One thing I don't get is why put an isight on the display if it's designed for Macbook users who already have an isight? You can't even stream in 3D as the lenses would have to be closer.
Glossiness aside, I really like how the 24-inch model looks. I've always disliked the iMac appearance on every model after the dome G4 one. If they made one like that display but instead of the Apple logo, wrote iMac at the bottom, that would be a big improvement.
There should be enough room behind that display to fit all the parts. They should design it so that you can take off the back though to get at the drives. Either that or just make it so that the base flips back out the way and a panel at the bottom opens to let you install Ram and the drive would slide out on a tray like from the Macbooks or the Mac Pro as it's a 3.5" drive.
Maybe 2 x 2.5" drives would be better. This way you could put in a new drive more easily and do a RAID setup or simply use one as a time machine backup without having an external plugged in or having a slow NAS drive.
SSD is all 2.5" and 2009 will be the year for it coming in so they may as well accommodate it.
One scenario i can see a use for such a display is when you are working on a group project...rather than have everyone look over your shoulder at yourmacbook...you can just put any images/documents on the big screen for all to see...in the same manner..you can use the isight on the display for the group while you are working on the main project on the macbook....this method is pretty popular on college campuses when group projects come around...just one instance....
Glossy screens, built-in speakers, what's it for, why would I need this, I don't get it's purpose, it's too niche - all reasonable points of discussion...
But surely the big one has to be...
£649.99!!!
You've got to be having a laugh, this is outrageous price for a monitor and I was just considering getting the Mac Pro and a 23" Cinema Display - the difference between the 23" and 24" Dell was just enough to justify it in my book - but this is ridiculous.
I mean, c'mon, having to connect 3 cables onto the side of the MBP?
You dont need to use all of them. You really only need to use the DVI port. The USB port takes away one and adds too and the power makes it easier to power your laptop with out needing another plug. Very smart on Apple's part.
This is a great looking monitor, but it only connects one machine at a time. Apple needs to add more inputs to expand the potential market. I have Mac Pro and an Air that I switch between....and an Xbox
Apple likes to innovate in a lot of areas, but I guess this just isn't one of them. There's a lot of potential here that they are missing. They could add more ports to appeal to more users (even non Apple users), integrate AppleTV, etc...
It still seems overpriced for what it gives you...at least to me.
They look real nice, but unfortunately I will never purchase one... no firewire and the glossy screen absolutely kills it for most people doing graphics work.
I wish I had a dime for every "graphic artist" who says that. I wonder how many of them say that just because they read someone else who said it?
I've been doing high-end CG since back when the Amiga was the only PC that could (20 years for you newbs who weren't even born yet). I have an 8-core Mac Pro with dual 30" anti-glare ACP monitors and a 24" iMac with the new glossy screen and guess what? I prefer the glossy screen. Since the new 24's have better saturation and contrast, I'm swapping out my 2 30's for two of the new 24's (yes, it's downsizing but I've found that sometimes you CAN have too much of a good thing). And it will be nice having the built-in iSight -- I never bothered getting the add-on iSight for my Pro.
So anyone who says that graphic artists don't like the glossy screen is just re-spewing.
The millions of glossy-screened iMacs and all the new glossy Macbooks sold seems to put you at the level of a vocal minority.
Are you basing your opinion on a 2-minute examination? We use glossy iMacs for corporate and they are even used by our internal webmasters doing (guess what?) graphics work. They have nothing but high-praise for the screens. Of course they had a concern at the beginning but after an hour of use, it became a non-issue.
Now if you're referring to super-hardcore graphics work working with multi-megabyte RAW images with eventual Vogue-magazine quality pictorials, then maybe, just-maybe I would slightly begin to side with you but those are be serious-workstations using big-bucks monitors and serious color-calibration tools.
I suspect most of the folks complaining really haven't sat down with them for any reasonable amount of time and come to a logical and well-informed decision. No disrespect intended on this and I have no problem being proven wrong. Apple's numbers just seem to imply that it's a myth.
