Apple may have new Cinema Displays ready for Macworld

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 94
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    You have never seen a PC with a DVI port. Really?



    That person must not have seen many PCs in the last three years.
  • Reply 42 of 94
    aheneenaheneen Posts: 75member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    You have never seen a PC with a DVI port. Really?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    That person must not have seen many PCs in the last three years.



    Now I don't deal with high-end PCs (ones comparable to a Mac Pro)...mostly notebooks. But yes, I have yet to see any PC notebooks with DVI...all have either VGA, S-video, or HDMI. I recently set up a couple of friend's desktops (both HP) and both of them had an HDMI monitor & port on the tower. Yes, the only things I've seen with DVI are my MBP and some projectors.
  • Reply 43 of 94
    dentondenton Posts: 725member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    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.



    You shouldn't forget that Apple wants "most people" to buy iMacs, and so they ought to have no reason to purchase an external display.
  • Reply 44 of 94
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,507member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Denton View Post


    You shouldn't forget that Apple wants "most people" to buy iMacs, and so they ought to have no reason to purchase an external display.



    I don't agree with that. They sell displays to people who buy Mac Pro's, Mini's, people who need an extra monitor for their laptops and iMacs, and even to PC users.
  • Reply 45 of 94
    zinfellazinfella Posts: 876member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Denton View Post


    You shouldn't forget that Apple wants "most people" to buy iMacs, and so they ought to have no reason to purchase an external display.



    That's perfectly ridiculous, there's nothing wrong with the display on my new iMac, but then I'm not stupid enough to set it up improperly.
  • Reply 46 of 94
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by photoeditor View Post


    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.



    No KIDDING! I was able to find a 24" Monitor from BenQ that was only a few hundred dollars and outperformed all but one spec when compared to the Apple Displays. Plus, it had two HDMI inputs. The Apple displays obviously need a lot of improvements. Sure the firewire and USB ports are great, but there are so many leaps that PCs are taking in terms of technology, especially in monitors. They could sell the same 30-inch display for about $1000 less with the technology that is in there right now. In fact, can't they allow lower prices on all of their products via resellers after a few years like everyone else!?
  • Reply 47 of 94
    dentondenton Posts: 725member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I don't agree with that. They sell displays to people who buy Mac Pro's, Mini's, people who need an extra monitor for their laptops and iMacs, and even to PC users.



    Apple thinks that people who buy Mac Pros need professional graphics quality; that people who buy Mac Minis already have displays; and that PC users should buy iMacs.



    The people who use an extra monitor for their notebooks are a small segment of the consumer base (as are people who set up multiple displays on an iMac).



    This is not to say that I don't wish that Apple would make more affordable monitors for consumers (as many wish that Apple made an xMac), but Apple seems to have their own mind about what people should buy and they have given no indication that they will change.
  • Reply 48 of 94
    zinfellazinfella Posts: 876member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Crtaylor View Post


    No KIDDING! I was able to find a 24" Monitor from BenQ that was only a few hundred dollars and outperformed all but one spec when compared to the Apple Displays. Plus, it had two HDMI inputs. The Apple displays obviously need a lot of improvements. Sure the firewire and USB ports are great, but there are so many leaps that PCs are taking in terms of technology, especially in monitors. They could sell the same 30-inch display for about $1000 less with the technology that is in there right now. In fact, can't they allow lower prices on all of their products via resellers after a few years like everyone else!?



    Here's a clue for you, Apple is not everyone else. The sooner you understand that the sooner you might begin to understand things. Apple is very successful doing things their way. They've said awhile back that all displays would be LED backlit by the end of 2009, so relax. If they're too expensive for you, then stay with your cheapies.



    Why, in God's name would they want to sell the 30" display for $1000 less? Do you understand how companies make money and their responsibility to their shareholders? It doesn't sound like it. You're joking, right?
  • Reply 49 of 94
    dentondenton Posts: 725member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zinfella View Post


    That's perfectly ridiculous, there's nothing wrong with the display on my new iMac, but then I'm not stupid enough to set it up improperly.



    How does this relate to what I wrote?
  • Reply 50 of 94
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,507member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Crtaylor View Post


    In fact, can't they allow lower prices on all of their products via resellers after a few years like everyone else!?



    They do lower their prices over the years on individual models. The price is about half of what they were when these models first came out.



    But Apple uses more expensive materials in their models. Aluminum is more expensive that ABS plastic and sheet steel.



    That keeps the base price above a certain point. so Apple can't drop them beyond that.
  • Reply 51 of 94
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,507member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Denton View Post


    Apple thinks that people who buy Mac Pros need professional graphics quality; that people who buy Mac Minis already have displays; and that PC users should buy iMacs.



    The people who use an extra monitor for their notebooks are a small segment of the consumer base (as are people who set up multiple displays on an iMac).



    This is not to say that I don't wish that Apple would make more affordable monitors for consumers (as many wish that Apple made an xMac), but Apple seems to have their own mind about what people should buy and they have given no indication that they will change.



