Apple 17'' Widescreen LCD? [Archive]

View Full Version : Apple 17'' Widescreen LCD?

Spanky Deluxe

Nov 27, 2006, 01:01 PM

I don't know if this has been posted here yet or not, I did a quick search but turned up nothing.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20061127PD208.html

LCD vendors such as ViewSonic and Apple are set to launch 17-inch widescreen LCD monitors by year-end or the first quarter of 2007, according to industry sources.

LCD monitor vendors expect 17-inch widescreen monitors to replace entry-level and middle-range 15-inch and 17-inch LCD monitors in the future. The prices for 17-inch widescreen monitors will not necessary be higher than 17-inch 4:3 models amid more efficient panel cutting by makers, according to the vendors.

Currently, LCD panel makers such as HannStar Display and China-based players have launched 17-inch widescreen panels in the market. A fifth-generation (5G) substrate from HannStar can be cut into fifteen 17-inch widescreen panels or fifteen 15-inch 4:3 conventional-sized panels, the sources said.

According to International Data Corporation (IDC), widescreen LCD monitors will account for 34% of the overall monitor market in the fourth quarter of 2007 with 19-inch widescreen monitors being the largest segment among all widescreen monitors. The proportion of 19-inch and 17-inch widescreen monitors will increase to 15.2% and 11.4%, respectively, by the fourth quarter of next year, the research firm added.

MacRumors

Nov 27, 2006, 01:08 PM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Digitimes claims (http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20061127PD208.html) that Apple is planning on launching a 17" Widescreen LCD" monitor "by year-end or the first quarter of 2007".

According to vendors cited by the article, 17" widescreen monitors will not necessarily be more expensive than the current 17" 4:3 models.

Apple previously had sold a 17" 4:3 ratio LCD until June 2004, when it revamped (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/06/20040628150739.shtml) their monitor line to what it stands today:

• 20" Cinema (1680x1050) - $699
• 23" Cinema HD (1920x1200) - $999
• 30" Cinema HD (2560x1600) - $1999

A 17" Widescreen LCD would fall in the bottom end of the monitor line. While intriguing, the report comes from Digitimes whose rumor reports have been historically inaccurate.

Shacklebolt

Nov 27, 2006, 01:10 PM

Creating a low end monitor would be a very, very wise decision on Apple's part. Buyers of Mac Minis would appreciate having a less expensive Apple monitor to go with their stuff.

godrifle

Nov 27, 2006, 01:10 PM

It's about time Apple provided Mini buyers with a branded monitor option. :)

OwlsAndApples

Nov 27, 2006, 01:10 PM

Or get an iMac...:p

aricher

Nov 27, 2006, 01:10 PM

meh - does this matter? Isn't 17" is getting to be a bit skimpy by any consumer standards.

jholzner

Nov 27, 2006, 01:14 PM

meh - does this matter? Isn't 17" is getting to be a bit skimpy by any consumer standards.

I don't know anyone who has something bigger and are just consumers and not prosumers.

mahonmeister

Nov 27, 2006, 01:15 PM

Apple is making good strides in filling the holes in their line-up. Still a ways to go if they want their market share to keep climbing.

WildCowboy

Nov 27, 2006, 01:17 PM

meh - does this matter? Isn't 17" is getting to be a bit skimpy by any consumer standards.

I don't think so. Many people (myself included) who use notebooks as their primary computers without an external monitor. 17" widescreen is a great size.

Entry-level mini buyers don't want to spend more on their monitor than they do on their computer.

DMann

Nov 27, 2006, 01:17 PM

This may pave the way to larger wide-screens.
I would love to see a 40" widescreen.

shadowmoses

Nov 27, 2006, 01:18 PM

This would be a really great release hope it is true. I am also sure that many including myself would be willing to pay a slight premium for a 17" Apple widescreen display....

ShadoW

aswitcher

Nov 27, 2006, 01:19 PM

Digi have such a poor track record I doubt this but if Apple can do something new with a 17" (inbuilt isight, portrait mode swivel, higher def than 1280x1024) then I might go nicely with the mini.

macman2790

Nov 27, 2006, 01:19 PM

this would be cool. It would even be better if someone other than the digitimes discovered it.

Spanky Deluxe

Nov 27, 2006, 01:26 PM

Str8edgepunker

Nov 27, 2006, 01:26 PM

Digi have such a poor track record I doubt this but if Apple can do something new with a 17" (inbuilt isight, portrait mode swivel, higher def than 1280x1024) then I might go nicely with the mini.

Built-in iSights, now there's an idea! :D

~Shard~

Nov 27, 2006, 01:27 PM

Digitimes does not have the best track record, so I would take this report with a grain of salt. I think a 17" display would be nice to see and that it would definitely be appealing to Mac mini owners, however I would be concerned most about the price point. 17" displays are becoming cheaper and cheaper and if Apple puts too much of a premium on this, I don't think sales will be very swift.

Of course perhaps Apple is releasing this display to complement the upcoming handheld Mac with docking station... :cool:

TheBobcat

Nov 27, 2006, 01:27 PM

macfan70

Nov 27, 2006, 01:28 PM

To fit in to the Mac line up, the price for the 17" Widescreen should not be over 399 at which point you might as well get an iMac. I think if it is real, then Apple will fill the product gap and sell them for 299. Still iffy since most 17" LCDs go for at least 50 bucks less. :confused:

corywoolf

Nov 27, 2006, 01:30 PM

This may pave the way to larger wide-screens.
I would love to see a 40" widescreen.

I know you originally said 30" and then edited it before I could post. I doubt there will be a 40" any time soon. It is more likely that Apple introduces a 32" LCD TV and probably a 42" Plasma.

Eraserhead

Nov 27, 2006, 01:30 PM

I think Apple will specifically NOT make a 17" Monitor as Digitimes are so astonishingly innaccurate :rolleyes:.

iEric

Nov 27, 2006, 01:31 PM

20" is the new 17", duh. :cool:

scottlinux

Nov 27, 2006, 01:32 PM

Many find two 17" LCDs more useful than one big LCD. Esp graphic artists, film composers, etc. They can have their tools/mixer open on one monitor, and the image or sequence open on another.

Or if someone already has a big LCD, it would be a good compliment to put a 17" alongside it.

topgunn

Nov 27, 2006, 01:34 PM

Built-in iSights, now there's an idea! :D
Asus has this (http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=10&l2=88&l3=367&model=1136&modelmenu=1) display which includes speakers and a webcam. It would be nice if Apple introduced a similar concept with a display only. It would be prefect for the Mac mini.

isgoed

Nov 27, 2006, 01:35 PM

20" is the new 17", duh. :cool:<= So right.

And 17" widescreen?? :confused: That is just small. That is about the samy height as my 1996 performa's 14" screen.

No, but no thanks.

And apple just can't compete with other vendors when you consider the general price-point of these things.

Josias

Nov 27, 2006, 01:42 PM

Do you think such a display would sport a pwning! S-IPS panel as the other Cinema Displays, or would it be throttled down to a Dell style S-PVA panel?:D

I willy, willy hope for:
17" (1680x1050), S-IPS panel, 12 ms, DVI, 600:1, iSight, 400 cd/m2, alu. case, 2xUSB 2.0, 2xFireWire400 - $399.
20" (1920x1200), S-IPS panel, 12 ms, DVI, 700:1, iSight, 500 cd/m2, alu. case, 2xUSB 2.0, 2xFireWire400 - $699.
24" (some res. I can't remember), S-IPS panel, 12 ms, DVI, 700:1, iSight, 500 cd/m2, alu. case, 2xUSB 2.0, 1xFireWire400, 1xFireWire 800 - $999.
30" (some res. I can't remember), S-IPS panel, 12 ms, DVI, 700:1, iSight, 500 cd/m2, alu. case, 2xUSB 2.0, 1xFireWire400, 1xFireWire 800 - $1999.