I'm not saying there is not a problem but for every person that complains on how terrible the glossy displays are, there are an equal (if not more) number of other people to state the contrary.
The amount of glossy units being sold seem to indicate Apple's research was pretty good.
Back to my glossy screen now.
Totally with you on this one - I wonder how many of the complainers are actually working in graphic design? Having started out myself in 1994 on a Centris and doing print and online graphics work on every kind of Apple hardware since then, I've never been happier than with my super-glossy 24" iMac right now. To me, it's like driving a car with a swept back windshield and some papers or other junk on top of the dashboard - you can see the reflection of the stuff right in front of you if you look at it, but most of us find a way to focus PAST that and on the road beyond. Not sure why that's so hard. Anyway, for me like many others it's a non-issue. My 2 Jamaican cents (which let me tell you are worth NOTHING!)
I really appreciate that you guys take the time to take photos of the unboxing of Apple products, but please, when you're taking "high quality" photos of devices like this you need to setup your camera correctly. Set the aperture to a very high number like F16 or greater (as high as your camera will go), and use a tripod to keep the camera still for the required longer exposure time. This will give you a far greater depth of field, and thus more than 2mm of the surface of the device will be in focus.
It is quite possible to take these nice close-ups and have the WHOLE display or laptop or whatever in perfect focus. Of course, if you're doing that on purpose to be arty, then disregard!
I really don't like the really tight depth of field, but I am sure it is being done purposefully, to show off their mad photo skillz or camera / lens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluevoid
Heh, agreed. Not only that, but two of the pics demonstrate a terrible moire pattern that some people will see as a problem with the screen - when it's really a failure of your camera to resolve the individual pixels as displayed by the screen. I wouldn't post those pics with the moire pattern if someone paid me.
You're suggesting that those particular images not be posted, or that there is better way to shoot to prevent moiré? I don't think the problem is the camera here - obviously it can resolve the individual pixels as it's showing the effects of the thin gaps between the pixels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohmaar
I wish I had a dime for every "graphic artist" who says that. I wonder how many of them say that just because they read someone else who said it?
I've been doing high-end CG since back when the Amiga was the only PC that could (20 years for you newbs who weren't even born yet). I have an 8-core Mac Pro with dual 30" anti-glare ACP monitors and a 24" iMac with the new glossy screen and guess what? I prefer the glossy screen. Since the new 24's have better saturation and contrast, I'm swapping out my 2 30's for two of the new 24's (yes, it's downsizing but I've found that sometimes you CAN have too much of a good thing). And it will be nice having the built-in iSight -- I never bothered getting the add-on iSight for my Pro.
Did I miss something that said that the new display is compatible with DVI outputs? Mac Pro doesn't support Display Port yet. The same with the iMac.
On the screen sizes, I really like having a single 30". If you must have two screens, then two 24" units would be best, but even then, that's a pretty wide setup, the screens are a little short on height. I tried a 30 and a 24 and it wasn't as useful to me as I had hoped.
I'm swapping out my 2 30's for two of the new 24's (yes, it's downsizing but I've found that sometimes you CAN have too much of a good thing). And it will be nice having the built-in iSight -- I never bothered getting the add-on iSight for my Pro.
I wholeheartedly agree with glossy being better, but this monitor won't work with your Mac Pro, you don't have a mini-DP
Glossy screens, built-in speakers, what's it for, why would I need this, I don't get it's purpose, it's too niche - all reasonable points of discussion...
You also have to consider that Apple will sell more MacBooks than all of its entire desktop line together.
Quote:
But surely the big one has to be...
£649.99!!!
You've got to be having a laugh, this is outrageous price for a monitor and I was just considering getting the Mac Pro and a 23" Cinema Display - the difference between the 23" and 24" Dell was just enough to justify it in my book - but this is ridiculous.
This monitor is not made for you Mac Pro, their is no way for you to use it on your Mac Pro.
The cheaper Dell you are looking at isn't LED backlit, have a webcam, speakers, internal power. These all add to the price.
