind wants the awful, tinny built-in "stereo" speakers on some LCD monitors. If you'll be using it for HDTV, it's a given that you'll be spending at least a couple of hundred dollars for a full surround sound system with a subwoofer.
Not even close to enough of a price drop. A widescreen Dell 20" monitor capable of the same resolution is $229. The Apple Cinema Displays are beautiful.... but not more than twice the price worth of beautiful.
Agreed. They are too late anyway. I got a 24" Dell for $600 a couple months ago and am quite happy.
I know it's not exactly worth the additional 300 to some people but also keep in mind these (Apple) displays do come with two built in USB 2.0 ports and two FireWire ports.
Except my 2 year old 20" Dell monitor has 4 USB ports, 4 video inputs (2 computer, 2 video, including component), rotates, and is height adjustable. And it was less then what Apple's charging now.
Apple's monitors are overpriced and feature-poor, esp. for consumers.
However, since the only people who'd be buying them are MacPro owners or, possibly, mac book pro owners, I don't know if they care on that. (I can't imagine anyone spending $600 on a mini and the same amount on a screen for it).
Except my 2 year old 20" Dell monitor has 4 USB ports, 4 video inputs (2 computer, 2 video, including component), rotates, and is height adjustable. And it was less then what Apple's charging now.
Apple's monitors are overpriced and feature-poor, esp. for consumers.
However, since the only people who'd be buying them are MacPro owners or, possibly, mac book pro owners, I don't know if they care on that. (I can't imagine anyone spending $600 on a mini and the same amount on a screen for it).
That was two years ago. That same Dell monitor no longer has the USB ports or the video inputs.
Sure Apple could remove the USB and FireWire ports and shave down the price another hundred or two hundred but Apple like to create a quality product.
Remember, the price difference is not just to help out margins but also for development cost, cost of QA, marketing, etc.
I am not trying to defend Apple by any means but there is more to cost than what meets the eye. With that said, they should shave the price another hundred
Apple's monitors are tired. They simply don't meet the latest specs from other companies products. This is better.
It's a damn good monitor. But, I think that Samsung just now replaced it with a newer, faster LCD, model.
It depends on what you want to display. If it's 3D models, or games, then no. But, if it's movies, as my wife likes to watch, then it's fine, because that what that chip was designed to show.
The 22 is 1680 x 1050.
She really wants the 24" iMac, but I won't get her one until the new ones come out. This is a stopgap, but it's a pretty good looking one.
Thanks, very tempting Samsung 22", color matches with MacBook color as well, i do not play games much. But Samsung has not replaced their 24" likewise the 19", 20", 22" they replaced recently
It isn't just brighter screens. LEDs offer the opportunity of a much wider color gamut. The new "deep color" standard of HDMI 1.3 can only be easily implimented with LED backlighting. The same thing is true for the black problem LCDs have. Selective black level change with LED lacklighting will help that as well. Longer lifetime is also an option, as well as, eventually, thinner screens.
Lifetime is really what I'm interested in. My MBP was purchased 6 months earlier than my dad's and his looks noticeably brighter than mine. Mine looks yellow in comparison to his, and it's only a 6 month difference.
That was two years ago. That same Dell monitor no longer has the USB ports or the video inputs.
Sure Apple could remove the USB and FireWire ports and shave down the price another hundred or two hundred but Apple like to create a quality product.
Remember, the price difference is not just to help out margins but also for development cost, cost of QA, marketing, etc.
I am not trying to defend Apple by any means but there is more to cost than what meets the eye. With that said, they should shave the price another hundred
Well, who would want the same monitor now, anyway. The Dell 2007 goes for $350 and offers all mine did (with the exception of composite vs component). The cheap dells don't have many features, but their more expensive (yet still way cheaper then apple's) have a ton more.
Oh, and Dell has a three year warranty. The best deal you can get out of apple is being able to put one on the applecare you get with your mac.
Arguing about the price difference being a matter of QA (what? using Apple and QA in the same sentence???) and development cost (maybe if they didn't spend all their time trying to make it look spectacular on your desk, and worried more about its capabilities, they could've saved some money) might be valid, but don't talk about marketing costs. Apple never markets its monitors.
It matters to anybody who needs accurate representation of colours.
In any single frame, a Dell 20" E207WFP is physically incapable of displaying more than 6 bits per colour per pixel. A 20" Apple display can reproduce 8 bits per color per pixel. That's 16777216 unique colours, always available in every pixel.
My buddy has the 30" Dell and I have the 30" Apple. In my opinion, mine just looks better, especially from an angle. The Dell was $1,799 when he bought it and it is down to $1,499 now. Which by the way is less than they are selling their 25" (made by NEC). Maybe your info about the 20" is also the issue with the 30".
I'll stick with Apple.
m
That was two years ago. That same Dell monitor no longer has the USB ports or the video inputs.
