Yeah, I'd love to buy this display, except that I feel I'm bending over to be raped if I do. I bought a 26.5" HP display instead, which has very nice specs. Was it AS nice as the thunderbolt display? Of course not. But at $250 vs $999, its just an insane difference. Apple needs to drop this at least $300 to $699 or lower, which would still be overpriced, but at least not stratospherically so. They'd sell alot more.
Of course it would sell more if it were cheaper. Why stop at $699? Hell, sell it for $199 and it'll practically shut out the competition!! /s
We bought two of Apple's LED displays and never looked back. It's not just the monitor, but the TB setup as well. I use mine with a 2011 MBA, and my business partner uses his for his rMBP. It's an awesome setup that does not infest our laptops with cables. Ethernet, sound, USB, all on the monitor. That's convenience that's difficult to explain to non-users.
Sure, I could have spent less on a competitors brand, but as usual Apple packages everything together in a much better way to justify the price in my opinion.
Here's some advice, if it's too expensive for you, move on. There are other things I want but are priced out of my pay grade, yet I don't dwell on it.
Yeah, I'd love to buy this display, except that I feel I'm bending over to be raped if I do. I bought a 26.5" HP display instead, which has very nice specs. Was it AS nice as the thunderbolt display? Of course not. But at $250 vs $999, its just an insane difference. Apple needs to drop this at least $300 to $699 or lower, which would still be overpriced, but at least not stratospherically so. They'd sell alot more.
If Apple took out the speakers, the camera, and the hub so it matched the monitor you bought, it would be more than $500 cheaper, not your hoped for $300. It would still be a better monitor than the one you bought though.
When they add USB 3.0 they will most likely add a USB 3.0 connector at the computer end too. This accomplishes three things: 1. Ensures both USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt operate at full speed and don't interfere with each other. 2. Limits USB 3.0 to models of Mac that already include it. 3. Uses a cheap USB hub instead of a more expensive Thunderbolt to USB 3.0 converter.
There are two downsides: 1. The display would be less attractive to owners of 2011 Macs that have Thunderbolt, but lack USB 3.0. 2. The single cable to the computer would split into three arms instead of the current two. Apple and some of their pickier customers have an intense hatred of cables and three plugs in place of two would look to them like a backwards step.
Neither is really a big deal. Most 2011 buyers who wanted a display already purchased one so the potential sales aren't very high in this group and may actually accelerate purchase of 2013 Macs as replacements. An extra plug is well worth it if the result is better performance.
There is one other thing that needs to be mentioned. USB 3.0 causes WiFi interference. In Apple's cable-free world this is a terrible thing, but they've already included USB 3.0 in their computers so they can't use the interference excuse for not including it in their display.
NO NO! same design as an iMac p+but but a 680m inside that thing along with fiber TB cables!!
Having an integrated GPU is certainly a fascinating idea, especially if paired with a MacBook Air. I'm curious how well it would work if used with a higher-end machine that includes a discrete GPU already. An interesting idea could be a Mac Pro or Mini with no GPU at all...?
Why would you want a fiber cable as standard? My understanding is that the benefit to fiber is longer distance - i.e., you could have a massive RAID array in a secure closet or perhaps industrial controllers/instrumentation in an isolated room. There are a few cases where the display would be distant and need a fiber connection, but the default should be a cheap, short cable.
Why would you want a fiber cable as standard? My understanding is that the benefit to fiber is longer distance - i.e., you could have a massive RAID array in a secure closet or perhaps industrial controllers/instrumentation in an isolated room.
Even then the only reason for that is to replace GigE or a SAN fabric with Thunderbolt.
Having an integrated GPU is certainly a fascinating idea, especially if paired with a MacBook Air. I'm curious how well it would work if used with a higher-end machine that includes a discrete GPU already. An interesting idea could be a Mac Pro or Mini with no GPU at all...?
The concept is based around machines like the Mini, MBA and 13" MBP that have integrated GPUs that aren't suitable for gaming or graphics intensive professional apps. Leveraging TB to have a GPU in that large display would allow for people to buy a cheaper Mac.
I doubt they'd do it as it would include significant cost.
Why would you want a fiber cable as standard? My understanding is that the benefit to fiber is longer distance - i.e., you could have a massive RAID array in a secure closet or perhaps industrial controllers/instrumentation in an isolated room. There are a few cases where the display would be distant and need a fiber connection, but the default should be a cheap, short cable.