Glossy screens, built-in speakers, what's it for, why would I need this, I don't get it's purpose, it's too niche -
Bar the price this would be perfection for me. Glossy screen - a highly over criticized issue. Not always ideal, perhaps but by no means a deal breaker. When not bothered by reflection (easy to avoid) the screens are gorgeous. Built in speakers - not everybody needs LOUD speakers so for basic audio, great. Personally I have my speakers which would be permanently wired to the monitor. I would have a wireless keyboard and mouse. And I can take the whole lot home and about in the form of my MacBook. I don't see why you think this is so niche. A laptop, not niche. To have a large monitor, not that niche. A lot of people do their primary work on a large monitor and then do the emails, accounts whatever, in the evening on the couch with a beer and a MacBook. Or did you miss-spell and meant to say 'nice'? Me thinks nice. Mini notepad is niche.
You also have to consider that Apple will sell more MacBooks than all of its entire desktop line together.
This monitor is not made for you Mac Pro, their is no way for you to use it on your Mac Pro.
Did I say it was? I said I was looking at the Mac Pro and 23" Cinema Display - this has been removed from the Apple line-up and replaced with 24" LED monitor that can connect to one range of computers.
Quote:
The cheaper Dell you are looking at isn't LED backlit, have a webcam, speakers, internal power. These all add to the price.
The LED backlighting could be expensive, but the rest of that rubbish is not even remotely expensive - throw in the fact that any 90% of other monitors in the market live in a world where other things, with different types of connectors can be plugged into a monitor - you know like DVDs, games consoles, even products they make like AppleTV...
Well, is it really so special to use a laptop and an additional display as a desktop replacement?
I've been using my MBP with an EIZO display for 2 years now. The EIZO also features a USB hub, keyboard and mouse are connected via bluetooth, and for the MBP I bought a separate magsafe adapter. It's what millions of laptop users do.
By the way...I can also plug in my workmate's computer if I need too. Or my playstation 3, a DVD player...whatever.
Though, the real deal breaker is the glassy, glossy super duper design: It had been such a relieve when TFT displays became affordable so I could get rid of those CRT monitors with it's reflective glass...even if you look at flatscreen tvs you seldemly see one with a reflective design - because it's inferior in use.
They look real nice, but unfortunately I will never purchase one... no firewire and the glossy screen absolutely kills it for most people doing graphics work.
Why does a monitor have to have firewire?
Need firewire, get a MacBook Pro.
And suggesting that "glossy screen absolutely kills it for most people doing graphics work" is conjecture on your part. And bull at that.
Funny, as posted elsewhere, i could shave using my iPhone as a mirror if it is turned off. Otherwise, not a bit of glare when its on. Same for my glossy screened monitors, especially the ones with the new LED technology.
But I guess you have to have an iPhone, (or an iPod Touch) or the experience of even seeing the new monitors to appreciate that.
I'm considering getting a MacBook and 24" display and using a USB powered audio device to record guitars and vocals. Is there any chance someone could test the monitor with a USB audio device (Any really) and let me know how it goes? Sometimes these devices can be a bit jittery if you connect them to a hub rather than directly to a computer.
The idea is to always have my little studio set up at home and be able to take my MacBook away with me for non-audio stuff, then come back and have my studio set up in seconds.
The little magsafe connector isn't useful for desktops, nor does it make sense for them without a latch or built-in UPS in case the connector pops loose.
Ok...and when Apple ships revised iMacs and Mac minis and Mac Pros with Mini DisplayPorts, those who buy the 24" LED Cinema Display can just tuck that wire away.
Having a built-in MagSafe connector doesn't make this into a "notebook-only" display.
That is an important point but was it necessary for Apple to use this kind of display when marketing to consumers? They shoved cheap screens in the low end laptops. They didn't need to use high end IPS 24-inch panels in these.
Consumers look at price first and quality second. Essentially, what is the best display I can afford. £650 is bordering on the price of Apple's cheapest laptop. When you can buy a 24" display for £170, a lot of people won't even consider Apple's offering.
