When I bought my 23" ACD the price between the Dell's 24" and Apple's ACD was like $280 CAD. I can eat that as I was buying a machine at the same time and the AppleCare covered the monitor too.
If I am buying a LCD now I definitely will NOT buy the Apple.
By the way. Talked to a local apple reseller. And the staff told me the only model that sells right now is, believe it or not, the 30-inch.
The 23" and 20" are so hard to sell (especially the 20"). They even stop stocking the 20" and selling the BenQ 20" instead.
The Apple monitors are awful compared to almost any other in that price range.
Compare the brightness
Compare the contrast ratios
Check out the refresh speeds
Apple's current offerings are only great profit centers for Apple, they are probably tripling or quadrupling their costs on the cinema displays.
And don't give me the colorsync integration BS. Less than 1 percent of Apple's users fully calibrate their monitors and take advantage of this technology. Certainly not worth so much more to most people I deal with.
I keep reading that the specs on the Apple displays are bad or awful but it's not generating in a screen that "actually" looks inferior.
I see the ACD's every weekend and they still look good. I agree that they are overpriced but qualitatively speaking I doubt the Dell actually looks better.
You can only see refresh rate improvements if you're playing fast material.
Contrast ratios have to be the most bogus rating I've seen.
Brightness is a nonfactor as well because most LCDs can get very bright. Most people turn them down.
The biggest issue I have seen with Apple's LCDs is that they seem to need to be at maximum brightness from day one. I've owned three of them and they all were only acceptable to me at max brightness.
The Dell 2005 LCD that I use now is brighter at it's dimmest setting than the Apple Cinema Display is at maximum brightness. So what, you might ask? Well, LCDS tend to dim as they age. Thus, the Dell LCD has some brightening ability left to use as it ages, while the ACD will simply dim, dim, dim.
You may think Contrast ratios are bogus, but having blacker blacks is important, and the Apple LCDs are not as black as the Dell 2005 I have, nor as dark as many other LCDs. I agree that the specific measurement of the ratio might not be accurate, but there is a big difference in the contrast-ability of the Apple LCDs and others on the market.
Edit: In short, the Apple LCDs appear to have much less dynamic range than currently shipping LCDs from other companies, without any advantages in product lifetime. End edit.
Sorry if my previous post was a bit curt. Been working on other things and didn't take time to "humanize" the reply.
This subject also comes up with cheap CRT monitors. There are plenty of cheap CRTs and LCDs out there (some with the right (digital) connectors, even). It is indeed very important that the buyer beware that he or she may be getting what they are paying for - a monitor with a short lifespan.
I've had edu clients beg to purchase the cheapest CRTs for their Mac mini's, told them this cautionary tale, yet they still insisted. After 6-12 months, their inexpensive monitors have begun to dim dramatically. I'd guess they are half as bright as they were when installed.
I write that to say this: a cheap LCD with great specs is probably still a cheap LCD. The bulbs are the most likely part to fail early, and the one most likely to be able to make on-the-cheap. The question becomes: Is a $300 20" LCD that lasts 2 years a good value compared to a $500 20" LCD that lasts 4 years?
There are variables that influence the answer:
1. What use? Professional photo reproduction demands much more than merely maintaining an Internet life.
2. Cash on hand. If you have only $350, you have to evaluate things like credit, loans, real need.
3. Quality of the cheap LCD. Hardly any manufacturer makes things to fail in such a short time period, and that means they are trying to make a decent product. How likely is it that they have hit the right quality standard with this batch and you will get an exceptional deal? The model is simple: make and sell as much as you can while improving your quality, then increase prices as your quality improves and your reputation rises. The folks who discover the unknown quality brand get great deals initially.
4. And more, including aesthetic design of the product.
What I'm saying is that there is a place for cheap monitors, etc. Perhaps it is not a pretty place, but it does exist. So long as the consumer is willing to put up with the shortcomings, it will continue to exist. Buyer Beware, indeed.
Though I've never owned either an Apple or Dell display, from what I hear, it would be a great shame if the bargain basement bundled LCDs that Dell sell put someone off the high end ones which use similar, if not better panels than the Apple ones.
David
In the 20 and 30 inch variety Apple and Dell use the exact same panels. The Dell and Apple 23" inchers were also the same, but Apple hasn't updated to 24" yet. I could understand a little markup because its Apple, but $300 for the 20" is just insane.
I don't buy monitors on specs. I have two eyes and thus I like to actually look at the monitor and know I'm liking what I see. With that in mind I'm more into the size mated with a good screen.
I'd love to see.
1. iSight in every model.