Besides length electromagnetic interference or snooping are other considerations.
TB is a serial link just like any other. If multiple device try to use it congestion can happen. On the other hand most data transfer is bursty so most users won't have a problem.
Yeah, I'd love to buy this display, except that I feel I'm bending over to be raped if I do. I bought a 26.5" HP display instead, which has very nice specs. Was it AS nice as the thunderbolt display? Of course not. But at $250 vs $999, its just an insane difference. Apple needs to drop this at least $300 to $699 or lower, which would still be overpriced, but at least not stratospherically so. They'd sell alot more.
Having an integrated GPU is certainly a fascinating idea, especially if paired with a MacBook Air. I'm curious how well it would work if used with a higher-end machine that includes a discrete GPU already. An interesting idea could be a Mac Pro or Mini with no GPU at all...?
For a few years I kept expecting to see a series of screens that can run off a single Mac Pro or Mini. 4 computing devices on one Mac. Or buy an iMac and a remote-screen to have 2 virtual computers - either connected by Thunderbolt or just networked. At this point I have no expectations.
Apple was developing a graphics technology to allow 6Mbps between the cpu and gpu a while back but afaik it didn't go far (hopefully someone will correct me). That would have seemed to make things possible on a Gbps Ethernet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diggiti
Sure would be nice if they put an Apple TV inside .....
Similar to the above - put the AppleTV/iPad internals in the screen for basic graphics and apps, plus being a FAST remote screen so we can have 6 virtual iMacs (small ones... 21"? 17"?) in the house for a cheaper price. Nice for a small business too.
Would be quite soon for the new Mac Pro, as Tim said 'sometime next year'. But sure, could happen. FireWire out is indeed likely, but tell me, what was the reason again for not to include USB3? I think it is CPU related, but can't remember the reason for it.
Overpriced? The 27" is $999. The 30" was $ 1799..."In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary... come again?" (BrickTop in Snatch)
The reason usb 3 has not happened on the mac pro right now is because the sandy bridge xeons dont support usb 3 natively. Apple has been waiting till the ivy bridge versions come out which do support usb 3 natively because usb is a processor function and is supported by the cpu directly, unlike firewire and thunderbolt which have there own stand alone platform processor independent. Ivy bridge xeons just barely came out late late last fall. To make a professional machine like the mac pro that is super stable and able to be a workhorse 24/7 takes time. It will happen and the new one that comes out this year will have usb 3 and thunderbolt with ivy bridge xeons.
The reason the consumer machines like the iMac and pro desktops like the Macbook Pro have usb 3 is because all of there core i chips have been upgraded to ivy bridge versions.
Make it happen at a lower price. The TB display is way over priced even if you consider the TB hub.
Is there a genuine reason it can't be 1/3 of it's current price?
I know they differentiate with aluminium construction, IPS, etc. but they make iPads with both these things that sell for less than half the price.
It might make sense for professionals purchasing on corporate budgets, but what about consumers buying a mac mini? The sensible options are either, BYOD, purchase a non-apple display or get an iMac. I'd love to know what the attachment rate is on attempts to upsell a $1000+ display for customers buying a $600 computer!
When they go eventually go retina Apple could at least market a reasonably-priced, non-retina model instead of conceding the entire consumer display market to other manufacturers. Maybe they've decided there's not enough money in it to even try.
Is there a genuine reason it can't be 1/3 of it's current price?
I know they differentiate with aluminium construction, IPS, etc. but they make iPads with both these things that sell for less than half the price.
Size/resolution combined with panel quality kicks the price up.
The Thunderbolt Display at launch was cheaper than any other display that used a panel of that quality, and it had more features (ports, speakers, camera, etc.) than any of them.
Not that it can't (and won't) eventually be cheaper. The 30" was $3,299 at launch. THIRTY-TWO NINETY-NINE! And now look where we are.
Overpriced? The 27" is $999. The 30" was $ 1799..."In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary... come again?" (BrickTop in Snatch)
Displays in general have come way down in price since then. When the 30" display debuted, it cost way more than that. Note $3300 and it required a $400 graphics card upgrade for your G5. If you wanted one, you were locked into at least $3700. I can't remember if this included the necessary dual link dvi cable. It's all relative to the current market. The defining feature of the thunderbolt display is the docking functionality. I know some people would still buy it because it's Apple or because it looks pretty. The docking station aspect is one of the most prevalent parts though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I'm not aware of any such limitation. I fully expect USB 3.0.