So that begs the question, are these meant for consumers? The isight camera is for anyone. The glossy display is down to personal tastes (not my preference). The price tag alone suggests it's not meant as a consumer item. For Apple to have clear tags to define Pro and non-pro computers, the Cinema lineup sends a confusing message. Unless the message is that it's for anyone who has £650 to spend on a screen.
Consumers look at price first and quality second. Essentially, what is the best display I can afford. £650 is bordering on the price of Apple's cheapest laptop. When you can buy a 24" display for £170, a lot of people won't even consider Apple's offering.
Really? I'd say most people look at the display first, then look at the price tag and decide if what they're looking at is worth the price. You can compare cheaper, less fully-featured, non-LED backlit 24" displays to Apple's all day, that doesn't mean they are directly competing with each other. Apple clearly isn't interested in battling for the bargain-bin shopper, either with these displays or their computers...or really anything they make...because they're doing better than Ok competing in the high-end, premium market.
In addition, Apple likely doesn't want to spur desktop computer sales with an ultra-affordable display because they don't compete in the saturated, stagnant desktop PC market.
Really? I'd say most people look at the display first, then look at the price tag and decide if what they're looking at is worth the price.
Usually you know before you look at products how much you are prepared to spend so you automatically narrow down your search based on that value. Shopping sites usually have min and max pricing options. You weigh up both features and price but usually you have an upper limit set before you start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
Apple clearly isn't interested in battling for the bargain-bin shopper, either with these displays or their computers...or really anything they make...because they're doing better than Ok competing in the high-end, premium market.
But even £200 gets you a good 24-inch Samsung SyncMaster with HDCP DVI. The £200-300 display segment isn't what I'd call 'bargain-basement'. The really low end consumer spends that on the whole machine including the screen.
I think that Apple selling the 24-inch 'designed for Macbook' display at what the old 20" Cinema was (£399) would have been a good idea and leave the IPS Cinema displays for the people who need them - although £399 is too much for a non-IPS display. Also, Apple might not know how to make a 24-inch display under £650 that doesn't suck.
Surely if they bought the panels from Samsung, they couldn't be any worse than what Samsung are offering.
Comments
One thing I don't get is why put an isight on the display if it's designed for Macbook users who already have an isight? You can't even stream in 3D as the lenses would have to be closer.
Glossiness aside, I really like how the 24-inch model looks. I've always disliked the iMac appearance on every model after the dome G4 one. If they made one like that display but instead of the Apple logo, wrote iMac at the bottom, that would be a big improvement.
There should be enough room behind that display to fit all the parts. They should design it so that you can take off the back though to get at the drives. Either that or just make it so that the base flips back out the way and a panel at the bottom opens to let you install Ram and the drive would slide out on a tray like from the Macbooks or the Mac Pro as it's a 3.5" drive.
Maybe 2 x 2.5" drives would be better. This way you could put in a new drive more easily and do a RAID setup or simply use one as a time machine backup without having an external plugged in or having a slow NAS drive.
SSD is all 2.5" and 2009 will be the year for it coming in so they may as well accommodate it.
One scenario i can see a use for such a display is when you are working on a group project...rather than have everyone look over your shoulder at yourmacbook...you can just put any images/documents on the big screen for all to see...in the same manner..you can use the isight on the display for the group while you are working on the main project on the macbook....this method is pretty popular on college campuses when group projects come around...just one instance....
But surely the big one has to be...
£649.99!!!
You've got to be having a laugh, this is outrageous price for a monitor and I was just considering getting the Mac Pro and a 23" Cinema Display - the difference between the 23" and 24" Dell was just enough to justify it in my book - but this is ridiculous.
I mean, c'mon, having to connect 3 cables onto the side of the MBP?
You dont need to use all of them. You really only need to use the DVI port. The USB port takes away one and adds too and the power makes it easier to power your laptop with out needing another plug. Very smart on Apple's part.
Apple likes to innovate in a lot of areas, but I guess this just isn't one of them. There's a lot of potential here that they are missing. They could add more ports to appeal to more users (even non Apple users), integrate AppleTV, etc...