2. HDCP support for HD playback
3. USB/FW hub built in with headphone jack as well.
4. Composite inputs on some models.
Sizes
20"- $499 (1680x1050)
24"- $1099(1920x1200)
27"- $1499(1920x1200)
30"- $1999(2560x1600)
This covers the whole gamut
Low cost high quality 20" widescreen for sub $500
24" for general computing and HD work.
27" for those who need larger workspace but standard rez
30" for HiRez work
Add in a 17" model using the same panel as the iMac for $299-$350 and you have a deal. $500 is not low cost to a lot of people.
In the 20 and 30 inch variety Apple and Dell use the exact same panels. The Dell and Apple 23" inchers were also the same, but Apple hasn't updated to 24" yet. I could understand a little markup because its Apple, but $300 for the 20" is just insane.
It may be comforting to believe that Dell and Apple monitors are the same. As someone who has purchased both, I can assure you that they are not. In his earlier posts in this thread, jccbin did an excellent job on this point. As for the 24" Dell, it has the same dimensions as the 23" Apple. The difference is in how each company markets its monitors.
Althoguh both do use the same LCD panel, as has been mentioned in this thread I would expect the Apple monitor to last longer. I just hope they either drop prices or update them with isgight / infrared / whatever they have planned soon though, as I am just leaving college and will be starting to do a lot of graphic design and video editing work soon.
Quite simply the price of the Apple Cinema Display are the same because people are still buying them. Of course ACD is not selling well in the price conscious consumer world but they sell well in the professional world.
I know of several photographic houses that use ACD. I see them being used on film sets all the time.
HP monitors and ACD are used most frequently in the professional imaging world. I don't really know of any one who uses Dell monitors.
There are newer TFT LCD panels that produce a wider color and deeper blacks. They are very expensive. At this point a 23" retails for $6000.
The difference is in how each company markets its monitors.
The difference is that they use completely different panels.
Apple (and all the other 23" out there: HP, Sony...) has a 23" LG-Philips panel, while Dell uses the Samsung 24" panel - again, like all other 24" displays (Eizo etc.).
I own a PowerMac Dual G5 (The original version). I had been using a dual G4 PowerMac and decided to upgrade. With that original G4 I had the old style 20"Apple LCD. After Purchasing the G5, I purchased a new Aluminum 20" LCD. (For 1299.00US shortly there after Apple Cut the price in half. Still pissed about that.) So I had the old gen and the gen 20" on my desk. I have just recently purchased 3 Dell 2005FPW off of eBay for a total of $900.00US. I put all the new Dells up against both apples and I can sit here and say that the Apple?s are not for any thing other than matching the look to your PowerMac G5. The Dells have more features more useful inputs and are extremely brighter that the Apples.
Now before anyone flames me saying it is hard to compare old Apple LCD?s to new Dell?s, let me offer this little qualifier. My best friend purchased a new Apple 20"LCD and he came over with it and compared it with the 2 Apple LCD's and Dell's I have. Guess what, he returned the Apple and picked up 2 NEW Dells off of eBay for the same amount of money. By the way my 20" Aluminum LCD was just as bright as his brand spanking new one.
I will say this the stands on the dell are butt ugly. So my father-in-law and I fabricated 1 stand that holds all three Dells out of aluminum. It is much, much more pleasing to the eye.
I guess the point I am trying to make here is that I now have 3 20" LCD's (With the help of an additional ATI PCI Radion video Card.) and cost me nothing after unloading the Apples on eBay. I will never ever buy another Apple Display unless they come inline with the rest of the market. And anyone thinking of purchasing an Apple, yes that are beautiful in the aluminum enclosure, is it really worth hundreds more? I am happier having the screen real estate than having a nice enclosure. No one ever sees my setup except me and I would rather have function over beauty. So which type of person are you?
Look again at the Dells - from everything that is said about them on the net, when it comes to computers, they make pieces of tat, but their high-end monitors are something else. They are brighter, more adjustable, include analog inputs as well as the DVI, and are much, much cheaper.
David
Their PCs are really not too terrible; the real problems stem from their horrible software setup; for the most part today, all PC builders make the same product; they use the same parts, they use the same materials to make the cases, hell most HPs, Dells, Gateways and so on are made in the same handfull of factories in the east...the real differance is in the software setup; Dell sells stuff cheaper than HP because they load it with TONS of stuff...you really think dell can sell computers for $299 without making money on the backend?
No matter which vendor you go with, the trick is go to their business store and order them with "windows only" and no bundled software; most of them will do it, just not on the "consumer" side.
Comments
If I am buying a LCD now I definitely will NOT buy the Apple.
By the way. Talked to a local apple reseller. And the staff told me the only model that sells right now is, believe it or not, the 30-inch.