However, now that you mention it Thunderbolt as a maximum throughput of 10Gbps in each direction. Can you have USB 3.0 on that plus the other data?
I think he meant the ivy bridge thing socket LGA1155 thing. It was chipset native as of ivy bridge. With the mac pro and thunderbolt display, the only options are third party usb chipsets. LGA2011 doesn't include it by default, and obviously the display is a completely different thing.
None of these have built-in camera/mic, not a big deal to me, but it is an extra feature. Not all of these have a speaker built-in either. I doubt the competitors have metal shells.
All in all, the Apple monitor seems reasonably competitive for what it has.
I think it depends on why you're purchasing the display. If the thunderbolt hub is the primary driving factor, the Apple display is the obvious option. If you're just looking for a nice 27" display around that price limit, I prefer NEC. One is $950 after price drops. The other is $1000. Most display brands reduce pricing over time to even out sales to a degree. Display technology is updated much slower than other things.
I was one of the people that scoffed at the release of the Thunderbolt display. I can't stand glossy, and felt it was overpriced as well. After factoring in the TB hub and the nice panel, I felt it wasn't as bad after all. After spending about five months on one, I can say I actually do enjoy it and feel it was a good investment. The gloss really needs to be improved though. I used to run midnight in Xcode, and have since reverted back to default. White backgrounds don't glare as much as black / dark backgrounds. That helped with glare quite a bit. I also set up my desk facing the window so sun light won't directly hit the monitor. Again, if they can improve the glare like they did with the MBP Retina, I may buy another one and run dual Thunderbolt Displays.
I also can't stand glossy, but certainly am not going to move furniture just so I have less glare. I buy a matte screen. Supposedly the current screens are way less glossy than before...
To me, this is only interesting if they are actually going to go back to making the bigger sizes. 27" just doesn't cut it once you are used to the older, bigger ones.
It would also be nice to go back to a more rational aspect ratio like 16:10 but that will probably never happen now.
Displays in general have come way down in price since then. When the 30" display debuted, it cost way more than that. Note $3300 and it required a $400 graphics card upgrade for your G5. If you wanted one, you were locked into at least $3700. I can't remember if this included the necessary dual link dvi cable.
It did include the Dual DVI cable (was attached to the screen back then as well) and the PowerMac7,3 could be ordered with the GeForce 6800 (DDL)
I think it depends on why you're purchasing the display. If the thunderbolt hub is the primary driving factor, the Apple display is the obvious option. If you're just looking for a nice 27" display around that price limit, I prefer NEC. One is $950 after price drops. The other is $1000. Most display brands reduce pricing over time to even out sales to a degree. Display technology is updated much slower than other things.
Do these other 2 displays have the TB hub in there as well? If not, they seem overpriced - compared to Apple
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2
... the MagSafe 1:2 adapter is the worst one Apple has ever made ...
This is just a ridiculous thing to say, and undermines any other comment you could make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Yeah, I'd love to buy this display, except that I feel I'm bending over to be raped if I do. I bought a 26.5" HP display instead, which has very nice specs. Was it AS nice as the thunderbolt display? Of course not. But at $250 vs $999, its just an insane difference. Apple needs to drop this at least $300 to $699 or lower, which would still be overpriced, but at least not stratospherically so. They'd sell alot more.
Of course it would sell more if it were cheaper. Why stop at $699? Hell, sell it for $199 and it'll practically shut out the competition!! /s
We bought two of Apple's LED displays and never looked back. It's not just the monitor, but the TB setup as well. I use mine with a 2011 MBA, and my business partner uses his for his rMBP. It's an awesome setup that does not infest our laptops with cables. Ethernet, sound, USB, all on the monitor. That's convenience that's difficult to explain to non-users.
Sure, I could have spent less on a competitors brand, but as usual Apple packages everything together in a much better way to justify the price in my opinion.
Here's some advice, if it's too expensive for you, move on. There are other things I want but are priced out of my pay grade, yet I don't dwell on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Yeah, I'd love to buy this display, except that I feel I'm bending over to be raped if I do. I bought a 26.5" HP display instead, which has very nice specs. Was it AS nice as the thunderbolt display? Of course not. But at $250 vs $999, its just an insane difference. Apple needs to drop this at least $300 to $699 or lower, which would still be overpriced, but at least not stratospherically so. They'd sell alot more.