It still seems overpriced for what it gives you...at least to me.
They look real nice, but unfortunately I will never purchase one... no firewire and the glossy screen absolutely kills it for most people doing graphics work.
I wish I had a dime for every "graphic artist" who says that. I wonder how many of them say that just because they read someone else who said it?
I've been doing high-end CG since back when the Amiga was the only PC that could (20 years for you newbs who weren't even born yet). I have an 8-core Mac Pro with dual 30" anti-glare ACP monitors and a 24" iMac with the new glossy screen and guess what? I prefer the glossy screen. Since the new 24's have better saturation and contrast, I'm swapping out my 2 30's for two of the new 24's (yes, it's downsizing but I've found that sometimes you CAN have too much of a good thing). And it will be nice having the built-in iSight -- I never bothered getting the add-on iSight for my Pro.
So anyone who says that graphic artists don't like the glossy screen is just re-spewing.
Yeah right.
The millions of glossy-screened iMacs and all the new glossy Macbooks sold seems to put you at the level of a vocal minority.
Are you basing your opinion on a 2-minute examination? We use glossy iMacs for corporate and they are even used by our internal webmasters doing (guess what?) graphics work. They have nothing but high-praise for the screens. Of course they had a concern at the beginning but after an hour of use, it became a non-issue.
Now if you're referring to super-hardcore graphics work working with multi-megabyte RAW images with eventual Vogue-magazine quality pictorials, then maybe, just-maybe I would slightly begin to side with you but those are be serious-workstations using big-bucks monitors and serious color-calibration tools.
I suspect most of the folks complaining really haven't sat down with them for any reasonable amount of time and come to a logical and well-informed decision. No disrespect intended on this and I have no problem being proven wrong. Apple's numbers just seem to imply that it's a myth.
I'm not saying there is not a problem but for every person that complains on how terrible the glossy displays are, there are an equal (if not more) number of other people to state the contrary.
The amount of glossy units being sold seem to indicate Apple's research was pretty good.
Back to my glossy screen now.
Totally with you on this one - I wonder how many of the complainers are actually working in graphic design? Having started out myself in 1994 on a Centris and doing print and online graphics work on every kind of Apple hardware since then, I've never been happier than with my super-glossy 24" iMac right now. To me, it's like driving a car with a swept back windshield and some papers or other junk on top of the dashboard - you can see the reflection of the stuff right in front of you if you look at it, but most of us find a way to focus PAST that and on the road beyond. Not sure why that's so hard. Anyway, for me like many others it's a non-issue. My 2 Jamaican cents (which let me tell you are worth NOTHING!)
I really appreciate that you guys take the time to take photos of the unboxing of Apple products, but please, when you're taking "high quality" photos of devices like this you need to setup your camera correctly. Set the aperture to a very high number like F16 or greater (as high as your camera will go), and use a tripod to keep the camera still for the required longer exposure time. This will give you a far greater depth of field, and thus more than 2mm of the surface of the device will be in focus.
It is quite possible to take these nice close-ups and have the WHOLE display or laptop or whatever in perfect focus. Of course, if you're doing that on purpose to be arty, then disregard!
I really don't like the really tight depth of field, but I am sure it is being done purposefully, to show off their mad photo skillz or camera / lens.
Heh, agreed. Not only that, but two of the pics demonstrate a terrible moire pattern that some people will see as a problem with the screen - when it's really a failure of your camera to resolve the individual pixels as displayed by the screen. I wouldn't post those pics with the moire pattern if someone paid me.
You're suggesting that those particular images not be posted, or that there is better way to shoot to prevent moiré? I don't think the problem is the camera here - obviously it can resolve the individual pixels as it's showing the effects of the thin gaps between the pixels.
I wish I had a dime for every "graphic artist" who says that. I wonder how many of them say that just because they read someone else who said it?
