I doubt there will be a 20" capable of 1920x1200 for the Mac - the dot pitch would be extremely small and push the price up too close to the cost of the 24" at the same resolution and a cheaper dot pitch.
As for people who carry around their desktops, I'm sure there are people who do, but its hardly a market that Apple will consider as they make portable computers *designed* for that purpose.
If Apple reduces the type of panels they buy at a high enough volume, perhaps they can lower the prices wholesale, more bang for the buck and continue to *smash the myth* that Apple products are not expensive (to murder a phrase used by Mr Shiller)
There are people here who think that anything less than 300 ppi is too little. for them, 1920 x 1200 for a 20" is just barely getting started.
I think that I see that demand every damned day. You forget that I sell these things for a living. Granted, a lot of people forego the 17" in favor of the 20". But there are also a significant number of people who say that they don't need that much screen space. With all the hack Apple has been getting recently, the LAST thing they need to do is REMOVE choices. The minute they do, everyone will complain that you can't get into the iMac without paying for a 20" display.
I think that I see that demand every damned day. You forget that I sell these things for a living. Granted, a lot of people forego the 17" in favor of the 20". But there are also a significant number of people who say that they don't need that much screen space. With all the hack Apple has been getting recently, the LAST thing they need to do is REMOVE choices. The minute they do, everyone will complain that you can't get into the iMac without paying for a 20" display.
I think that the relevant question then becomes: "If a 20" iMac were priced the same as a 17", all things being equal, how many customers would prefer the 17" model purely because it is smaller (not because it costs less).
Like you, I have sold these things as well. I worked Apple Retail, and in my opinion, most people that "didn't need all of that computer" speaking of the 20", were talking about the price they would have to pay, and not the screen size. At that time, the 20" model was $199 and the 17" models were $1299 and $1499. Only once can I remember someone citing the reason for the getting the 17" iMac actually being purely for size; the computer hutch they had wouldn't fit anything bigger!
So, I think this point is debatable, but I think that although we live in a society where sometimes "less is more" I don't feel that that is the case with screen size or iMacs.
I think that the 20" iMac at the 17" price point would sell just fine. . . .
Comments
I doubt there will be a 20" capable of 1920x1200 for the Mac - the dot pitch would be extremely small and push the price up too close to the cost of the 24" at the same resolution and a cheaper dot pitch.
As for people who carry around their desktops, I'm sure there are people who do, but its hardly a market that Apple will consider as they make portable computers *designed* for that purpose.
If Apple reduces the type of panels they buy at a high enough volume, perhaps they can lower the prices wholesale, more bang for the buck and continue to *smash the myth* that Apple products are not expensive (to murder a phrase used by Mr Shiller)
There are people here who think that anything less than 300 ppi is too little. for them, 1920 x 1200 for a 20" is just barely getting started.
What do you think about this idea ?
....could this be similiar to the new Imac Model ?
http://www.hardware.info/en-US/artic...07WFP__Review/
I like the thought that the screen could rotate, a la iPhone! That would be fun
I think you overestimate the market for 17".
I think that I see that demand every damned day. You forget that I sell these things for a living. Granted, a lot of people forego the 17" in favor of the 20". But there are also a significant number of people who say that they don't need that much screen space. With all the hack Apple has been getting recently, the LAST thing they need to do is REMOVE choices. The minute they do, everyone will complain that you can't get into the iMac without paying for a 20" display.
There are people here who think that anything less than 300 ppi is too little. for them, 1920 x 1200 for a 20" is just barely getting started.
There are always minority exceptions.
I think that I see that demand every damned day. You forget that I sell these things for a living. Granted, a lot of people forego the 17" in favor of the 20". But there are also a significant number of people who say that they don't need that much screen space. With all the hack Apple has been getting recently, the LAST thing they need to do is REMOVE choices. The minute they do, everyone will complain that you can't get into the iMac without paying for a 20" display.
I think that the relevant question then becomes: "If a 20" iMac were priced the same as a 17", all things being equal, how many customers would prefer the 17" model purely because it is smaller (not because it costs less).
Like you, I have sold these things as well. I worked Apple Retail, and in my opinion, most people that "didn't need all of that computer" speaking of the 20", were talking about the price they would have to pay, and not the screen size. At that time, the 20" model was $199 and the 17" models were $1299 and $1499. Only once can I remember someone citing the reason for the getting the 17" iMac actually being purely for size; the computer hutch they had wouldn't fit anything bigger!
So, I think this point is debatable, but I think that although we live in a society where sometimes "less is more" I don't feel that that is the case with screen size or iMacs.
I think that the 20" iMac at the 17" price point would sell just fine. . . .