Apple may have new Cinema Displays ready for Macworld

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 94
    bregaladbregalad Posts: 816member
    More pixels = more money

    30" display is 2560X1600. Your 42" TV is only 1920x1080.



    Plus the aforementioned difference in production volume. There are a lot more buyers for large TVs than for large screens that can only be used as computer monitors.
  • Reply 22 of 94
    Hehe... I have a feeling people are going to be disappointed by this announcement.



    What are we supposedly expecting now?



    - New Macbook

    - New Macbook Pro

    - Tablet?

    - New Screens

    - New Pro to match screens!

    - Mini is overdue!

    - All new iPods



    Are we expecting Apple v. 3.0 or something here?
  • Reply 23 of 94
    spindriftspindrift Posts: 674member
    Yawn... here we go again!
  • Reply 24 of 94
    blah64blah64 Posts: 922member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alolkoy View Post


    If I remember correctly, the original 30" display was closer to 4000, then 3299.



    Trivial to look it up....

    It was indeed $3299



    http://everymac.com/monitors/apple/s...isplay_30.html
  • Reply 25 of 94
    blah64blah64 Posts: 922member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post


    ..... Even the glossy/matte argument is not really anything worth getting excited about.



    I agree 100%, uh, except that the matte screens are quite nice and the glossy ones are practically unusable except in ideal conditions, i.e. no direct light coming from behind. Can't understand how people find all the reflections on their MacBook screens acceptable. At least with a desktop you can attempt to arrange a physical arrangement where it's not that bad. MacBooks are designed to be mobile - with often lousy lighting conditions. Okay, maybe that 100% was actually 10%
  • Reply 26 of 94
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Could be that all monitors will double as HDTVs with a built in digital tuners... leading to the inevitable re-branding of AppleTV. That would certainly make a whole new display line more compelling.



    That unfortunately makes way too much sense for Apple to ever do it.
  • Reply 27 of 94
    cwebcweb Posts: 5member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by benny-boy View Post


    I'm not quite sure what that is, but if they could mount TWO isights, one each on the top and bottom of the display, and triangulate/average/reconcile the images so that the user's eyes look like they're looking into "the camera" instead of off-camera, that would make a major difference in the emotional impact of video conferencing and would be a very apple thing to do.



    I think this is feasible.



    You can read the patent app. via the link below. Your suggested implementation would be a very Microsoft thing to do. As you'd expect, Apple's implementation is much more elegant.



    http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...DN/20060007222
  • Reply 28 of 94
    aheneenaheneen Posts: 75member
    Maybe they will just wait until new MacPros and MacBook Pros come out with an HDMI port...and then turn out new Cinema Displays with HDMI. Isn't HDMI better than DVI. Not only that, but Apple would be able to appeal to high-end PC users whose computers have HDMI ports...I have never seen a PC with a DVI port, only the occasional projector and my MacBook Pro.
  • Reply 29 of 94
    nceencee Posts: 836member
    Plus, other then features, what can they do to the design, that would be jaw-dropping?



    - Thin

    - Clear

    - Smooth

    - BIGGER is about all I can see.



    Skip
  • Reply 30 of 94
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,242member
    Quote:

    However, Wednesday's report points out that commercially available 30-inch LED displays, like the Samsung XL30, cost upwards of $4300 dollars. Combined with an entry-level Mac Pro at $2,799.00, that would be draw a bill of over $7000.



    Try being more accurate:



    Quote:

    However, Wednesday's report points out that commercially available 30-inch LED displays, like the Samsung XL30, sell upwards of $4300 dollars. Combined with an entry-level Mac Pro at $2,799.00, that would be draw a bill of over $7000.



    They don't cost Samsung near what they charge. They make high profit margins on them.



    Apple's trying to break through and expand, but I doubt it's just in the system display market.
  • Reply 31 of 94
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AHeneen View Post


    Maybe they will just wait until new MacPros and MacBook Pros come out with an HDMI port...and then turn out new Cinema Displays with HDMI. Isn't HDMI better than DVI. Not only that, but Apple would be able to appeal to high-end PC users whose computers have HDMI ports...I have never seen a PC with a DVI port, only the occasional projector and my MacBook Pro.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface
  • Reply 32 of 94
    nofear1aznofear1az Posts: 209member
    This has been a very long wait. I just wish for once that Apple's displays were more in line with competitive prices (or maybe I'm just too cheap to buy an Apple Display).