If Apple took out the speakers, the camera, and the hub so it matched the monitor you bought, it would be more than $500 cheaper, not your hoped for $300. It would still be a better monitor than the one you bought though.
1. Ensures both USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt operate at full speed and don't interfere with each other.
2. Limits USB 3.0 to models of Mac that already include it.
3. Uses a cheap USB hub instead of a more expensive Thunderbolt to USB 3.0 converter.
There are two downsides:
1. The display would be less attractive to owners of 2011 Macs that have Thunderbolt, but lack USB 3.0.
2. The single cable to the computer would split into three arms instead of the current two. Apple and some of their pickier customers have an intense hatred of cables and three plugs in place of two would look to them like a backwards step.
Neither is really a big deal. Most 2011 buyers who wanted a display already purchased one so the potential sales aren't very high in this group and may actually accelerate purchase of 2013 Macs as replacements. An extra plug is well worth it if the result is better performance.
There is one other thing that needs to be mentioned. USB 3.0 causes WiFi interference. In Apple's cable-free world this is a terrible thing, but they've already included USB 3.0 in their computers so they can't use the interference excuse for not including it in their display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
NO NO! same design as an iMac p+but but a 680m inside that thing along with fiber TB cables!!
Having an integrated GPU is certainly a fascinating idea, especially if paired with a MacBook Air. I'm curious how well it would work if used with a higher-end machine that includes a discrete GPU already. An interesting idea could be a Mac Pro or Mini with no GPU at all...?
Why would you want a fiber cable as standard? My understanding is that the benefit to fiber is longer distance - i.e., you could have a massive RAID array in a secure closet or perhaps industrial controllers/instrumentation in an isolated room. There are a few cases where the display would be distant and need a fiber connection, but the default should be a cheap, short cable.
Quote:
Why would you want a fiber cable as standard? My understanding is that the benefit to fiber is longer distance - i.e., you could have a massive RAID array in a secure closet or perhaps industrial controllers/instrumentation in an isolated room.
Even then the only reason for that is to replace GigE or a SAN fabric with Thunderbolt.
The concept is based around machines like the Mini, MBA and 13" MBP that have integrated GPUs that aren't suitable for gaming or graphics intensive professional apps. Leveraging TB to have a GPU in that large display would allow for people to buy a cheaper Mac.
I doubt they'd do it as it would include significant cost.
Besides length electromagnetic interference or snooping are other considerations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbmcavoy
Having an integrated GPU is certainly a fascinating idea, especially if paired with a MacBook Air. I'm curious how well it would work if used with a higher-end machine that includes a discrete GPU already. An interesting idea could be a Mac Pro or Mini with no GPU at all...?
For a few years I kept expecting to see a series of screens that can run off a single Mac Pro or Mini. 4 computing devices on one Mac. Or buy an iMac and a remote-screen to have 2 virtual computers - either connected by Thunderbolt or just networked. At this point I have no expectations.
Apple was developing a graphics technology to allow 6Mbps between the cpu and gpu a while back but afaik it didn't go far (hopefully someone will correct me). That would have seemed to make things possible on a Gbps Ethernet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diggiti
Sure would be nice if they put an Apple TV inside .....
Similar to the above - put the AppleTV/iPad internals in the screen for basic graphics and apps, plus being a FAST remote screen so we can have 6 virtual iMacs (small ones... 21"? 17"?) in the house for a cheaper price. Nice for a small business too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Would be quite soon for the new Mac Pro, as Tim said 'sometime next year'. But sure, could happen. FireWire out is indeed likely, but tell me, what was the reason again for not to include USB3? I think it is CPU related, but can't remember the reason for it.
Overpriced? The 27" is $999. The 30" was $ 1799..."In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary... come again?" (BrickTop in Snatch)
The reason usb 3 has not happened on the mac pro right now is because the sandy bridge xeons dont support usb 3 natively. Apple has been waiting till the ivy bridge versions come out which do support usb 3 natively because usb is a processor function and is supported by the cpu directly, unlike firewire and thunderbolt which have there own stand alone platform processor independent. Ivy bridge xeons just barely came out late late last fall. To make a professional machine like the mac pro that is super stable and able to be a workhorse 24/7 takes time. It will happen and the new one that comes out this year will have usb 3 and thunderbolt with ivy bridge xeons.