I've been doing high-end CG since back when the Amiga was the only PC that could (20 years for you newbs who weren't even born yet). I have an 8-core Mac Pro with dual 30" anti-glare ACP monitors and a 24" iMac with the new glossy screen and guess what? I prefer the glossy screen. Since the new 24's have better saturation and contrast, I'm swapping out my 2 30's for two of the new 24's (yes, it's downsizing but I've found that sometimes you CAN have too much of a good thing). And it will be nice having the built-in iSight -- I never bothered getting the add-on iSight for my Pro.
Did I miss something that said that the new display is compatible with DVI outputs? Mac Pro doesn't support Display Port yet. The same with the iMac.
On the screen sizes, I really like having a single 30". If you must have two screens, then two 24" units would be best, but even then, that's a pretty wide setup, the screens are a little short on height. I tried a 30 and a 24 and it wasn't as useful to me as I had hoped.
I'm swapping out my 2 30's for two of the new 24's (yes, it's downsizing but I've found that sometimes you CAN have too much of a good thing). And it will be nice having the built-in iSight -- I never bothered getting the add-on iSight for my Pro.
I wholeheartedly agree with glossy being better, but this monitor won't work with your Mac Pro, you don't have a mini-DP
Glossy screens, built-in speakers, what's it for, why would I need this, I don't get it's purpose, it's too niche - all reasonable points of discussion...
You also have to consider that Apple will sell more MacBooks than all of its entire desktop line together.
But surely the big one has to be...
£649.99!!!
You've got to be having a laugh, this is outrageous price for a monitor and I was just considering getting the Mac Pro and a 23" Cinema Display - the difference between the 23" and 24" Dell was just enough to justify it in my book - but this is ridiculous.
This monitor is not made for you Mac Pro, their is no way for you to use it on your Mac Pro.
The cheaper Dell you are looking at isn't LED backlit, have a webcam, speakers, internal power. These all add to the price.
Glossy screens, built-in speakers, what's it for, why would I need this, I don't get it's purpose, it's too niche -
Bar the price this would be perfection for me. Glossy screen - a highly over criticized issue. Not always ideal, perhaps but by no means a deal breaker. When not bothered by reflection (easy to avoid) the screens are gorgeous. Built in speakers - not everybody needs LOUD speakers so for basic audio, great. Personally I have my speakers which would be permanently wired to the monitor. I would have a wireless keyboard and mouse. And I can take the whole lot home and about in the form of my MacBook. I don't see why you think this is so niche. A laptop, not niche. To have a large monitor, not that niche. A lot of people do their primary work on a large monitor and then do the emails, accounts whatever, in the evening on the couch with a beer and a MacBook. Or did you miss-spell and meant to say 'nice'? Me thinks nice. Mini notepad is niche.
You also have to consider that Apple will sell more MacBooks than all of its entire desktop line together.
This monitor is not made for you Mac Pro, their is no way for you to use it on your Mac Pro.
Did I say it was? I said I was looking at the Mac Pro and 23" Cinema Display - this has been removed from the Apple line-up and replaced with 24" LED monitor that can connect to one range of computers.
The cheaper Dell you are looking at isn't LED backlit, have a webcam, speakers, internal power. These all add to the price.
The LED backlighting could be expensive, but the rest of that rubbish is not even remotely expensive - throw in the fact that any 90% of other monitors in the market live in a world where other things, with different types of connectors can be plugged into a monitor - you know like DVDs, games consoles, even products they make like AppleTV...
It's a shockingly overpriced and niche product.
I've been using my MBP with an EIZO display for 2 years now. The EIZO also features a USB hub, keyboard and mouse are connected via bluetooth, and for the MBP I bought a separate magsafe adapter. It's what millions of laptop users do.
By the way...I can also plug in my workmate's computer if I need too. Or my playstation 3, a DVD player...whatever.
Though, the real deal breaker is the glassy, glossy super duper design: It had been such a relieve when TFT displays became affordable so I could get rid of those CRT monitors with it's reflective glass...even if you look at flatscreen tvs you seldemly see one with a reflective design - because it's inferior in use.
the rest is silence.
They look real nice, but unfortunately I will never purchase one... no firewire and the glossy screen absolutely kills it for most people doing graphics work.
