MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Feb 19, 09 - 04:01 pm Comment from: wannabe

Remind me again why Apple sells monitors? They are not usually a supplier of commodity parts like that.

Duh. That was a no brainer.

Darn it...

the 20" display, i can understand... but that 30"-er is so *hawt*.

Feb 19, 09 - 04:04 pm Comment from: auren

@wannabe

Well they are gorgeous and functional. I've had my 20" cinema display hooked up to my MBP for 2 or 3 years now and it's been a constant workhorse as well as lookin' real good.

Feb 19, 09 - 04:11 pm Comment from: MadMac

@wannabe

Did u see 24 this week? How was anyone gonna know that Chloe was using a Mac unless it was shoved in our face by those dual 24" displays with the Apple logo big and bold?

The displays are not comparable to a commodity printer, they are more integral to the operation of a Mac.

Just my .02

Feb 19, 09 - 04:12 pm Comment from: G4Dualie

They are not usually a supplier of commodity parts like that.

I can't remember a time when they didn't sell monitors. Although, the first monitor I ever used with an Apple computer was Taxan. It was color!

All this means is Apple is replacing these with LED backlit, right?

Feb 19, 09 - 04:14 pm Comment from: ken1w

> Remind me again why Apple sells monitors? They are not usually a supplier of commodity parts like that.

Because it is an integral part of the computer using experience, unlike using something like a printer.

As long as Apple makes computers with no screen, or small screens (as in laptops), they will offer customers an option to get an Apple display, with all the extra features. The new ones even have a built-in web cam and speakers that supposedly sound really good. And those extra ports. And the LED backlighting. Plus everything switches over automatically when you plug in your MacBook. That's all part of the Apple user experience that would be distinctly inferior if the user got a generic display.

Apple displays are not commodity items. And Apple's margins are pretty good on them too, so it would be dumb to stop making them.

20-inch is a bit dinky by today's standards, especially when consumers are moving to larger external displays and viewing a broader range of media (such as on TVs . . . the average preferred size of LCDs and Plasmas has gotten progressively larger.)

I remember when I got my first Mac for highschool graduation. It was a Mac II and the 12" Apple Monitor that was bought to go with it was $1200.00.

I had the 20" Cinema Display at work and it was absolutely beautiful. I don't think you can get a better monitor. When it came time to buy a new monitor for home, I got a 28" Hanns-G for less than $400. Its also beautiful, maybe 90% of the Cinema display. Given the cost and size advantage, it was just to hard to justify the price difference when it was my money

Feb 19, 09 - 04:49 pm Comment from: Mac-nugget

I think March is going to be a moth full of announcements.

Well let's hope that Mac-nugget is correct and there is a bunch of "desktop" stuff in March be it (more) displays, updated Pro's, mini's and (even though they have monitors) iMacs.

Maybe Apple will settle in on a single 24" offering for their external displays. It's still considered "big" these days, but, man, there's nothing quite like the feeling of having a 30" wall in front of you.

MDN: "income" as in I'll need some more income if Mac-nugget is correct.

Good riddance, that thing was $700!! you could get a nice one from anywhere for under $300

Feb 19, 09 - 05:35 pm Comment from: macaholic

Also MIA for a while is the 23" display

Feb 19, 09 - 05:59 pm Comment from: drmacnut

What many people don't realize is that this new 24" from Apple does NOT work with ANY of our Macs except the very latest MacBooks, MBAs, and MBPs with that Mini DisplayPort connector. It's absolutely ridiculous!

I think Apple has lost out on a lot of potential revenue from making displays without backward compatibility. For instance, my brother just sent TWO brand new 24" displays back to Apple and got his money back - they didn't work with his late-gen G5. Crazy.

What about people that need or want replacement or updated displays for their iMacs, G4s, G5s, Mac Pros, Minis, etc? Can anybody here on MDN figure out why Apple would make such a silly move as to have no available DVI-compatible displays for their hardware?*

*except for the 30" for the Mac Pro, I guess.

Feb 19, 09 - 06:37 pm Comment from: The Dude

@ Loru
Do some research on the difference between TN display technology, and IPS, then get back to us. And also look at the cost of IPS displays by competitors... Apple is not far off in price.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD

The Dude abides.

@wannabe:
Apple Cinema Displays are not just "commodity parts"—you shouldn't compare them to just any other screen.

There's only two other vendors providing SWOP-certified displays, and Apple Cinema Displays are actually the cheapest option.

http://www.swop.org/certification/monitorList.asp


(Proud and spoiled owner of 30" Apple Cinema Display)

Mustn't have been glossy enough.

