Then they might have to stop making all in ones and notebooks in the very near future. It doesn't matter what Apple's preferences are if 16:10 panels stop being made.
Add "this to the Apple will never..." list. They usually end up happening.
Apple has already moved to widescreen and HD. They just add a bit extra at the bottom for editing and navigation tools. In other words, this move already happened, and it happened when most laptops were still shipping with 5:4 screens.
The companies that make LCD panels will make whatever you ask them to make. It might be a bit more expensive to do 16:10 instead of 16:9, but when has that stopped Apple? It's a bit more expensive to mill your case out of a block of aluminum. It's a bit more expensive to use a glass screen instead of a plastic one.
A custom panel would be prohibitively expensive which is why Apple, like everyone else, uses of the shelf ones in their products. Custom ones might add a couple hundred or more to the price of the Mac. They have two options, they can either buy up to date panels that are more than likely going to be 16:9 or they can make a huge 16:10 order and stockpile them. Either way, Apple will be using 16:9 panels sooner or later.
A custom panel would be prohibitively expensive which is why Apple, like everyone else, uses of the shelf ones in their products. Custom ones might add a couple hundred or more to the price of the Mac. They have two options, they can either buy up to date panels that are more than likely going to be 16:9 or they can make a huge 16:10 order and stockpile them. Either way, Apple will be using 16:9 panels sooner or later.
Why would it be? Apple has used them before, when it was shipping the 4:3 ratio PowerBooks.
Custom sizing is really not such a big deal. It's a big sheet. It's cut into pieces. It's not hard to say, "I want the pieces to be X by Y" even if the factory doesn't ordinarily cut the sheets into N pieces of X by Y. These are immense contract manufacturers. Their whole business is building what they're contracted to build to the tolerances they are contracted to test to with the quality of raw materials they are contracted to start with. Custom work for companies as huge as Apple are no problem at all.
The Quicktime X window should be an indication that Apple is likely going to move to 16x9 panels.
By superimposing the controls over the video Apple has obviated the need for the extra pixels.
Professionals that are editing video will have multiple monitors anyways and will likely run 2560x1600 resolution for the apps and display on a 16x9 monitor.
I see little reason to spend more for a 16x10 panel when the commodity items will be 16x9. This is a commodity market now and costing is important to maintaining margins.
Why would it be? Apple has used them before, when it was shipping the 4:3 ratio PowerBooks.
Custom sizing is really not such a big deal. It's a big sheet. It's cut into pieces. It's not hard to say, "I want the pieces to be X by Y" even if the factory doesn't ordinarily cut the sheets into N pieces of X by Y. These are immense contract manufacturers. Their whole business is building what they're contracted to build to the tolerances they are contracted to test to with the quality of raw materials they are contracted to start with. Custom work for companies as huge as Apple are no problem at all.
They weren't custom, they were stockpiled previous generation ones.
They weren't custom, they were stockpiled previous generation ones.
Do you know this for a fact or are you talking out of your hat. Stockpiles and warehousing today are generally not done in favor of JIT manufacturing. In a field that advances as rapidly as flat panel displays, deliberately trying to keep inventory of the previous generation would be a nightmare.
Do you know this for a fact or are you talking out of your hat. Stockpiles and warehousing today are generally not done in favor of JIT manufacturing. In a field that advances as rapidly as flat panel displays, deliberately trying to keep inventory of the previous generation would be a nightmare.
Like all things LCD panels have the part numbers on them. Apple has been known to use LCD panels (and optical drives) well after those parts were no longer sold.
Like all things LCD panels have the part numbers on them. Apple has been known to use LCD panels (and optical drives) well after those parts were no longer sold.
In other words, they use custom parts, and whether the company offers them for sale is essentially irrelevant.
I will never understand why contract manufacturing seems so unintuitive. If your company doesn't normally offer X, but it offers things like X, and a company approaches you to make 5 million Xs over the course of 3 years, will your company take up the offer? The companies that Apple goes to tend to say 'yes'.