:D :D :D

cloudnine

Nov 27, 2006, 01:42 PM

This may pave the way to larger wide-screens.
I would love to see a 40" widescreen.

Because a 30" cinema display is too small? Because you want to consolidate your TV and computer displays? :confused:

CEAbiscuit

Nov 27, 2006, 01:43 PM

After using a 23, the 20 seems small. If someone is looking for an allin one solution, instead of a mini and a monitor, they should just get an iMac. The move makes no sense.

macfan70

Nov 27, 2006, 01:43 PM

This Asus LCD is great but even at 500 bucks very few people will buy it.
The rotating feature would be great for reading threads. ;)

Asus has this (http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=10&l2=88&l3=367&model=1136&modelmenu=1) display which includes speakers and a webcam. It would be nice if Apple introduced a similar concept with a display only. It would be prefect for the Mac mini.

rdrr

Nov 27, 2006, 01:47 PM

Don't they already make one? Its called a 17" MacBook Pro... :)

Josias

Nov 27, 2006, 01:49 PM

Don't they already make one? Its called a 17" MacBook Pro... :)

Yes, they also make an iMac.

No way people get a MacMini and a MacBook Pro. Pull out the display, hack it in a dell casing etc...:confused:

BTW, with the intro of the low end iMac, I find this to be bogus.

gugy

Nov 27, 2006, 01:49 PM

20" is the new 17", duh. :cool:

yeah, I agree.
17 is so small.
well if it costs $300, why not?

bubba451

Nov 27, 2006, 01:53 PM

It kills me that the least expensive Apple display is $700. I just can't justify the tax over a Dell display, and I'm amazed how others can. A Dell 2007WFP (their 20" widescreen display which uses the same panel that's found in Apple's 20") is $400. It also sports inputs for VGA, composite and S-Video. And for a Dell, the display is reasonably attractive.

The Apple displays give you a shiny aluminum bezel, firewire routing, and software display controls. Is that enough to merit a 75% markup?

So, I'm thrilled if this is true and Apple is putting out a less-expensive display option. But I'd love it if they brought the rest of their lineup into check with the competition.

Stella

Nov 27, 2006, 01:53 PM

Why do you continue to link to DigiTimes? Its not worth the time and effort, they are highly inaccurate - 100% wrong.

Josias

Nov 27, 2006, 01:55 PM

bommai

Nov 27, 2006, 01:56 PM

I don't think 17" is going to happen. I would rather Apple drop the price on the 20" drastically. $699 is way too much. Dell has two 20" widescreen monitors. One for the office crowd. It has a USB hub built-in, can rotate, has DVI, VGA and S-video inputs. It has identical specs to the Apple monitor. This monitor is about $350. You can get it for lower sometimes. I have one of these (an older model actually - and it cost $500 18 months ago).

Dell also has a new 20" widescreen that does not have USB hub, no rotation capability. However, it has a HDMI port with HDCP (High definition content protection). This is a requirement for HD-DVD and Bluray playback. This monitor is only $250. It has the same 1650x1050 resolution like the Apple 23". You can get the Dell 24" 1920x1200 LCD for $600. Paying $999 for Apple 23" is nuts!

I love my PowerMac G4, but Apple's display prices need to come down.

Also, my powermac is 3.5 years old and I would really like to buy a new MacProsumer. Something that is half the size of MacPro. Has one dual core Conroe, space for 2 HDs, space for one optical drive, 2 PCI express slots, firewire 800, 400, USB 2.0, 802.11g/n, bluetooth, optical audio in/out, DVI/HDMI with HDCP. I want all this to cost $1500 or less.

This would give me the flexibility to buy my own monitor and stay in the iMac arena. iMacs would still sell well for people that want all-in-one. Apple can sell this Conroe towers for business as well as people that want to upgrade. This machine is more of a successor to the PowerMac G4 compared to the MacPro. MacPro is overkill for most people for home use.

bigandy

Nov 27, 2006, 01:56 PM

i would like to see this display option.

however, as stated, coming from DigiTimes this could just be hot air. :rolleyes:

tech4all

Nov 27, 2006, 01:58 PM

I hope this is true. This would be great for the Mac mini. Consumers really don't need a 20" + screen. A 17" screen (4:3 or wide) would be nice, and nice (low) price would be even nicer! Since the 20" and 23" are have the same difference is size as the 17" and 20" would (3"), and the 20" cost $699 and the 23" $999, so the 23" is $300 more, following that logic the 17" would cost $399. Hopefully it'll be cheaper than that though since you can get a Dell 17" LCD for cheaper....maybe a price drop for the whole line. :)

roland.g

Nov 27, 2006, 02:00 PM

I would say $199 would be the perfect price point to go with a Mini, even if Apple makes little to nothing on it, they won't sell that many because of the size. Now if it has a built-in iSight I can digest a $249 price point. No one is going to pay $299 for an Apple branded 17" LCD in today's market. There are too many cheapies out there.

Personally I wouldn't be interested. I am using my new Mini with an almost 7 yr old LaCie electron Blue 19" CRT and would never consider downsizing. The 20" ACD isn't attractive because it isn't that much bigger than what I have and the 23" is a little pricey at the moment, though the biggest reason I wouldn't get it is that I'll be getting a 24" iMac in the spring (preferably Black) and selling the Mini. That and my wife would kill me if I dropped a grand on a monitor.

Doctor Q

Nov 27, 2006, 02:03 PM

The advantage for Apple in having a 17" widescreen monitor would be that nobody (well, almost nobody in the market for a monitor) would be priced out of the choice to buy an Apple-branded one.

There will also be competing monitors at lower prices from other companies, but many people will opt to buy an Apple monitor to go with their Mac, from Mac mini to Mac Pro.

stompy

Nov 27, 2006, 02:11 PM

I think Apple will specifically NOT make a 17" Monitor as Digitimes are so astonishingly innaccurate :rolleyes:.

LOL, right you are. Anything from Digitimes should automatically go to page 2.

whatever

Nov 27, 2006, 02:11 PM

I don't know anyone who has something bigger and are just consumers and not prosumers.
Hi, my name is Joe and I'm sitting in front of a 30" ACD and I have a 22" ACD beside me. And I'm typing this from home.

I would rather see Apple lower the price of the 20" and keep all of their displays at 20" and higher.

brazos

Nov 27, 2006, 02:12 PM

I wish Apple would come out with a 17" LCD monitor that has the same form factor as the 17" MacbookPro. Instead of a keyboard, computer, it could just have a large battery in the base to power the display and provide additional power out to a Macbook Pro or Macbook. Assuming it had a DVI out, I could use it as an extended desktop with my MacbookPro on the go with out the need for additional power (in fact, it could extend the runtime of the Macbook as well). And best of all, the whole thing would fit in my carryon bag. If Apple doesn't come out with this, I wish someone else would...