    I am curious if they will stick an iSight in the new displays. I wish they would also have more inputs for their monitors and even a USB hub on the side or back.
  • Reply 33 of 94
    I can get this for $749.:



    Refurbished Apple Cinema HD Display (23-inch flat panel w/ aluminum enclosure)



    Should I go for it or wait until new expensive models are released?
  • Reply 34 of 94
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AHeneen View Post


    Maybe they will just wait until new MacPros and MacBook Pros come out with an HDMI port...and then turn out new Cinema Displays with HDMI. Isn't HDMI better than DVI. Not only that, but Apple would be able to appeal to high-end PC users whose computers have HDMI ports...I have never seen a PC with a DVI port, only the occasional projector and my MacBook Pro.



    I believe HDMI is just DVI+sound. The video quality for HDMI and DVI is the same. HDMI also has the ability to add copy-protection.



    My dad just bought a refurb HP laptop, and it has every port imaginable on it, including HDMI. If you need to do video presentations, that might have the occassional audio, using HDMI would be so easy. Also, HDMI-to-HDMI cables are a lot easier to find than DVI and Mini-DVI cables.
  • Reply 35 of 94
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by McHuman View Post


    I have a 42" samsung LED LCD tv. it's phenomenal and only cost about $3000. Why is their little 30" monitor over $4k? Something doesn't add up here..



    Compare the resolution between the two... and theirs is 1800, not 4K.
  • Reply 36 of 94
    The 20 and 23 inch Cinema Displays are overpriced and underpowered for what they offer. In particular, the 23 inch stacks up extremely poorly compared to the similarly priced (once you count the cost of AppleCare) NEC 2490WUXi. For similar prices you get more even backlighting, an extra year over AppleCare, HDCP support, two digital and one VGA input, and far superior color calibration support with the NEC. As for the 20 it has a certain rarity value given the lack of IPS displays in that size, but it does not go bright enough for a bright office space and like all the other Cinema Displays suffers from having only a single input, no HDCP etc.



    The 30 inch is better but it still lacks features like HDCP and multiple inputs that are simply expected of all other monitors in its price range.



    They all also have this excessive anti-glare coat that creates a strong speckled effect compared to competing monitors.



    I guess customers must line up, like lambs to the slaughter, to give Apple huge profit margins on these obsolete, underperforming displays. They were state of the art in 2004; they aren't even close now.
  • Reply 37 of 94
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,507member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by satchmo View Post


    That unfortunately makes way too much sense for Apple to ever do it.



    I don't know. Every time I've suggested it, people have said nooooo...



    It seems the idea of Apple selling a Tv is too much for them to contemplate.
  • Reply 38 of 94
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AHeneen View Post


    Maybe they will just wait until new MacPros and MacBook Pros come out with an HDMI port...and then turn out new Cinema Displays with HDMI. Isn't HDMI better than DVI. Not only that, but Apple would be able to appeal to high-end PC users whose computers have HDMI ports...I have never seen a PC with a DVI port, only the occasional projector and my MacBook Pro.



    You have never seen a PC with a DVI port. Really?
  • Reply 39 of 94
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,507member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AHeneen View Post


    Maybe they will just wait until new MacPros and MacBook Pros come out with an HDMI port...and then turn out new Cinema Displays with HDMI. Isn't HDMI better than DVI. Not only that, but Apple would be able to appeal to high-end PC users whose computers have HDMI ports...I have never seen a PC with a DVI port, only the occasional projector and my MacBook Pro.



    You mean you've not seen a PC with an HDMI port? What computer doesn't have a DVI port?



    HDMI is basically DVI with audio over the same cable with separate lines.



    But, HDMI is now up to 1.3a, which conveys certain advantages.



    With my PS3 and my Samsung LED lit projector, I can use Deep Color, which has a wider gamut. It's quite noticeable with movies and games.



    Apple hasn't utilized HDCP in its OS as yet. Without that, no high def commercial formats can be seen. The ATv may utilize it, but that's it.



    Even the complete iMac can't see BD movies, and they're new.



    I hope the new Mc Pro will allow it, but it does depend on the OS as well as the hardware.
  • Reply 40 of 94
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,507member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Try being more accurate:







    They don't cost Samsung near what they charge. They make high profit margins on them.



    Apple's trying to break through and expand, but I doubt it's just in the system display market.



    LED backlit monitors cost much more because they are much bettermonitors all 'round. There's no point in putting an expensive LED system into a mediocre monitor.



    The new monitors have top quality 8 bit panels, with most now using new 10 bit panels.



    I think Apple should have an LED line, but they should also have a less expensive standard line as well. I see no point in all of their displays being of professional graphics quality, when most people don't need, want, and can't afford them.



    Newer fluorescent backlit displays can be made with pretty good quality these days at lower cost. Apple's displays are really old.
Sign In or Register to comment.