Two years ago? I bought my 2005FPW a year ago for maybe $369 and it has four USB ports, composite, VGA, DVI, and S-Video inputs. That was back when Apple was selling their 20" for $699 (maybe $799). I can't stand Dell products generally, but you can't beat their prices on displays.
And like another poster mentioned, the 3 year warranty is very nice.
My buddy has the 30" Dell and I have the 30" Apple. In my opinion, mine just looks better, especially from an angle. The Dell was $1,799 when he bought it and it is down to $1,499 now. Which by the way is less than they are selling their 25" (made by NEC). Maybe your info about the 20" is also the issue with the 30".
I'll stick with Apple.
m
The new Dell 30" 3007WFP-HC should look better than the 30" ACD. I have the older Dell 30" and the 30" ACD but they aren't side by side.
Vinea
Apple's monitors are tired. They simply don't meet the latest specs from other companies products. This is better.
Surely that's subjective?
The Samsung 225BW monitor you're singing the praises of has a lower dot pitch (same resolution, but 22" instead of 20") than the Apple and is only a 6bit TN panel as opposed to Apple's higher quality 8bit S-IPS. I also find a lot of the cheaper 22" monitors have glossy screens instead of Apple's anti-glare coating. Unfortunately those kinds of specs often don't get reported.
On the plus side, the cheap TN displays are fast, so if all you're doing is watching video or playing games, they're a good buy.
It's a damn good monitor. But, I think that Samsung just now replaced it with a newer, faster LCD, model.
226BW - same panel.
It depends on what you want to display. If it's 3D models, or games, then no. But, if it's movies, as my wife likes to watch, then it's fine, because that what that chip was designed to show.
Interesting. You reckon it's not so good for games???
Personally, I prefer the higher dot-pitch on the Apple displays and some of the other manufacturers such as NEC who do a 20" the same resolution as Apple and using an S-IPS panel too so full 8bit. It's about £100 more than the Samsung 226BW but still £170 cheaper than the Apple 20", at least till Apple get around to reducing prices in the UK as they've done in the USA.
I've seen a few monitors also where the colour dithering on the 6bit panels is very obvious but I'm not sure if that was because it was running WindowsXP and the dithering is very obvious on text anyway unless you spend some time tuning it.
My buddy has the 30" Dell and I have the 30" Apple. In my opinion, mine just looks better, especially from an angle. The Dell was $1,799 when he bought it and it is down to $1,499 now. Which by the way is less than they are selling their 25" (made by NEC). Maybe your info about the 20" is also the issue with the 30".
I'll stick with Apple.
m
Some monitors use 6 bit screens because they cost less, and are faster (less smear for games and movies).
But, most monitors have gone to 8 bit screens.
The Samsung 225BW monitor you're singing the praises of has a lower dot pitch (same resolution, but 22" instead of 20") than the Apple and is only a 6bit TN panel as opposed to Apple's higher quality 8bit S-IPS. I also find a lot of the cheaper 22" monitors have glossy screens instead of Apple's anti-glare coating. Unfortunately those kinds of specs often don't get reported.
I think you'll probably find that some of segments of buyers prefer lower-than 100 dot pitch, and some of the market wants higher-than-100 dot pitch.
I wish an LCD manufacturer used a good anti-glare & anti-reflective coating, I haven't seen a good one on a display other than some of the higher range CRTs.
I think you'll probably find that some of segments of buyers prefer lower-than 100 dot pitch, and some of the market wants higher-than-100 dot pitch.
I wish an LCD manufacturer used a good anti-glare & anti-reflective coating, I haven't seen a good one on a display other than some of the higher range CRTs.
As I wrote in the bit you chopped off - 'Surely that's subjective'.
Some people are ok with 6bit displays to get fast response times cheaply, and others aren't.
Personally, I've not got a problem with Apple's anti-glare coatings, and I used to spend days staring at a high end Lacie CRT too.
Personally, I've not got a problem with Apple's anti-glare coatings, and I used to spend days staring at a high end Lacie CRT too.
I haven't seen them, but I have an IBM and a Sony display that have coatings with pretty much the same effect as on anti-reflective glasses and optical lenses. The diffuse coating on Apple's display is just that, a diffusion with a rougher surface texture and tends to wash out the image a bit with the presense incident light. The coating Apple uses adds speckles to the image too.
they still use like 14ms ones when the faster panels are now like 4-6ms?
it really makes a difference with motion. i cant stand watching movies on the current apple screens. way too much motion artifact.
does anyone know why apple still uses panels that are so slow?
they still use like 14ms ones when the faster panels are now like 4-6ms?
it really makes a difference with motion. i cant stand watching movies on the current apple screens. way too much motion artifact.
I know some of the tricks to speed up a display is to reduce its color quality a little by dithering, and Apple doesn't seem to dither.