The 23" and 20" are so hard to sell (especially the 20"). They even stop stocking the 20" and selling the BenQ 20" instead.
Compare the brightness
Compare the contrast ratios
Check out the refresh speeds
Apple's current offerings are only great profit centers for Apple, they are probably tripling or quadrupling their costs on the cinema displays.
And don't give me the colorsync integration BS. Less than 1 percent of Apple's users fully calibrate their monitors and take advantage of this technology. Certainly not worth so much more to most people I deal with.
I see the ACD's every weekend and they still look good. I agree that they are overpriced but qualitatively speaking I doubt the Dell actually looks better.
You can only see refresh rate improvements if you're playing fast material.
Contrast ratios have to be the most bogus rating I've seen.
Brightness is a nonfactor as well because most LCDs can get very bright. Most people turn them down.
The biggest issue I have seen with Apple's LCDs is that they seem to need to be at maximum brightness from day one. I've owned three of them and they all were only acceptable to me at max brightness.
The Dell 2005 LCD that I use now is brighter at it's dimmest setting than the Apple Cinema Display is at maximum brightness. So what, you might ask? Well, LCDS tend to dim as they age. Thus, the Dell LCD has some brightening ability left to use as it ages, while the ACD will simply dim, dim, dim.
You may think Contrast ratios are bogus, but having blacker blacks is important, and the Apple LCDs are not as black as the Dell 2005 I have, nor as dark as many other LCDs. I agree that the specific measurement of the ratio might not be accurate, but there is a big difference in the contrast-ability of the Apple LCDs and others on the market.
Edit: In short, the Apple LCDs appear to have much less dynamic range than currently shipping LCDs from other companies, without any advantages in product lifetime. End edit.
Interesting. I'll check the setting on the ACDs next time I'm in my local Compusa. That's an excellent point.
This subject also comes up with cheap CRT monitors. There are plenty of cheap CRTs and LCDs out there (some with the right (digital) connectors, even). It is indeed very important that the buyer beware that he or she may be getting what they are paying for - a monitor with a short lifespan.
I've had edu clients beg to purchase the cheapest CRTs for their Mac mini's, told them this cautionary tale, yet they still insisted. After 6-12 months, their inexpensive monitors have begun to dim dramatically. I'd guess they are half as bright as they were when installed.
I write that to say this: a cheap LCD with great specs is probably still a cheap LCD. The bulbs are the most likely part to fail early, and the one most likely to be able to make on-the-cheap. The question becomes: Is a $300 20" LCD that lasts 2 years a good value compared to a $500 20" LCD that lasts 4 years?
There are variables that influence the answer:
1. What use? Professional photo reproduction demands much more than merely maintaining an Internet life.
2. Cash on hand. If you have only $350, you have to evaluate things like credit, loans, real need.
3. Quality of the cheap LCD. Hardly any manufacturer makes things to fail in such a short time period, and that means they are trying to make a decent product. How likely is it that they have hit the right quality standard with this batch and you will get an exceptional deal? The model is simple: make and sell as much as you can while improving your quality, then increase prices as your quality improves and your reputation rises. The folks who discover the unknown quality brand get great deals initially.
4. And more, including aesthetic design of the product.
What I'm saying is that there is a place for cheap monitors, etc. Perhaps it is not a pretty place, but it does exist. So long as the consumer is willing to put up with the shortcomings, it will continue to exist. Buyer Beware, indeed.
Happy Father's Day!
You've had personal experience owning ACD and that adds credibility.
I'm pretty sure new ACDs are coming very soon. Although it vexes me that Apple waits so long. Hoping they're worth the wait.
Happy Father's Day to you as well. Best wishes.
Originally posted by iMacfan
Though I've never owned either an Apple or Dell display, from what I hear, it would be a great shame if the bargain basement bundled LCDs that Dell sell put someone off the high end ones which use similar, if not better panels than the Apple ones.
David
In the 20 and 30 inch variety Apple and Dell use the exact same panels. The Dell and Apple 23" inchers were also the same, but Apple hasn't updated to 24" yet. I could understand a little markup because its Apple, but $300 for the 20" is just insane.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I don't buy monitors on specs. I have two eyes and thus I like to actually look at the monitor and know I'm liking what I see. With that in mind I'm more into the size mated with a good screen.
I'd love to see.
1. iSight in every model.
2. HDCP support for HD playback
3. USB/FW hub built in with headphone jack as well.
4. Composite inputs on some models.
Sizes
20"- $499 (1680x1050)
24"- $1099(1920x1200)
27"- $1499(1920x1200)
30"- $1999(2560x1600)
This covers the whole gamut
Low cost high quality 20" widescreen for sub $500
24" for general computing and HD work.