Stridder44

Nov 27, 2006, 02:13 PM

Or get an iMac...:p

Haha seriously, I don't get it either. You could totally get a low end iMac for the combined price of a 17" Apple monitor and a Mac mini.

Hi, my name is Joe and I'm sitting in front of a 30" ACD and I have a 22" ACD beside me. And I'm typing this from home.

I would rather see Apple lower the price of the 20" and keep all of their displays at 20" and higher.

I agree. I have an old 17" iMac (at least mines widescreen and none of this 4:3 crap), and I couldn't see going any lower. Consumer or not, it makes more sense to lower the current monitors (starting from the 20") and keeping things that way. Besides, knowing Apple, they'll charge $599 or something crazy for a 17" monitor anyway...

lseven

Nov 27, 2006, 02:28 PM

Allright, for the 473rd time! They don't use the same panel!:eek:

See? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)

Sorry, that link doesn't say anything about the 20" monitors referenced in the original thread.

emotion

Nov 27, 2006, 02:31 PM

Reasons why this isn't a good idea:

1. Too small, you can get 19 inch widescreen monitors for £130 upward these days. The market for the Apple 17" is that market. I'd believe a 19inch rumour though. The 20" ACD is pro, maybe release a 19" in black or white for macbook/mac mini owners?

2. Digitimes? Page 3 rumours.

And talking of matching accessories when is apple going to release keyboards that are up to date? Their current offering look as out of date as the bondi blue imac. Euw (I know this is off-topic for the thread but the rumour is bogus anyway :) ).

Hattig

Nov 27, 2006, 02:32 PM

emotion

Nov 27, 2006, 02:33 PM

Sorry, that link doesn't say anything about the 20" monitors referenced in the original thread.

The inference is that the technology used in the 20" versions of those displays is the same.

spyderracer393

Nov 27, 2006, 02:34 PM

Wow, for the first time ever I actually beat MacRumors: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3095478#post3095478

I think a 17" model would be a good idea for Apple. It'll stop people buying Minis from getting their LCD fix from elsewhere to some extent and won't cost Apple a bean in R&D costs since they already use 17" panels in the iMac and have all the internals ready because of the 20" and 23" ACDs. It would only need a different sized chassis to be designed.

dude you may have "beaten them" by getting on the front page, but I sent this tip in this morning at 8 AM and it was not from digitimes, it was from industry resources and factories in Asia so HA I beat you.

shoobe01

Nov 27, 2006, 02:35 PM

I strongly agree with scottlinux (and almost no one else). I am a graphics professional, and use a 17" Apple LCD with a 17" mitsu CRT to the right as my version of a widescreen. Had it well before there were widescreens, and regardless none of the current crop are wide enough; they all take up too much vertical room. Not just too much to fit my workspace conveniently, but enough my neck gets tired tilting up and down.

I put all my palettes (and sometimes a referring Word doc or something) to the right. The left monitor is for the work. I have used three monitor systems, where the lefthand one is for source material (like on video work).

I do something similar at work, with a 1st gen Cinema Display as the main display, and when docked, the powerbook to the right. But I like all the monitors being the same -- fairly small -- height.

Apple would do great selling a more affordable panel. Aside from space (it would pair well with a thing called a "mini") lots of people will go for the one-stop-shopping experience, as well as the Apple cool and beautiful. Also, they make hella-good displays. I am personally never gonna buy some $129 sale LCD, cause they are crap.

emotion

Nov 27, 2006, 02:35 PM

Maybe they should drop the price of the 20" Cinema Display to something more reasonable, such as $499 - $699 is far too much. In the UK it is £529!

I've seen 22" DVI Widescreen TFTs selling for under £300, often close to £200. $499 is probably too high still (even if it is a better standard of panel, and includes a Firewire hub) - maybe $399. Put the 17" up for ~$249 and aim it at Mac Mini purchasers (+iSight, -Firewire, 4 USB2 ports).

Some would hold up that the type of panels used (see the dell 24 vs acd 23 artcile) in the cheaper monitors is different and that is what you pay for.

Most people dont care that much though and do make the direct comparison. So price-wise the ACD looks to be a bad deal.

tech4all

Nov 27, 2006, 02:37 PM

Now I'm starting to wonder if Apple will drop the 20" and replace it with a 17" LCD. I know that seems odd, but that would increase the gap between the 20" and 23" ACDs. There's a 7" gap between the 23" and 30" and if they introduced a 17" to replace the 20" that would make a 6" gap between the low end and the middle one. That way there will be much more of a difference between the ACDs.

Just a thought. :)

gugy

Nov 27, 2006, 02:37 PM

Because a 30" cinema display is too small? Because you want to consolidate your TV and computer displays? :confused:

bring the 40" plus size.
I'll buy one.
For a designer large screens are great. The 30" now seems small!:eek:

Xavier

Nov 27, 2006, 02:40 PM

I wouldn't mind this happening! I have been stuck with a 15 inch (not even wide screen) for a long time, but being low budget, haven't been able to afford the models I wanted. I hope that Apple produces this

lorductape

Nov 27, 2006, 02:41 PM

this is perfect. I'm using a 17' core 2 duo desktop, with a dual monitor. right now, the monitor I have is 20; 4:3. It's rather inconvenient having to resize my windows when I switch them from monitor to monitor.

for people who can't wait, or iif diigitimes proves innacurate as usuall, try this one that I (was) planning on getting:click (http://www.shop.com/op/~Star_Logic_17_Widescreen_Flat_Panel_Display-prod-28263596-37170414?sourceid=57)

danielwsmithee

Nov 27, 2006, 02:49 PM

zoran

Nov 27, 2006, 02:50 PM

Well Apple should just first make a face lift in ACDs both specs and price and then lets all just start thinking about the new 17" wide lcd. Personally i dont give a sh@t about a such a small display, the 23" ACD suits my needs, only its price and its potentials dont!
Damn it! :D

Earendil

Nov 27, 2006, 02:50 PM

Maybe Apple just needs to lower its monitor prices to sane levels as opposed to the ridiculous prices that they currently stand at. Justify them all you want, if Apple really wants to push its monitors, those prices need to come down. They might have flew 3 years ago, but enough is enough.

I just got a 22-inch LCD for $370 (US), and it's not a piece. Quite frankly, I can't really tell the difference. Plus it has better adjustments and I/O. It doesn't have the Apple look, and it only has 1050 horizontal lines of res but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me.

"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"

Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.

(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)

Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.

Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.

Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:

Now, back on topic :)

I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:

That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.

KindredMAC

Nov 27, 2006, 02:51 PM

I like the idea of a 17" widescreen Apple LCD..... however ONLY if it is priced at $199. Like everyone keeps saying, you can pick up a mighty nice 19" Widescreen LCD at Best Buy or Walmart for between $179-$249. I should know, I have 3 ProViews hooked up to my PowerMac G5 at home and have loved life for the last 9 months!

But in reality, I don't think a 17" is Apple's answer. Lowering the prices of the current model lineup is indeed the way to go. I've been one of the biggest bitchers about Apple's price point on LCD's for years now. That 20" LCD should not be anymore than $299. Plain and simple...simple and plain!

The 23" model should be in the ball park of $499 and the 30" should pop in at $999. Then to really goose people, Apple should bring a 36" model in at $1499.

