Apple drops 20-inch Cinema display, 30-inch may follow

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Apple on Thursday discontinued its legacy 20-inch Cinema Display, reducing its external display offerings to just two options: its new LED-lit 24-inch model for notebooks and its legacy 30-inch display for desktops.



"With immediate effect, the following products are 'End of Life' (EOL); Apple 20" Cinema Display," the Cupertino-based company wrote in a worldwide bulletin to its sales and service channels. "All backlog will be cancelled and there is no automatic order conversion."



Around the same time, the Mac maker also removed the offering from its various online stores. Inventory of the display is extremely tight, as production of the product is believed to have been halted late last year. One of the company's largest distributors, Ingram Micro UK, reflects absolutely no inventory (below).



Interestingly, the same distributor has also run dry of the current 30-inch HD Cinema Display with a delivery date on new orders well past due, suggesting it may soon follow the 20-inch model out the door. The 30-inch model is not listed as discontinued, however, as it remains the only Apple-branded display that can be paired with new Mac Pro and Mac mini purchases.



Apple discontinued its previous-generation 23-inch HD Cinema Display last fall while introducing its new LED-lit 24-inch Cinema Display (review), which was designed with the company's new family of notebooks in mind. It did away with a DVI connector in favor of a Mini DisplayPort connector, which Apple has said will become its new standard display interface, shipping on all future products.







While Apple is widely expected to introduce a second LED-lit display in the 30-inch range, it remains unclear whether a new 20-inch model remains in the cards. Any future display update would presumably coincide with long-awaited updates to the company's line of desktop systems.



The 30-inch Cinema Display is amongst Apple's eldest available product offerings, having been introduced back in June of 2004.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    it's new LED-lit 23-inch display for notebooks



    Its actually a 24 inch display and a very nice one at that (I'm typing this comment on it)!
  • Reply 2 of 88
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,074member
    I hope they introduce a new 30" with a MacPro displayPort card on Tuesday.
  • Reply 3 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rod76 View Post


    Its actually a 24 inch display and a very nice one at that (I'm typing this comment on it)!



    Wow! You can actually type on the 24" LED display? I didn't know it featured a touch screen interface. How cool is that? ;-) jk
  • Reply 4 of 88
    C'mon Apple! Out with the thirty incher and I'll buy both the 17" MBP and 30" LED ACD in one shot!
  • Reply 5 of 88
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    I can't say I'd miss the 20", it was a bit small anyway, certainly it is these days. If you're going to buy a premium display, it might as well be 24" or 30".
  • Reply 6 of 88
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    ? So when does everytmine think the new desktop HW will be released? (I'm guessing 2nd week of March on a Tuesday)

    ? Do you expect a Special Event hosted by Cook in Cupertino to set it off. (I do)

    ? Do you expect Apple to give the media a few days notice to attend? (I do)

    ? Do you expect to see a demo of Snow Leopard? (I did at MWSF '09, but now I think Apple may leave it all for WWDC since I don't think SL will be ready until at least September)
  • Reply 7 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I can't say I'd miss the 20", it was a bit small anyway, certainly it is these days. If you're going to buy a premium display, it might as well be 24" or 30".



    Yeah. I have the old 23" and anything smaller seems damn small to me now.
  • Reply 8 of 88
    nceencee Posts: 836member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post


    Yeah. I have the old 23" and anything smaller seems damn small to me now.



    And I've had a ton of folks email me, and say my web site, is setup for big monitors and that is a real dumb thing, as hardly anyone has a monitor bigger the 13", as most folks have laptops and hardly any one uses a desktop computer anymore?



    I did email those folks back and say "What are you talking about"!



    skip



    http://www.designsbyskip.com
  • Reply 9 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post


    Yeah. I have the old 23" and anything smaller seems damn small to me now.



    42-60in screen is optimal. It would make Spaces obsolete.
  • Reply 10 of 88
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ncee View Post


    And I've had a ton of folks email me, and say my web site, is setup for big monitors and that is a real dumb thing, as hardly anyone has a monitor bigger the 13", as most folks have laptops and hardly any one uses a desktop computer anymore?



    I did email those folks back and say "What are you talking about"!



    skip



    http://www.designsbyskip.com



    I would think that your site should do fine on a 13" screen. For notebooks, I do understand that 13" is a limitation. Desktops, or connecting a notebook to a desktop monitor is a slightly different matter. As it is, some websites aren't conducive to side-by-side use on a 24", I would like it if two different web sites can be shown at the same time without overlap or clipping the sides. Yours fits just fine, and that would still work on a 13", just one web page at a time, not two.
  • Reply 11 of 88
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ncee View Post


    And I've had a ton of folks email me, and say my web site, is setup for big monitors and that is a real dumb thing, as hardly anyone has a monitor bigger the 13", as most folks have laptops and hardly any one uses a desktop computer anymore?