The reason the consumer machines like the iMac and pro desktops like the Macbook Pro have usb 3 is because all of there core i chips have been upgraded to ivy bridge versions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Make it happen at a lower price. The TB display is way over priced even if you consider the TB hub.
Is there a genuine reason it can't be 1/3 of it's current price?
I know they differentiate with aluminium construction, IPS, etc. but they make iPads with both these things that sell for less than half the price.
It might make sense for professionals purchasing on corporate budgets, but what about consumers buying a mac mini? The sensible options are either, BYOD, purchase a non-apple display or get an iMac. I'd love to know what the attachment rate is on attempts to upsell a $1000+ display for customers buying a $600 computer!
When they go eventually go retina Apple could at least market a reasonably-priced, non-retina model instead of conceding the entire consumer display market to other manufacturers. Maybe they've decided there's not enough money in it to even try.
Originally Posted by Dunks
Is there a genuine reason it can't be 1/3 of it's current price?
I know they differentiate with aluminium construction, IPS, etc. but they make iPads with both these things that sell for less than half the price.
Size/resolution combined with panel quality kicks the price up.
The Thunderbolt Display at launch was cheaper than any other display that used a panel of that quality, and it had more features (ports, speakers, camera, etc.) than any of them.
Not that it can't (and won't) eventually be cheaper. The 30" was $3,299 at launch. THIRTY-TWO NINETY-NINE! And now look where we are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Overpriced? The 27" is $999. The 30" was $ 1799..."In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary... come again?" (BrickTop in Snatch)
Displays in general have come way down in price since then. When the 30" display debuted, it cost way more than that. Note $3300 and it required a $400 graphics card upgrade for your G5. If you wanted one, you were locked into at least $3700. I can't remember if this included the necessary dual link dvi cable. It's all relative to the current market. The defining feature of the thunderbolt display is the docking functionality. I know some people would still buy it because it's Apple or because it looks pretty. The docking station aspect is one of the most prevalent parts though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I'm not aware of any such limitation. I fully expect USB 3.0.
However, now that you mention it Thunderbolt as a maximum throughput of 10Gbps in each direction. Can you have USB 3.0 on that plus the other data?
I think he meant the ivy bridge thing socket LGA1155 thing. It was chipset native as of ivy bridge. With the mac pro and thunderbolt display, the only options are third party usb chipsets. LGA2011 doesn't include it by default, and obviously the display is a completely different thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
There's not a lot like it that's so much cheaper.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007617+600012694+600060968&QksAutoSuggestion=&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&Configurator=&IsNodeId=1&Subcategory=20&description=&hisInDesc=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&AdvancedSearch=1&srchInDesc=
All spec'd with LED backlight.
None of these have built-in camera/mic, not a big deal to me, but it is an extra feature. Not all of these have a speaker built-in either. I doubt the competitors have metal shells.
All in all, the Apple monitor seems reasonably competitive for what it has.
I think it depends on why you're purchasing the display. If the thunderbolt hub is the primary driving factor, the Apple display is the obvious option. If you're just looking for a nice 27" display around that price limit, I prefer NEC. One is $950 after price drops. The other is $1000. Most display brands reduce pricing over time to even out sales to a degree. Display technology is updated much slower than other things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Why is the guy on the box cowering beside his purple chair?
He's probably horrified his new 123456789F monitor doesn't look like that, or is even shown to scale.
I also can't stand glossy, but certainly am not going to move furniture just so I have less glare. I buy a matte screen. Supposedly the current screens are way less glossy than before...
You're enjoying a 30" 2560*1600, aren't you?
Then you missed wizard69 price comment.
Thank you! That is the reason for it, but iForgot.
It did include the Dual DVI cable (was attached to the screen back then as well) and the PowerMac7,3 could be ordered with the GeForce 6800 (DDL)
Do these other 2 displays have the TB hub in there as well? If not, they seem overpriced - compared to Apple
If Apple comes out with another completely useless glossy piece of crap - watch the stock crash another $60-$70.
Someone tell Apple SJ is dead and 2006 is gone.
The only nervous party reading this is Dell who have cashed in HUGE from Apple's insane blunder with mirror-tech.
By not using a glossy screen you are obviously unable to see the real you.
Ret-i-na! Ret-i-na! Ret-i-na!