The simple fact is that in the quantities that Apple orders over the time periods that they request the only difference between a 'custom' line for them and a general offering is that the company is 100% guaranteed to sell every part in the 'custom' line. Otherwise the production runs are similar in size, so the cost differential is minimal to none. This has been a solved problem for, oh, 40 or 50 years.
why? the dock and the extra :1 from 16:9 to 16:10 is most likely for the dock. You can get 720p full pixel output on a 1280x800 macbook with a little black at the top and bottom...
The cinema displays were explicitly 16:10 so you could see 16:9 video for editing and have a few toolbars available for FCP or room at the bottom for QT Pro widgets. Steve said so when they were launched. Now why would someone want to restrict their screen physical dimensions so they cannot edit a full width/resolution stream without covering up part of the picture???
16:9 is great for a TV where you won't have editing tools to deal with. Computers and their monitors should not be primarily designed to watch TV but primarily designed as a tool which can do TV without loss.
16:10 is closer to that of standard paper documents too, landscape and two sheets in portrait, side by side. I think that's more significant than editing, my gut feeling is that most industries and home users need to deal with documents, editing video is less of a concern for most people.
16:9 is only for movies, 16:10 is what apple generally uses.
I'd say stay away from never. I don't like absolutes because they rarely hold up.
I think it may be a while because the notebooks were all refreshed within the last 18 months, changing all the dimensions of everything so soon might not be so simple.
Personally, the idea that there should only be one aspect ratio of screens is pushing the idea of uniformity too far. TVs are in part for movies, but most theatrically distributed movies aren't even in 16:9. With overscan, you can clip the borders of one movie format so it looks like it's 16:9, but it isn't. Old academy movies and IMAX movies are 4:3 and Cinemascope is roughly 2.35:1 (with some variations). We've already seen that computers can and do routinely handle 4:3, 5:4, 3:2, 16:9 and 16:10, and maybe others, without issue. I don't really see any reason it has to be bludgeoned into just one.
I certainly prefer the little extra vertical space a 16:10 display provides, but I think there's a good chance of Apple adopting 16:9, particularly on the non-pro Macbook and iMac.
The industry as a whole is shifting to them, which makes the new panels cheaper in volume, and we all know how Apple likes its profit margins. And Apple will claim that its consumer models are for personal entertainment more than anything else.
It won't come until those machines are due for a good, solid external redesign, which is probably going to be soon for the iMac and a couple of years for the Macbook.
I hope Apple have in store new displays coming soon. Specially a larger than 30" display. For folks that design motion graphics or edit video/film content that would be a blessing.
It's about time.
It think we'll see a replacement for the 30inch Cinema Display when large enough LED backlights become available. I'm hoping for 3840x2400 resolution in a size not larger than 30 inches, but Resolution Independence will be needed for it to be useable.
Without Resolution Independence, a 3840x2400 monitor not larger than 30" would have UI elements too small for most people to read at reasonable distances.
Without Resolution Independence, a 3840x2400 monitor not larger than 30" would have UI elements too small for most people to read at reasonable distances.
So you haven't used a Mac since Apple released MacOS X then? If you had, then you would know that you comment is not necessarily true.
Comments
Actually it would most likely be 26" not 27" because most of the IPS panels are 26" inch though they do run at 1980x1200
NEC LCD2690WUXi
Planar PX2611W
LG W2600HP
Hazro HZ26Wi
I'm not aware of any IPS monitors over 26". I have a 27.5 Hannspree monitor that's 1980x1080 and definitely not IPS.
http://www.hazro.co.uk/products/hazro_hz30w.html
Hazro HZ30W 30? Widescreen Professional Monitor
30" WQXGA S-IPS Widescreen Display
Assuming one can actually get their hands on one. [Doesn't look like any are available either from the UK.]