    I did email those folks back and say "What are you talking about"!




    Yeah a web designer's work is never done. We used to have to program for several different browsers. Now that most desktop browsers render about the same we have to sniff out the platform and screen size to deliver customized content. Flash/noscript/iPhone/Blackberry/Android/desktop/notebook etc. Detecting screen size is almost mandatory now days and doing your development on a really large monitor is sometimes a bit of a challenge since you need to continually be imagining what it looks like on the small screen. I've been using 840px as the default desktop width lately.
  • Reply 12 of 88
    mikefmikef Posts: 697member
    All I really want is a way of connecting my non-unibody MBP to the 24" display... anybody?
  • Reply 13 of 88
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mikef View Post


    All I really want is a way of connecting my non-unibody MBP to the 24" display... anybody?



    I don't know if that's possible yet, if when it becomes possible, I would bet it's a $99 converter. If you're not hung up on the current version, just want the Apple brand screen, reconditioned ones might show up on Apple's site from time to time.
  • Reply 14 of 88
    eaieai Posts: 417member
    The one adavantage of the move to DisplayPort is that we know that Apple are going to have to either update or discontinue the Mac Mini soon...
  • Reply 15 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by min_t View Post


    42-60in screen is optimal. It would make Spaces obsolete.



    Well if you ignore price, I'd agree.



    I'd imagine that sooner or later the technology will become cheap as toilet paper and the people of the future will all bust a gut laughing at pictures of people using tiny monitors today. OLED has some of that promise.
  • Reply 16 of 88
    I hope this is a sign of some interesting updates sometime soon. The way I figured it, it will be at least a month from now before we see anything. Figure two weeks to send invitations out, and then allow people two weeks to schedule travel. This next "release cycle" may actually live up to the hype MacWorld's presentation didn't.
  • Reply 17 of 88
    tony1tony1 Posts: 258member
    While waiting for the new Mac Pro I've saved a few more dollars and was really counting on a new 30" ACD to go with it. It'll be a real bummer if it goes away completely, yet I couldn't imagine Apple offering the one size only. The 20" wasn't even HD, while the other two sizes were, maybe that's why the sales were so low and it got dropped. I bought two of the 23's, for home, and was willing to fork out the extra cash because of the HD feature and never regretted that. I work on a 30" at my employer along side a 23" and have gotten really hooked on the real estate. If it does come to pass I guess I'll just spend my money elsewhere if Apple doesn't want it. LG?
  • Reply 18 of 88
    I have a 24" and the way my chair is at my desk, it's too big. 22" would be better. At 24" I have to turn my head to see the very right and left edges (where my Dock is...), which isn't as ergonomic.
  • Reply 19 of 88
    phizzphizz Posts: 142member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I can't say I'd miss the 20", it was a bit small anyway, certainly it is these days. If you're going to buy a premium display, it might as well be 24" or 30".



    I remember when everybody had 14", 15" or 17" CRTs and I got my hands on a 19". At the time, it was insane - it seemed so BIG. Now I can't stand working on anything less than widescreen 24".



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Yeah a web designer's work is never done. We used to have to program for several different browsers. Now that most desktop browsers render about the same we have to sniff out the platform and screen size to deliver customized content. Flash/noscript/iPhone/Blackberry/Android/desktop/notebook etc. Detecting screen size is almost mandatory now days and doing your development on a really large monitor is sometimes a bit of a challenge since you need to continually be imagining what it looks like on the small screen. I've been using 840px as the default desktop width lately.



    Tell me about it. I design anywhere from about 800px to 940px, depending on the amount of content on the average website page (i.e. simple brochure site vs. fully-featured e-commerce). Although annoying, I don't think screen size is the worst compatibiltiy issue in web design. For me, it's the most popular browser in the world: Internet Explorer 6. I spent nearly 2 hours day fixing IE6 issues on one of my latest sites. Complete pain in the ass. Sorry - irrelevant rant!
  • Reply 20 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ncee View Post


    And I've had a ton of folks email me, and say my web site, is setup for big monitors and that is a real dumb thing, as hardly anyone has a monitor bigger the 13", as most folks have laptops and hardly any one uses a desktop computer anymore?



    I did email those folks back and say "What are you talking about"!



    skip



    http://www.designsbyskip.com



    That's a classic case of someone lowering their resolution to make tiny print easier for them to read. Then, some sites (most), they have to scroll left and right too much. That aside - these are potential customers - be nice! : )
Sign In or Register to comment.