Apple LCDs are not worth the extra price tag as long as you do your home work before purchasing an LCD monitor from a different company.

danielwsmithee

Nov 27, 2006, 02:51 PM

emotion

Nov 27, 2006, 02:51 PM

Earendil

Nov 27, 2006, 02:52 PM

MacSA

Nov 27, 2006, 02:52 PM

meh - does this matter? Isn't 17" is getting to be a bit skimpy by any consumer standards.

I'm still using a 15" monitor. :p

danielwsmithee

Nov 27, 2006, 02:57 PM

Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.While I agree with your thought process behind your post that Apple is targeting a different audience. That target audience is dwindling very quickly as Apple's prices increase in comparison to the rest of the market.

Earendil

Nov 27, 2006, 02:58 PM

But in reality, I don't think a 17" is Apple's answer. Lowering the prices of the current model lineup is indeed the way to go. I've been one of the biggest bitchers about Apple's price point on LCD's for years now. That 20" LCD should not be anymore than $299. Plain and simple...simple and plain!

You people are incorrigible. I do hope people start reading the thread or doing some research before anyone else makes a fool of themselves.

Apple LCDs are not worth the extra price tag as long as you do your home work before purchasing an LCD monitor from a different company.

A little homework, Aye? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327).
That's funny, I was thinking the same thing...

Why do I find so much joy in pointing out other peoples ignorance and feeding them their own lines... I should be a college professor :rolleyes:

Earendil

Nov 27, 2006, 03:03 PM

While I agree with your thought process behind you post that Apple is targeting a different audience. That target audience is dwindling very quickly as Apple's prices increase in comparison to the rest of the market.

I'm sorry, why is their target audience dwindling? Are there fewer professional graphics artists out there? Are there fewer people that demand professional color accuracy today then 5 or 10 years ago? I would be interested in a link to some research, because common sense to me says that day by day that market can only be growing.

Now I haven't done the research, but perhaps you can find a similarly specced 20" wide S-IPS LCD so we can see how out of whack Apple's prices are.

danielwsmithee

Nov 27, 2006, 03:06 PM

You people are incorrigible. I do hope people start reading the thread or doing some research before anyone else makes a fool of themselves.

I find you the one that is incorrigible. The 23" inch price is competitive where it is as your link so eloquently points out. The Apple displays are easily worth a 15-20% mark-up. The problem is since the last time the display prices were updated 20" wide-screen panel prices have dropped nearly in half. So a year ago when Apple released this $699 price point it was a good price because competitors were selling the same panels at $599. Now they are at $399 and some times as low a $299. Apple's display is worth extra just not 75% to 100% extra.

danielwsmithee

Nov 27, 2006, 03:09 PM

I'm sorry, why is their target audience dwindling?It all comes down to how much extra you are willing to pay for the increased monitor specification. Most will pay 20% very few will pay 75%.

joemama

Nov 27, 2006, 03:15 PM

"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"

Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
.

Let's not forget, Apple is in the business of making money. If you don't think so, just look at the new iPods that do not come with an installer CD or a manual. Did Apple lower the price by 25 cents, the amount it might take to produce these? No - that's more 25 cents in Apple's pocket.

While Apple is targeting professionals and pro-sumers, they know they need to still compete. Their prices on monitors are WAY off.

By the time these 17" come out, after christmas, 17" monitors will be going for $150-200 max. If Apple did release one, with an iSight and one firewire port, maybe it's $249, at most. Anything higher won't sell.

Remember, companies may set the price, but it's the market that stipulates what people will pay. And if Apple wants a piece of the pie, they will adjust accordingly.

Earendil

Nov 27, 2006, 03:16 PM

I find you the one that is incorrigible. The 23" inch price is competitive where it is as your link so eloquently points out. The Apple displays are easily worth a 15-20% mark-up. The problem is since the last time the display prices were updated 20" wide-screen panel prices have dropped nearly in half. So a year ago when Apple released this $699 price point it was a good price because competitors were selling the same panels at $599. Now they are at $399 and some times as low a $299. Apple's display is worth extra just not 75% to 100% extra.

I find what you say quite plausible. However a quick search finds all monitors in that price point to be of the S-PVA panel type, and not SWOP certified (or at least advertised as such). Perhaps a more in depth search would reveal the monitors you are talking about, or perhaps since you are making the claim, you are aware of some?

I fully suspect Apple has a markup on their pro-sumor monitors. However I'm tired of people using Dell monitors as an example for outrageous pricing. No one here, or in any argument I've seen recently, has offered a different comparison. My knowledge of monitors may not be up to date, but when I bought my monitor, Apple's prices were in line.
My apologies if I'm not easily swayed from what my own research has shown to be true, until someone can come up with something besides "you're wrong" :(

I mean absolutely no disrespect in any of my arguments...

Object-X

Nov 27, 2006, 03:20 PM

4God

Nov 27, 2006, 03:22 PM

If I remember correctly, Job's intent of the Mini was BYOM,K,M.
(Bring your own monitor, keyboard and mouse) The mini is for those
who already have these things. Get an iMac instead. In other words,
I see no need for a 17" monitor - especially wide screen. :rolleyes:
A 17" iMac would be less expensive than a Mini and a 17" monitor plus
you would get dedicated graphics.

Earendil

Nov 27, 2006, 03:24 PM

It all comes down to how much extra you are willing to pay for the increased monitor specification. Most will pay 20% very few will pay 75%.

So you didn't mean their target audience was shrinking, what you meant was their target audience wasn't buying?

What you say is true for any consumer vs prosumer market.
The prosumers get more quality, to meet their requirements, and pay for those specifications + more because they are the best. Also a lower volume of products to a smaller prosumer base means you have to charge more per product.

If Apple wasn't satisfied with the number of units they were moving, and had a markup far above their (real) competitors, I would think Apple would lower it's prices, don't you? That would be the only way to make money if they weren't actually selling the monitors.

danielwsmithee

Nov 27, 2006, 03:24 PM

I mean absolutely no disrespect in any of my arguments...Same hear. I just find it interesting that you seem to be ignoring the fact that 1 year ago you were willing to pay an approximately $100 markup for SWOP certification, yet you find it completely reasonable for Apple to essentially be charging $300 for it today? I'm about the biggest fan of Apple of anyone but their prices are out of touch on their 20" displays.

emotion

Nov 27, 2006, 03:24 PM

While Apple is targeting professionals and pro-sumers, they know they need to still compete. Their prices on laptops are WAY off.

The macbook is very competitive for it's size and portablility. Compare it to a similar Vaio or IBM. You'll be surprised.

4God

Nov 27, 2006, 03:26 PM

I don't understand this. Apple has carried a 20" monitor as their low end for two years. Why offer something even smaller after so long? This seems like a step backwards.

Exactly, as someone here said earlier, "the 20" is the new 17"

timmillwood

Nov 27, 2006, 03:28 PM

i think the 17" apple monitor will go well with my 17" macbook pro, but only if they are the same resolution

danielwsmithee

Nov 27, 2006, 03:28 PM

If Apple wasn't satisfied with the number of units they were moving, and had a markup far above their (real) competitors, I would think Apple would lower it's prices, don't you? That would be the only way to make money if they weren't actually selling the monitors.Exactly that is why Apple needs a refresh to the prices. We both see eye-to-eye on the quality of their product and it's superiority. I'm just stating that their prices are stale and need a refresh. Something on the order of $499 (20"), $899 (23"), and $1699 (30").

MacFan782040

Nov 27, 2006, 03:28 PM

Well think about it...all Apple's consumer products have iSights built in for "video-confrencing out of the box". If they want to push the MacMini, they will need a low-end display with a built-in iSight for this.