    If they really do think that, and we don't know that, then they would be wrong.
  • Reply 52 of 94
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,507member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zinfella View Post




    Why, in God's name would they want to sell the 30" display for $1000 less? Do you understand how companies make money and their responsibility to their shareholders? It doesn't sound like it. You're joking, right?



    Nobody sells a 30" monitor for $1,000 less than Apple. A couple of hundred or so.
  • Reply 53 of 94
    zinfellazinfella Posts: 876member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Denton View Post


    How does this relate to what I wrote?



    What's your source for "Apple wants most people to buy iMacs"? I misread your external display comment, sorry.
  • Reply 54 of 94
    mchumanmchuman Posts: 154member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bobertoq View Post


    well is it LED or LCD? anyways, the TV has a lower resolution.







    It was an LCD using LED backlights, not fluorescent tubes. In otherwords, each pixel has it's own LED light that can be switched off to black, unlike a fluorescent LCD where the tube scatters light across the entire screen to reach the pixel it wants to light.



    So, its an LED LCD.
  • Reply 55 of 94
    zinfellazinfella Posts: 876member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Nobody sells a 30" monitor for $1,000 less than Apple. A couple of hundred or so.



    Exactly! Plus, I don't think Apple has a problem selling the 30" at $1799, when it used to be$3299.
  • Reply 56 of 94
    bsenkabsenka Posts: 799member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Haggar View Post


    All Cinema Displays will go glossy!



    Not if they want to actually sell any of them to professionals.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post


    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.



    Tell me about it. I have to keep the room I use my iMac in completely dark. The shades drawn, and the lights off at all times. Any light, even indirectly, and the glare of the screen makes it unusable.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post


    Trivial to look it up....

    It was indeed $3299



    http://everymac.com/monitors/apple/s...isplay_30.html



    Something funny about that list. Some of those listed "original prices" are a LOT lower than what I ever saw them sell for.
  • Reply 57 of 94
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by McHuman View Post


    It was an LCD using LED backlights, not fluorescent tubes. In otherwords, each pixel has it's own LED light that can be switched off to black, unlike a fluorescent LCD where the tube scatters light across the entire screen to reach the pixel it wants to light.



    So, its an LED LCD.



    Are you certain that every pixel has its own LED? There is only one display that I'm aware of that has one backlight per pixel, and I'm pretty sure it was a few tens of thousands of dollars.
  • Reply 58 of 94
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zinfella View Post


    Why, in God's name would they want to sell the 30" display for $1000 less? Do you understand how companies make money and their responsibility to their shareholders? It doesn't sound like it. You're joking, right?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zinfella View Post


    Exactly! Plus, I don't think Apple has a problem selling the 30" at $1799, when it used to be$3299.



    But why, in God's name would they want to sell the 30" display for $1500 less? Do you understand how companies make money and their responsibility to their shareholders? It doesn't sound like it. You're joking, right?
  • Reply 59 of 94
    dentondenton Posts: 725member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    If they really do think that, and we don't know that, then they would be wrong.



    Can you explain their current line-up in any other way? For instance, if Apple wanted buyers of Minis to also purchase a display, why would their cheapest display be the same price as the Mini? I don't think it's a stretch to assume what Apple believes about its customers based upon the products that they choose to sell (and choose not to sell).



    And, yes, they are quite wrong -- not everyone fits into the precise segment to which each of Apple's products are aimed. But then, Apple is not Dell: they're not even trying to please everyone.
  • Reply 60 of 94
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


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



    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.



    I think if Apple were to make it's movie into offering BRD support it would be with Montevina. Isn't it the first Intel mobile chipset to offer native HDCP? I also think the ACDs will come with the refresh in early 2009.



    What I'm not so confident about anymore is Apple going with DisplayPort over HDMI. Both are much lower profile than DVI, which is good for these thin notebooks Apple likes to create, and both offer features the other doesn't.
    "One recent audio/video connector interface is DisplayPort which had version 1.0 approved in May 2006 and is supported in a few computer monitors. Currently no CE displays or AV receivers have been released that support DisplayPort and the DisplayPort website states that DisplayPort is expected to complement HDMI.



    "There are a few advantages that HDMI has over DisplayPort such as support for the xvYCC color space, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA bitstream support, CE control signals, and compatibility with DVI. DisplayPort has an advantage that it is currently royalty free which might allow it to be cheaper to implement while the HDMI royalty is 4 cents per device. Most of the DisplayPort supporters are computer companies with its largest supporter being Dell which has released two computer monitors that support both DisplayPort and HDMI."
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Denton View Post


    You shouldn't forget that Apple wants "most people" to buy iMacs, and so they ought to have no reason to purchase an external display.



    I don't understand the use of the word 'want' here. Apple probably 'expects' most desktop mac buyers to get iMacs, but that isn't the same as wanting them too. I'd think Apple would jsut want everyone to buy as much Apple products as possible.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Denton View Post


    And, yes, they are quite wrong -- not everyone fits into the precise segment to which each of Apple's products are aimed. But then, Apple is not Dell: they're not even trying to please everyone.



    As you state, Apple is not trying to accommodate everyone.
Sign In or Register to comment.