Too bad Hazro doesn't have a US subsidiary to make it possible to buy one and not have the VAT.
http://www.hazro.co.uk/products/hazro_hz30w.html
Hazro HZ30W 30? Widescreen Professional Monitor
30" WQXGA S-IPS Widescreen Display
Assuming one can actually get their hands on one. [Doesn't look like any are available either from the UK.]
Too bad Hazro doesn't have a US subsidiary to make it possible to buy one and not have the VAT.
Oops I mean IPS monitors over 26" and under the popular 30"
Then they might have to stop making all in ones and notebooks in the very near future. It doesn't matter what Apple's preferences are if 16:10 panels stop being made.
Add "this to the Apple will never..." list. They usually end up happening.
Apple has already moved to widescreen and HD. They just add a bit extra at the bottom for editing and navigation tools. In other words, this move already happened, and it happened when most laptops were still shipping with 5:4 screens.
The companies that make LCD panels will make whatever you ask them to make. It might be a bit more expensive to do 16:10 instead of 16:9, but when has that stopped Apple? It's a bit more expensive to mill your case out of a block of aluminum. It's a bit more expensive to use a glass screen instead of a plastic one.
A custom panel would be prohibitively expensive which is why Apple, like everyone else, uses of the shelf ones in their products. Custom ones might add a couple hundred or more to the price of the Mac. They have two options, they can either buy up to date panels that are more than likely going to be 16:9 or they can make a huge 16:10 order and stockpile them. Either way, Apple will be using 16:9 panels sooner or later.
Why would it be? Apple has used them before, when it was shipping the 4:3 ratio PowerBooks.
Custom sizing is really not such a big deal. It's a big sheet. It's cut into pieces. It's not hard to say, "I want the pieces to be X by Y" even if the factory doesn't ordinarily cut the sheets into N pieces of X by Y. These are immense contract manufacturers. Their whole business is building what they're contracted to build to the tolerances they are contracted to test to with the quality of raw materials they are contracted to start with. Custom work for companies as huge as Apple are no problem at all.
By superimposing the controls over the video Apple has obviated the need for the extra pixels.
Professionals that are editing video will have multiple monitors anyways and will likely run 2560x1600 resolution for the apps and display on a 16x9 monitor.
I see little reason to spend more for a 16x10 panel when the commodity items will be 16x9. This is a commodity market now and costing is important to maintaining margins.
The Quicktime X window should be an indication that Apple is likely going to move to 16x9 panels.
By superimposing the controls over the video Apple has obviated the need for the extra pixels.
That could also reflect the increasing use of computers in the home theater. HDTVs have always been 16x9, of course.
Why would it be? Apple has used them before, when it was shipping the 4:3 ratio PowerBooks.
Custom sizing is really not such a big deal. It's a big sheet. It's cut into pieces. It's not hard to say, "I want the pieces to be X by Y" even if the factory doesn't ordinarily cut the sheets into N pieces of X by Y. These are immense contract manufacturers. Their whole business is building what they're contracted to build to the tolerances they are contracted to test to with the quality of raw materials they are contracted to start with. Custom work for companies as huge as Apple are no problem at all.
They weren't custom, they were stockpiled previous generation ones.
They weren't custom, they were stockpiled previous generation ones.
Do you know this for a fact or are you talking out of your hat. Stockpiles and warehousing today are generally not done in favor of JIT manufacturing. In a field that advances as rapidly as flat panel displays, deliberately trying to keep inventory of the previous generation would be a nightmare.
Do you know this for a fact or are you talking out of your hat. Stockpiles and warehousing today are generally not done in favor of JIT manufacturing. In a field that advances as rapidly as flat panel displays, deliberately trying to keep inventory of the previous generation would be a nightmare.
Like all things LCD panels have the part numbers on them. Apple has been known to use LCD panels (and optical drives) well after those parts were no longer sold.