Sell it seperately at $249.

Maybe bundle a MacMini/display together?

MacMini- $599
bundled display- $200

$799 for a computer/display + mouse/keyboard

...your talking less than $900 for a full Apple system-not bad!

*And for everyone saying 17" is too small... Think of all the people who bought MacBooks at 13.3"! Nobody I know that has one uses an external display.

Leoff

Nov 27, 2006, 03:30 PM

I don't understand this. Apple has carried a 20" monitor as their low end for two years. Why offer something even smaller after so long? This seems like a step backwards. Why not reduce the 20" to $399 and lower the price of the other two? Dell is putting major price pressure on Apple with their monitors; though they are not as good looking, the price has no doubt won over many would be buyers...not me of course. :p

Well, see... there's this little thing called market analysis and listening to the people you sell things to. I highly doubt Apple was sitting around going "we need to release something new because its been months. I know! How about a different monitor size!"

Why not reduce the 20" to $399? Why should they when they seem to be selling just fine at where they are?

Dell is putting IMAGINED price pressure on Apple with their monitors. Selling cheaper crap will cost you less.

joemama

Nov 27, 2006, 03:30 PM

The macbook is very competitive for it's size and portablility. Compare it to a similar Vaio or IBM. You'll be surprised.

Sorry, I meant "monitors" - I just made the edit. thanks for the catch.

LimeiBook86

Nov 27, 2006, 03:56 PM

A 17" LCD screen made by Apple would be a good deal for people buying Mac Minis but, the price would have to be just right in order for people to actually thing of buying an Apple LCD rather than another brand LCD that they can get cheaper. Also I don't think Apple would want to cannibalize their sales for the iMac. The Mac Mini with a 17" LCD screen (maybe a built-in iSight, although that would raise the price) is roughly the same specs as a 17" iMac ($1,199 model). Except the iMac has a dedicated ATI Graphics Chipset, a larger Hard Drive, and a few more add-ons (Keyboard, Mouse etc)

If Apple were to do this they would have to be pretty careful. I can't see Apple doing this in the near future, although I do agree a 20" LCD screen as a starting size is a bit high, and so is the price. But, don't get me wrong, I love the 20" LCD panel in my iMac. I just think Apple might see a demand for a smaller size, cheaper LCD screen. :)

Caitlyn

Nov 27, 2006, 03:57 PM

A 17" Apple Cinema Display would be great in my opinion. Probably an afforable, well selling product. However, the thing I want more than anything is built-in iSights so...this doesn't really phase me much to be honest. :D

Earendil

Nov 27, 2006, 04:08 PM

Same hear. I just find it interesting that you seem to be ignoring the fact that 1 year ago you were willing to pay an approximately $100 markup for SWOP certification, yet you find it completely reasonable for Apple to essentially be charging $300 for it today? I'm about the biggest fan of Apple of anyone but their prices are out of touch on their 20" displays.

I still am failing to see a counter point.
We both agree that Apple has a higher quality display, that id required by professionals. We both agree that the prices a year ago were a good price, and competative. Now you are making a claim that the competition has lowered their prices (linky?), and that this proves me wrong. I've already stated that my quick searching revealed no such compition in that price point half of what Apple's is, and have put the ball in your court to show me otherwise. Surely if you are making these claims you are aware of a product?

It is not hard to find 20" LCD monitors that cost twice as much as Apple's (Check out NEC's site for example). So I'm failing to see an example of a similarly specced wide LCD to show me exactly how out of whack Apple is. All I hear is "too expensive!" and "100% more!!".
Sure, I'd like them cheaper too, but I'm not going to scream foul without being able to back it up with something.

Donnacha

Nov 27, 2006, 04:14 PM

I'd just like to agree with those who have pointed out that the main thing Apple's monitor division should be worrying about is price, not new sizes - the Apple logo can bear a certain price premium but not that much, especially as they don't yet include Apple-specific goodness such as integrated isight etc.

In October, I considered a 23" ACD at £848 inc. VAT, delivery and 3yrs of Applecare cover.

Instead, I phoned Dell and got the 24" 2407WP for £549.08 inc. VAT, delivery and 4yrs next business day swap-out cover. For the Apple, I would have had to pay a premium of 55% and got 1yr less cover.

Now, as it happens, Dell were running a 25% off special on the 24% in October but these offers are in continual rotation; at the moment, if you ask, you can get:

The 30" 3007WFP for just under a grand inclusive and 4yrs cover, compared to £1,618 for the 30" Apple and 3yrs cover (a premium of 62% and 1yr less cover)

and

The 20" 2007WFP for £316 inc. and 4yrs cover, compared to £598 for the 20" Apple with 3yrs cover (a premium of 89% and 1yr less cover).

As for quality, I know monitors and the one I've got is top-notch - while it isn't Apple, the subtle styling is impressive and the stand's tilting and pivoting are the best I've ever seen. The consensus among reviewers seems to agree.

I'm not posting this to annoy Apple fans, I'm a huge fan myself and, yes, I would have paid a premium for that cute little apple logo but, frankly, it wouldn't have been worth that extra 55% - at Apple prices, I might never have made the jump to 24" but I'm glad I did, I'm even thinking about getting a second one.

With the move to Intel, Apple have done a great job of competing on PC pricing, why are they still in fantasyland when it comes to monitor pricing?

Earendil

Nov 27, 2006, 04:33 PM

I'd just like to agree with those who have pointed out that the main thing Apple's monitor division should be worrying about is price, not new sizes - the Apple logo can bear a certain price premium but not that much, especially as they don't yet include Apple-specific goodness such as integrated isight etc.

*smacks head on desk*
Beating a dead horse...

In October, I considered a 23" ACD at £848 inc. VAT, delivery and 3yrs of Applecare cover.

Instead, I phoned Dell and got the 24" 2407WP for £549.08 inc. VAT, delivery and 4yrs next business day swap-out cover. For the Apple, I would have had to pay a premium of 55% and got 1yr less cover.

Good for you.
Yeah Apple is really screwing us over, man oh man. And look at NEC, they must be absolutely mad to charge $2000 for their MultiSync LCD2190UXi (http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=10754) :rolleyes:

You made the right choice for your needs and your price. You bought a consumer monitor.

If people want to say that Apple should make a consumer level LCD (for cheap) than say so. But please, for the love of all things, stop dissing on Apple monitors just because you are happy with a Dell and they are cheaper. Many people are Happy with cheapo computers, and if all you need is to write and print word documents, do not buy an Apple computer. However that doesn't mean that Apple doesn't make a computer worth it's weight in gold... for those that need it.
If you don't need color accuracy, DO NOT BUY AN APPLE MONITOR, there are cheaper monitors that, though less accurate, will satisfy you just fine.

pesc

Nov 27, 2006, 04:49 PM

According to vendors cited by the article, 17" widescreen monitors will not necessarily be more expensive than the current 17" 4:3 models.

Do the math! A wide screen 17" display has fewer pixels than a 4:3 17" display (given the same dpi).

So I sincerely hope they aren't going to charge more for a wide display that has less pixels than a 4:3 display.

BenRoethig

Nov 27, 2006, 04:58 PM

twoodcc

Nov 27, 2006, 04:59 PM

well it depends on the resolution of the monitor. i don't really see this a big deal affecting me, but i can see alot of people buying them though. maybe it's good for Apple, but unless the 20" price comes down, doesn't really help me any

Donnacha

Nov 27, 2006, 05:05 PM

*smacks head on desk*
Beating a dead horse...