Why does a monitor have to have firewire?
Need firewire, get a MacBook Pro.
And suggesting that "glossy screen absolutely kills it for most people doing graphics work" is conjecture on your part. And bull at that.
Funny, as posted elsewhere, i could shave using my iPhone as a mirror if it is turned off. Otherwise, not a bit of glare when its on. Same for my glossy screened monitors, especially the ones with the new LED technology.
But I guess you have to have an iPhone, (or an iPod Touch) or the experience of even seeing the new monitors to appreciate that.
It's a shockingly overpriced and niche product.
Still the least expensive of any of its kind.
I'm considering getting a MacBook and 24" display and using a USB powered audio device to record guitars and vocals. Is there any chance someone could test the monitor with a USB audio device (Any really) and let me know how it goes? Sometimes these devices can be a bit jittery if you connect them to a hub rather than directly to a computer.
The idea is to always have my little studio set up at home and be able to take my MacBook away with me for non-audio stuff, then come back and have my studio set up in seconds.
Thanks
Paul
The little magsafe connector isn't useful for desktops, nor does it make sense for them without a latch or built-in UPS in case the connector pops loose.
Ok...and when Apple ships revised iMacs and Mac minis and Mac Pros with Mini DisplayPorts, those who buy the 24" LED Cinema Display can just tuck that wire away.
Having a built-in MagSafe connector doesn't make this into a "notebook-only" display.
Still the least expensive of any of its kind.
That is an important point but was it necessary for Apple to use this kind of display when marketing to consumers? They shoved cheap screens in the low end laptops. They didn't need to use high end IPS 24-inch panels in these.
Consumers look at price first and quality second. Essentially, what is the best display I can afford. £650 is bordering on the price of Apple's cheapest laptop. When you can buy a 24" display for £170, a lot of people won't even consider Apple's offering.
So that begs the question, are these meant for consumers? The isight camera is for anyone. The glossy display is down to personal tastes (not my preference). The price tag alone suggests it's not meant as a consumer item. For Apple to have clear tags to define Pro and non-pro computers, the Cinema lineup sends a confusing message. Unless the message is that it's for anyone who has £650 to spend on a screen.
Consumers look at price first and quality second. Essentially, what is the best display I can afford. £650 is bordering on the price of Apple's cheapest laptop. When you can buy a 24" display for £170, a lot of people won't even consider Apple's offering.
Really? I'd say most people look at the display first, then look at the price tag and decide if what they're looking at is worth the price. You can compare cheaper, less fully-featured, non-LED backlit 24" displays to Apple's all day, that doesn't mean they are directly competing with each other. Apple clearly isn't interested in battling for the bargain-bin shopper, either with these displays or their computers...or really anything they make...because they're doing better than Ok competing in the high-end, premium market.
In addition, Apple likely doesn't want to spur desktop computer sales with an ultra-affordable display because they don't compete in the saturated, stagnant desktop PC market.
Really? I'd say most people look at the display first, then look at the price tag and decide if what they're looking at is worth the price.
Usually you know before you look at products how much you are prepared to spend so you automatically narrow down your search based on that value. Shopping sites usually have min and max pricing options. You weigh up both features and price but usually you have an upper limit set before you start.
Apple clearly isn't interested in battling for the bargain-bin shopper, either with these displays or their computers...or really anything they make...because they're doing better than Ok competing in the high-end, premium market.
But even £200 gets you a good 24-inch Samsung SyncMaster with HDCP DVI. The £200-300 display segment isn't what I'd call 'bargain-basement'. The really low end consumer spends that on the whole machine including the screen.
I think that Apple selling the 24-inch 'designed for Macbook' display at what the old 20" Cinema was (£399) would have been a good idea and leave the IPS Cinema displays for the people who need them - although £399 is too much for a non-IPS display. Also, Apple might not know how to make a 24-inch display under £650 that doesn't suck.
Surely if they bought the panels from Samsung, they couldn't be any worse than what Samsung are offering.