Feb 19, 09 - 07:34 pm Comment from: G4Dualie

@drmacnut

I think you and your brother are confused and you're getting worked up over nothing. Don't let his one uninformed misstep shake your confidence.

Anyone of Apple's current displays, except of course the laptop monitors your brother bought, would work perfectly and are backward compatible all the way to the Mac SE30!

Apple drops the twenty-inch and puts the 24 in its place. No more thirty's because better and cheaper technology has eclipsed the size value and it's time to update the line.

The question you gotta' ask is, does it make sense for Apple to produce an iMac with a 42 inch screen? Therein lies the dichotomy; the race to get small and monitors are going in the other direction!

Apple will need displays for their gadgets.

If you can afford 2 Apple monitors, then you can pick up a couple of adapters. Talk about an over-reaction.

Feb 20, 09 - 01:30 am Comment from: SKY LARK

@drmacnut
Maybe ... your bro' should do a bit of research before buying stuff.

The trouble with some peeps these days is that they are LAZY.

On another point that irks me no end, is that too many peeps believe every rumor as fact, when in truth most are a farrago of twisted facts and lies.

Shape up or ship out.

Feb 20, 09 - 01:55 am Comment from: drmacnut

Thanks G4Dualie and unknown. But here are my points, and the first one I'll make to the mysterious unknown person who said mine is "an over-reaction". Unfortunately, you don't understand that there ARE NO adapters to go from a DVI-port on a Mac to one of these new displays. Neither Apple nor any third-party I can find makes one. An adapter of this kind would require powered circuitry in order to modify the signal (i.e. it's not just a simple connector cable like DVI to VGA, for instance, on an original MBP).

Second, to G4Dualie, although your point is well taken, if Apple is discontinuing its 20", and the 23" no longer exists, then what are we supposed to do? The 30" is the only remaining DVI-compatible display in their lineup.

You said, "Anyone of Apple's current displays, except of course the laptop monitors your brother bought, would work perfectly and are backward compatible all the way to the Mac SE30!" You can only use the 30" with the Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, G5 (PCI-X with ATI Radeon 9650 or better or NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT DDL or better), G5 (PCI Express), and the PowerBook G4 with dual-link DVI support. Therefore, they are not compatible with anything older than a PBG4.

Anyway, it still seems silly to me that Apple would quit making their excellent mid-sized displays for photographers, videographers, audio editors, magazine and web-design shops, and countless other production environments where replacement or updated monitors are required for working desktop Macs and portables.

Feb 20, 09 - 02:13 am Comment from: drmacnut

Thanks, Sky Lark. Point well taken.

Wannabe...

My 20" is an excellent partner to my MBPro. With any app (eg Photoshop, Quark) that has lots of dialog boxes, it's a great way to work uncluttered.

Or indeed to run eg Safari on the MBP screen, iPhoto on the 20". It's hugely more productive than a single screen, even a big one.

Feb 20, 09 - 05:25 pm Comment from: NCIceman

I want to know where the new connector is to hook a Mac Pro up to one of the new monitors. I can see them phasing these out, but they've nothing yet to replace them with. The new LED displays only work with the new laptops.

"Remind me again why Apple sells monitors? They are not usually a supplier of commodity parts like that."

"Apple displays are not commodity items."

But everybody else's 20" displays are commodities, and most are better quality than Apple's much maligned 20" display. $140 bucks gets you a decent one. Splash out another $30 to go up to a 22".

For half the price of Apple's 20" you can have the competition's 28". For a few hundred bucks less than Apple charged for a 20" you can have the competition's 32". If you really want to pay what Apple charged for a 30" why not get the competition's 52" instead and save $500 over the 30" price.

5x more for a monitor of lower quality is more than most people will swallow. As the poster above says, when it's your own money...

@Gone:

"If you really want to pay what Apple charged for a 30" why not get the competition's 52" instead and save $500 over the 30" price."

Please show me a 52" SWOP-certified display that's 500 bucks cheaper than the 30" ACD. I'd love that.

What's swop, something people do their small and expensive Apple displays for large and gorgeous 3rd party displays?

The almost complete lack of Swop certified displays on the market indicates just how little any consumer cares about that spec or certification. If you need that, then be bent over by Apple, if not then buy a bigger, better display for less money.

Feb 22, 09 - 12:51 am Comment from: Jack

I hope Apple adds an isight camera to their displays. Without the stand alone isight being available anymore, the only option is third party cams.