Congratulations on starting your point with not one but two violent images... clearly, you must be a real PRO.

This thread is about the possible introduction of a 17" monitor to possibly complement the Mac Mini, Apple's only headless consumer desktop.

My point is that introducing a new size will do little to plug the consumer-sized hole in Apple's monitor line-up. If Apple can squeeze extra money out of some egotists who like to think of themselves as prosumers, fine, but the overwhelming majority of users aren't going to get anal about some supposed color-accuracy issues: they want a good-quality, good-looking reliable monitor and if Apple can't provide that at a decent price, Apple loses them to someone who can.

Apple could, of course, bring out two lines of monitors, one for print professionals and one to compete directly with Dell but, of course, they won't because it wouldn't take long for people to realize that there isn't really that much difference.

Terms such as "color accuracy" probably make people worry that Dell's display all reds as green whereas, in fact, we're talking about differences that are indiscernible to the untrained eye. I would wager that barely 1% of customers who pore such technical details actually need or even understand them.

You're right, Dell monitor's are fine for my needs. Before you write them off, however, as being "cheapo" and irrelevant to Apple's market, I suggest you take a look at one of these Ultrasharps - personally, I'm not a fan of Dell computers, but their recent monitors are catching up fast with Apple.

lorductape

Nov 27, 2006, 05:08 PM

I just hope they adjust their prices while they are at it. I love the Apple monitors but they are overpriced. Go to CompUSA and you can find at least 4-5 20" wide-screen monitors from $250-$399. At $699 they are way out or touch with the rest of the market. I could see paying a $100 premium at $499 but not $300.

I agree, however, you get what you pay for, as has been proven many times before by apple. how many other monitors of the pix. dimensions of the 30' are there on the market? the resolutions are amazing! also, I haven't seen many dvi's, it amazes me that most consumer monitors are still vga. price = quality when it comes to apple.

danielwsmithee

Nov 27, 2006, 05:19 PM

... I haven't seen many dvi's, it amazes me that most consumer monitors are still vga. price = quality when it comes to apple.Um where have you been looking. Look at all of these with DVI (http://www.compusa.com/products/products.asp?N=200049+4294965732+502399&Ne=502396&cm_re=A%2D%5F%2DHPF%2D%5F%2DFlat+Panel+%28LCD%29&Cn=Monitors_Flat_Panel_LCD).

The competitors all use the exact same component as the Apple display even the same model number LCD from the same supplier the difference is the certification process the apple goes through for there color no difference in hardware just a procedure that is run. The fact is a year ago you paid $100 now your paying $300 for a the Apple display over a general consumer display. Apple may not have many competitors in the pro-color display market but they are still competing against the general consumer prices.

emotion

Nov 27, 2006, 05:25 PM

The competitors all use the exact same component as the Apple display even the same model number LCD from the same supplier the difference is the certification process the apple goes through for there color no difference in hardware just a procedure that is run.

I'm sure you still haven't read this yet:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327

wmmk

Nov 27, 2006, 05:30 PM

I hope it happens. This would not only be great for Mac Mini buyers, but also laptop owners. We already have 13-17 inches of screen real estate, so 17 more sounds just about perfect! I just hope there'd be a non iSight option so that laptop users wouldn't be paying a premium for something they already paid for.

Leoff

Nov 27, 2006, 05:43 PM

This thread is about the possible introduction of a 17" monitor to possibly complement the Mac Mini, Apple's only headless consumer desktop.

No, actually, this thread is about the possible introduction of a 17" monitor.

There is no mention of it being a compliment to the Mac mini, a smaller pro version for a ProMac, or what it is.

Of course, all this is probably a moot point because

1) It's Digitimes, so chances are it's bogus.
2) It's Apple, so no matter what they charge, people will buy it.

newmacuser13

Nov 27, 2006, 05:54 PM

Apple needs to do something to distinguish their flat panels from most other available. How about integrated ipod dock? Oops - Viewsonic just beat them to the punch with 19 and 22" versions with integrated dock (VX2245wm) - they look sweet, and reportably can play your ipod videos directly on screen.

Earendil

Nov 27, 2006, 06:02 PM

Congratulations on starting your point with not one but two violent images... clearly, you must be a real PRO.

They are figures of speech that are quite common where I live. My apologies if they were taken the wrong way by you.
And since when did I say I was a Pro?

This thread is about the possible introduction of a 17" monitor to possibly complement the Mac Mini, Apple's only headless consumer desktop.

Go Apple if they want to make a consumer monitor to compete with Dell. I'm all for it, as consumer monitors are all I have ever bought. I've already said that though, and I am not at all against Apple doing so, if you think I was, please go re-read my posts, as you might have missed my real point.

My point is that introducing a new size will do little to plug the consumer-sized hole in Apple's monitor line-up. If Apple can squeeze extra money out of some egotists who like to think of themselves as prosumers, fine, but the overwhelming majority of users aren't going to get anal about some supposed color-accuracy issues: they want a good-quality, good-looking reliable monitor and if Apple can't provide that at a decent price, Apple loses them to someone who can..

See, that is what my counter point was to. Yes, the thread is about Apple's possible entry into Consumer level LCDs. However by claiming that only "egotists" with a hankering for "supposed" statistics are the ones that buy Apple displays is just insulting. And when your comparison is with a Dell monitor, it just shows ignorance of what the Apple monitors provide.

You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor :cool:
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in backlighting and change incolor based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benafits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level montior for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.

Apple could, of course, bring out two lines of monitors, one for print professionals and one to compete directly with Dell but, of course, they won't because it wouldn't take long for people to realize that there isn't really that much difference.

I think your conclusion is correct, but I think it is for different reasons. Those that buy Apple monitors either have the money to burn, or actually do want what the monitor provides over Dell. I think the reason they may not is the same reason they don't make cheap computers. Apple afaik has had quality certified monitors for a long time running. It might be confusing if they offer both, as anyone that knows that Apple only sells quality monitors may buy the new less expensive monitor and find out it doesn't do what they think it should.

However I think that it would be worth it in sales. And worth it for me :D

Terms such as "color accuracy" probably make people worry that Dell's display all reds as green whereas, in fact, we're talking about differences that are indiscernible to the untrained eye. I would wager that barely 1% of customers who pore such technical details actually need or even understand them.

Well that is quite a claim there. I would never suggest anyone buy an Apple LCD over a Dell unless they need it. In fact doing a search on these forums will show me promoting the Dell over the Apple. Just like if someone is worried about a Macbook vs MacBook Pro, I would have them define what they need it for, and choose based on that.

You're right, Dell monitor's are fine for my needs. Before you write them off, however, as being "cheapo" and irrelevant to Apple's market, I suggest you take a look at one of these Ultrasharps - personally, I'm not a fan of Dell computers, but their recent monitors are catching up fast with Apple.

Wait, there is no difference between the two and yet Dell is "catching up fast" ? ;)
I agree, Dell is catching up. I was quite surprised with the quality of their monitors, and am quite happy with fine when compared with the price I paid.
Perhaps if you would like to reply to my post, you could reply to the entire post instead of picking a one liner that is relatively unrelated to my point, and replying to just it. I think it would help your reply as well as my understand of what it is you think I'm saying.