Like all things LCD panels have the part numbers on them. Apple has been known to use LCD panels (and optical drives) well after those parts were no longer sold.
In other words, they use custom parts, and whether the company offers them for sale is essentially irrelevant.
I will never understand why contract manufacturing seems so unintuitive. If your company doesn't normally offer X, but it offers things like X, and a company approaches you to make 5 million Xs over the course of 3 years, will your company take up the offer? The companies that Apple goes to tend to say 'yes'.
The simple fact is that in the quantities that Apple orders over the time periods that they request the only difference between a 'custom' line for them and a general offering is that the company is 100% guaranteed to sell every part in the 'custom' line. Otherwise the production runs are similar in size, so the cost differential is minimal to none. This has been a solved problem for, oh, 40 or 50 years.
Never.
why? the dock and the extra :1 from 16:9 to 16:10 is most likely for the dock. You can get 720p full pixel output on a 1280x800 macbook with a little black at the top and bottom...
Laters
The cinema displays were explicitly 16:10 so you could see 16:9 video for editing and have a few toolbars available for FCP or room at the bottom for QT Pro widgets. Steve said so when they were launched. Now why would someone want to restrict their screen physical dimensions so they cannot edit a full width/resolution stream without covering up part of the picture???
16:9 is great for a TV where you won't have editing tools to deal with. Computers and their monitors should not be primarily designed to watch TV but primarily designed as a tool which can do TV without loss.
16:10 is closer to that of standard paper documents too, landscape and two sheets in portrait, side by side. I think that's more significant than editing, my gut feeling is that most industries and home users need to deal with documents, editing video is less of a concern for most people.
short answer straight from campus :
PHP Code:
<!-- php buffer start --><code><span style="color: #000000">
<span style="color: #0000BB">Absolutely positively never</span><span style="color: #007700">.
<br /></span><span style="color: #0000BB"></span>
</span>
16:9 is only for movies, 16:10 is what apple generally uses.
I'd say stay away from never. I don't like absolutes because they rarely hold up.
I think it may be a while because the notebooks were all refreshed within the last 18 months, changing all the dimensions of everything so soon might not be so simple.
Personally, the idea that there should only be one aspect ratio of screens is pushing the idea of uniformity too far. TVs are in part for movies, but most theatrically distributed movies aren't even in 16:9. With overscan, you can clip the borders of one movie format so it looks like it's 16:9, but it isn't. Old academy movies and IMAX movies are 4:3 and Cinemascope is roughly 2.35:1 (with some variations). We've already seen that computers can and do routinely handle 4:3, 5:4, 3:2, 16:9 and 16:10, and maybe others, without issue. I don't really see any reason it has to be bludgeoned into just one.
The industry as a whole is shifting to them, which makes the new panels cheaper in volume, and we all know how Apple likes its profit margins. And Apple will claim that its consumer models are for personal entertainment more than anything else.
It won't come until those machines are due for a good, solid external redesign, which is probably going to be soon for the iMac and a couple of years for the Macbook.
Well said.
I hope Apple have in store new displays coming soon. Specially a larger than 30" display. For folks that design motion graphics or edit video/film content that would be a blessing.
It's about time.
It think we'll see a replacement for the 30inch Cinema Display when large enough LED backlights become available. I'm hoping for 3840x2400 resolution in a size not larger than 30 inches, but Resolution Independence will be needed for it to be useable.
... Resolution Independence will be needed for it to be useable.
How you figure that?
How you figure that?
Without Resolution Independence, a 3840x2400 monitor not larger than 30" would have UI elements too small for most people to read at reasonable distances.
Without Resolution Independence, a 3840x2400 monitor not larger than 30" would have UI elements too small for most people to read at reasonable distances.
So you haven't used a Mac since Apple released MacOS X then? If you had, then you would know that you comment is not necessarily true.
I'm willing to beta test a 4k monitor if any vendors are reading this thread