27" for those who need larger workspace but standard rez
30" for HiRez work
Add in a 17" model using the same panel as the iMac for $299-$350 and you have a deal. $500 is not low cost to a lot of people.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
In the 20 and 30 inch variety Apple and Dell use the exact same panels. The Dell and Apple 23" inchers were also the same, but Apple hasn't updated to 24" yet. I could understand a little markup because its Apple, but $300 for the 20" is just insane.
It may be comforting to believe that Dell and Apple monitors are the same. As someone who has purchased both, I can assure you that they are not. In his earlier posts in this thread, jccbin did an excellent job on this point. As for the 24" Dell, it has the same dimensions as the 23" Apple. The difference is in how each company markets its monitors.
Althoguh both do use the same LCD panel, as has been mentioned in this thread I would expect the Apple monitor to last longer. I just hope they either drop prices or update them with isgight / infrared / whatever they have planned soon though, as I am just leaving college and will be starting to do a lot of graphic design and video editing work soon.
Originally posted by shanmugam
apple cinema display pricing is getting Ridiculous as the each day passes by ... not reflecting the current market trend/price
i bought my 20" for SGD1488 when dell 20" was SGD 1200, i paid 200 preimum for the Apple Logo
after 9 months now
Dell 20" - 799
Apple 20" - 1488 almost double the price, for this price one could get 24" and 200 less
time to price the cinema display at market trend/price (unless Apple decided to sell cinema display for PowerMac Pro market only) ...
What are you talking about? A 20" Apple display costs $799.00 and is much better quality then Dell.
I know of several photographic houses that use ACD. I see them being used on film sets all the time.
HP monitors and ACD are used most frequently in the professional imaging world. I don't really know of any one who uses Dell monitors.
There are newer TFT LCD panels that produce a wider color and deeper blacks. They are very expensive. At this point a 23" retails for $6000.
Originally posted by iPeon
What are you talking about? A 20" Apple display costs $799.00 and is much better quality then Dell.
I think he was quoting Singapore dollars, in which case it is SGD$1,388
Originally posted by Mr. Me
The difference is in how each company markets its monitors.
The difference is that they use completely different panels.
Apple (and all the other 23" out there: HP, Sony...) has a 23" LG-Philips panel, while Dell uses the Samsung 24" panel - again, like all other 24" displays (Eizo etc.).
Now before anyone flames me saying it is hard to compare old Apple LCD?s to new Dell?s, let me offer this little qualifier. My best friend purchased a new Apple 20"LCD and he came over with it and compared it with the 2 Apple LCD's and Dell's I have. Guess what, he returned the Apple and picked up 2 NEW Dells off of eBay for the same amount of money. By the way my 20" Aluminum LCD was just as bright as his brand spanking new one.
I will say this the stands on the dell are butt ugly. So my father-in-law and I fabricated 1 stand that holds all three Dells out of aluminum. It is much, much more pleasing to the eye.
I guess the point I am trying to make here is that I now have 3 20" LCD's (With the help of an additional ATI PCI Radion video Card.) and cost me nothing after unloading the Apples on eBay. I will never ever buy another Apple Display unless they come inline with the rest of the market. And anyone thinking of purchasing an Apple, yes that are beautiful in the aluminum enclosure, is it really worth hundreds more? I am happier having the screen real estate than having a nice enclosure. No one ever sees my setup except me and I would rather have function over beauty. So which type of person are you?
Originally posted by DGNR8
....
Now before anyone flames me ....
Why would anyone flame you? If you can't tell the difference, then you should not pay the difference.
Originally posted by iMacfan
Look again at the Dells - from everything that is said about them on the net, when it comes to computers, they make pieces of tat, but their high-end monitors are something else. They are brighter, more adjustable, include analog inputs as well as the DVI, and are much, much cheaper.
David
Their PCs are really not too terrible; the real problems stem from their horrible software setup; for the most part today, all PC builders make the same product; they use the same parts, they use the same materials to make the cases, hell most HPs, Dells, Gateways and so on are made in the same handfull of factories in the east...the real differance is in the software setup; Dell sells stuff cheaper than HP because they load it with TONS of stuff...you really think dell can sell computers for $299 without making money on the backend?
No matter which vendor you go with, the trick is go to their business store and order them with "windows only" and no bundled software; most of them will do it, just not on the "consumer" side.
Originally posted by a_greer
.... Dell sells stuff cheaper than HP because they load it with TONS of stuff...
This is absolutely correct. The number I have is that each third-party icon on the Windows Desktop represents a $70 payment to the vendor.