Cheers mate,
~Tyler

matticus008

Nov 27, 2006, 06:46 PM

If Apple can squeeze extra money out of some egotists who like to think of themselves as prosumers, fine, but the overwhelming majority of users aren't going to get anal about some supposed color-accuracy issues: they want a good-quality, good-looking reliable monitor and if Apple can't provide that at a decent price, Apple loses them to someone who can.
Certainly, but that's not the question. The question is, 'does Apple care?' And I think the answer is probably a resounding "no." If people don't care about sophistication and refinement, then all of the effort Apple puts into making its Cinema Displays is a waste on those customers--they'd never buy them anyway. Why go after customers whose only loyalty is to the best price? They're a finicky and transient group.

It's better to sell to a smaller market which will be loyal over time in Apple's view, and that's a perfectly legitimate strategy to have.

KindredMAC

Nov 27, 2006, 08:12 PM

If you don't need color accuracy, DO NOT BUY AN APPLE MONITOR, there are cheaper monitors that, though less accurate, will satisfy you just fine.

Funny that you say "accurate" color.....

Anyone ever hear of the "Pinkening" of the Apple displays over the last 2 years? If you haven't then you may have seen it on your trips to the Apple Store.

Apple LCDs have had a nasty habit of having a Pink hue to them that you cannot dial out of the display. Granted, Apple has been pretty good at replacing these models, but it has been a major issue to those it has affected.

True accurate color will only be had by using color calibration units. So with that rebutle I will say that you will be able to achieve "accurate" color with that $250 LCD monitor from Best Buy.

SiliconAddict

Nov 27, 2006, 08:18 PM

Ahh digitimes - The height of accurate reporting. :rolleyes:

Object-X

Nov 27, 2006, 08:26 PM

Well, see... there's this little thing called market analysis and listening to the people you sell things to. I highly doubt Apple was sitting around going "we need to release something new because its been months. I know! How about a different monitor size!"

Why not reduce the 20" to $399? Why should they when they seem to be selling just fine at where they are?

Dell is putting IMAGINED price pressure on Apple with their monitors. Selling cheaper crap will cost you less.

IMAGINED?

Let's look at the facts.

20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499

Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.

What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.

You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.

I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.

I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!

So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.

gkarris

Nov 27, 2006, 09:04 PM

IMAGINED?

Let's look at the facts.

20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499

Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.

What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.

You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.

I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.

I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!

So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.

Didn't you read this post and the article attached?

"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"

Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.

(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)

Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.

Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.

Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:

Now, back on topic :)

I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:

That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.

It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...

Leoff

Nov 27, 2006, 09:05 PM

aliasfox

Nov 27, 2006, 09:33 PM

For desktop use, I find even a 19" widescreen too "short" vertically, so a 17" standalone display would feel rather confining to me (odd, as two of my main machines are 12" PowerBooks...).

That said, Apple does need to lower the price on its 20" display - it may be color accurate and beautiful, but its perceived competition is all the stuff at Best Buy, Circuit City, and the Dell kiosk. Like it or not, with the iMac, iPod, and Mac mini, Apple's gunning for the consumer crowd - where "good enough at a reasonable price" is far more important than "the best at any price" - which is part of why iTMS took off, and part of why I think DVD players will be the reigning standard for a few years even after the next generation comes out.

Anyway, Apple should either a) reduce the price of the 20" to perhaps $399 (same price as the upper end of the 20" price spectrum in the consumer market), or b) release a different 20" priced at the $399 level or less, clearly differentiated from the "good" 20" display.

If Apple's going to put a premium on its displays, it better make displays that're worth the price. The 23" really isn't that far off the price of other consumer 23-24" displays, but pink hues and uneven backlighting just make it not worth it.

I bought the 22" Westinghouse display from Best Buy on Black Friday. $200. Is it anywhere near as beautiful as an 8-bit panel housed inside an Apple case? No, but it's good enough and that $500 difference can easily go somewhere else... like food.

Earendil

Nov 27, 2006, 09:49 PM

IMAGINED?

Let's look at the facts.

20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499

Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.

And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?

What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.

Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.

You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck,

No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.

but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.

I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.

A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).

I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program.

News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.

So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.

They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.

Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)

Thank you,
~Tyler

Earendil

Nov 27, 2006, 09:52 PM

Funny that you say "accurate" color.....

Anyone ever hear of the "Pinkening" of the Apple displays over the last 2 years? If you haven't then you may have seen it on your trips to the Apple Store.

Apple LCDs have had a nasty habit of having a Pink hue to them that you cannot dial out of the display. Granted, Apple has been pretty good at replacing these models, but it has been a major issue to those it has affected.

Yes, I'm quite aware of that issue. I do not mention it because it is an anomaly in the build. Dell also had backlight bleed problems with the 2005ftw units (and by all reports, wasn't handled all that well by Dell).
However which panel each company decides to use in their product is a choice, the results of which will effect every monitor in the line up. Do you see the difference there?

True accurate color will only be had by using color calibration units. So with that rebutle I will say that you will be able to achieve "accurate" color with that $250 LCD monitor from Best Buy.

Yes, but some panels are far more prone to the color shifting with time. Also the evenness of the color/contrast/backlighting has to be even across the entire screen. Color calibration units only measure a small part of the screen in order to create a color profile that your computer will apply to the entire screen. That profile will not help you if the screen is imbalanced.

Dell, quite honestly, doesn't care about the prosumer market. THis is obvious in their recent choice to take their 23" monitor from 8 bits per color down to 6. So instead of 24 bit color, you get 18 bit color which is then dithered to get 24 bit color. For those that don't understand color bit depth,
18 bit = 262,144 colors
24 bit = 16,777,216 colors

Why would Dell do this you ask? Because they can now drop their response time to 6ms from 16ms. That's right, they made a change that severally effects the color quality in order to archive one of the few stats that people use and see to buy a monitor.

There is far more to monitors than ms, contrast, and even color accuracy. There are people in this thread that seem to think that all monitors are created equal but for the case they are put in, or that there is only one component inside the case. To these people of course monitor prices should all be about the same.

Before anyone screams foul on Apple pricing ONE more time I dear you to go to www.NEC.com and check out the different monitors sold by them. You can pay $2000 for a 20" there if you like.

Monitors are just like most computer hardware, not all created equal, not all priced equal. Weigh you needs with your budget, research the product, and make a choice that's right for you. If Apple doesn't offer a choice that fits your equation, that sucks (happened to me), but fortunately there are a hundred other companies out there, one of which might just offer what you require.

Cheers,
~Tyler

Xeem

Nov 27, 2006, 10:59 PM

I'll agree with a lot of people here in that I don't think a 17" ACD will happen. The fact is, many of the people that would want a 17" size (myself included) would have a very hard time justifying the premium that Apple would almost certainly charge.

Edit: w00t, my 500th post! Avatar, here I come!

NorCalLights

Nov 27, 2006, 11:09 PM

I'll be shocked if it doesn't have an Apple remote IR receiver and an iSight. Seems pretty logical to me.

steelfist

Nov 27, 2006, 11:48 PM

no 19 inch?:(

Anonymous Freak

Nov 28, 2006, 12:01 AM

Apple previously had sold a 17" 4:3 ratio LCD until June 2004

Correction: the 17" Apple Cinema Display was the oddball 5:4 ratio. 1280x1024 is *NOT* 4:3. 1280x960 is. CRTs are usually 4:3, and Apple's CRTs that support 1280 or higher use 1280x960 (such as the eMac.) LCDs that use 1280 use the the non-standard ratio of 1280x1024. Why? No clue. Some oddball decision a little over half a decade ago. But 1280x1024 became the standard for LCDs.

mattster16

Nov 28, 2006, 02:51 AM

I think this is a good move. I would never buy a monitor that small personally, but it would match up perfectly with the Mini. Right now there really isn't a good option; the 20" is just too expensive.

A huge amount of customers buying a basic PC are still going with 15" and 17" LCDs, mostly not widescreen.

Object-X

Nov 28, 2006, 03:25 AM

Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327

In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.

I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?

There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.

Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.

Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.

Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?

I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.

If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.

Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?

So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?

If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.

So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?

emotion

Nov 28, 2006, 03:58 AM

It's clear Apple need a "consumer" (ie. Dell level) level monitor. It would make sense, as a 17" is seen as too small by most, to release a 19" model (a size that is differentiated from the current line up and in colours that match the white and black consumer models).

Personally I don't see Apple doing this soon despite this rumour so I'm getting one of these to match my black macbook:

http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/113148/rb/23351541263

sunfast

Nov 28, 2006, 04:01 AM

I hope they do knock out a slightly more affordable screen as I'd love a nice external to go with my MB.

Cloudgazer

Nov 28, 2006, 05:06 AM

I'm surprised no one has ventured a guess as to whether these 17" monitors are going to be glossy or matte.
;)

emotion

Nov 28, 2006, 05:07 AM

I'm surprised no one has ventured a guess as to whether these 17" monitors are going to be glossy or matte.
;)

:D :D :D

Cue 10 page heated argument.

Leoff

Nov 28, 2006, 06:59 AM

I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".

Congratulations, you just lost any arguments you wish to make. If Apple monitors are vastly overpriced for what you get, if you don't have any need for something that is superior to a regular consumer model, then why in the hell did you buy one?

sachamun

Nov 28, 2006, 07:44 AM

Don't they already make one? Its called a 17" MacBook Pro... :)

On that note...
Does anyone else like the idea of a 19" or 20" macbook pro (/tablet?) as a true desktop replacement? Just small enough to fit a backpack.

I could be mainly aimed at photo/video pros who don't often do thier work in tight spaces, but usually open up their notebook on a desk.

There'd be much more room for additional internal hardware including battery, ram, speakers and hdd space.

thejadedmonkey

Nov 28, 2006, 07:46 AM

Congratulations, you just lost any arguments you wish to make. If Apple monitors are vastly overpriced for what you get, if you don't have any need for something that is superior to a regular consumer model, then why in the hell did you buy one?

Maybe he got an apple one first and didn't like it (but who's going to trash it), or one was a gift, or perhaps he wanted to go with the whole apple-theme.. Maybe he has TWO computers.
Why are you looking for a fight? I happen to have two different lava lamps. why? Because I can. thank you, don't bite my head off because I have two.

BenRoethig

Nov 28, 2006, 07:59 AM

Congratulations, you just lost any arguments you wish to make. If Apple monitors are vastly overpriced for what you get, if you don't have any need for something that is superior to a regular consumer model, then why in the hell did you buy one?

Might have something to do with the fact that it matches the computer. However, the vast majority of Apple vs Dell display battles, even in the Mac community go to Dell. By the way, of the 23" displays tested last year, the one recommended by Macworld wasn't the Cinema Display, it only got 3.5 mice. The winner was actually an HP, which also by the way, was roughly the same price as the ACD at the time. It's 24" successor is about the same price as the dell. Same of their 20" Give all the "professional quality" justifications you want, the price of the components went down. Apple's making a ton off of giant margins because they know there are some who want that Apple logo so badly they'll pay twice as much to get it.

Gasu E.

Nov 28, 2006, 08:26 AM

I find you the one that is incorrigible. The 23" inch price is competitive where it is as your link so eloquently points out. The Apple displays are easily worth a 15-20% mark-up. The problem is since the last time the display prices were updated 20" wide-screen panel prices have dropped nearly in half. So a year ago when Apple released this $699 price point it was a good price because competitors were selling the same panels at $599. Now they are at $399 and some times as low a $299. Apple's display is worth extra just not 75% to 100% extra.

I see a lot of scientific analysis went into your response. "Not!"

Go to many suppliers of equipment aimed at professionals, and you will often see professional-quality products priced at 3-5x that the price of consumer-quality products in the same functional category.

I am guessing from your "easily worth a 15-20% mark-up" remark that your experience is limited to high-quality consumer products. Don't confuse a consumer upgrade with a professional alternative. Danny, "you're out of your element."

I think a lot of people on this thread would like to see Apple offer some consumer-targeted alternatives to the current monitors, competitively priced. But that's not the same as buying pro equipment at a consumer price.

Earendil

Nov 28, 2006, 10:32 AM

Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs?
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.

And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).

If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.

Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.

That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.

It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.

Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?

Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.

So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.

wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?

Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?

Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.

If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.

Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.

And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.

So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.

In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:

[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?

I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.

But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...

But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?

No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.

There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...

~Tyler

Earendil

Nov 28, 2006, 10:36 AM

Well, you just made my point better than me.

PS, that isn't hard :rolleyes:
I just noticed that you are the same person I just (imho) shredded in two different posts above. Care to make a stand against anything I said as a direct response to your points? Or are you just gonna feed off someone else and reiterate yourself again?

mrgreen4242

Nov 28, 2006, 10:43 AM

OK, this is out of hand... all of you who are complaining about Dell being half the price of the Apple LCDs read the topic that's been linked like 5 times, it's pretty interesting and informative.

Now, all of you who are complaining about those people complain shut up and listen (or read) for a minute. They aren't complaining that Apple is charging to much for what they are offering, it's that they aren't offering any alternative for non-pro users. There are people who want, and would pay a bit more than Dell prices, for a similar piece of hardware with Apple's quality and design, but they aren't willing to pay 50%+ more for a professional grade piece of hardware.

A 17" consumer line of displays would solve the problem without negatively effecting the pro line of hardware. If it sold well (and I'm betting it would, especially if it was the same panel as the 17" iMac with a USB2 hub, iSight, and built in speakers in an iPod styled casing for ~$249) a 19" with the same features but a higher res (although all the 19" widescreens I've seen have had the same res as 17" WS ... someone must make a 19" panel with res between 1440x900 and 1680x1050) for ~$349 or so it'd really fill out Apple product line to meet the needs of all consumers, "prosumers", and real pros.

Earendil

Nov 28, 2006, 11:02 AM

OK, this is out of hand... all of you who are complaining about Dell being half the price of the Apple LCDs read the topic that's been linked like 5 times, it's pretty interesting and informative.

Now, all of you who are complaining about those people complain shut up and listen (or read) for a minute. They aren't complaining that Apple is charging to much for what they are offering, it's that they aren't offering any alternative for non-pro users. There are people who want, and would pay a bit more than Dell prices, for a similar piece of hardware with Apple's quality and design, but they aren't willing to pay 50%+ more for a professional grade piece of hardware.

A small few are saying that. I believe the rest finally got the point or actually went to the linked article. As the most vocal poster in the last 24 hours though, I'd like to point out I've concede the point above numerous times, and fully agree with t. I myself am a victim of Apple not offering a consumer level machine :(

A 17" consumer line of displays would solve the problem without negatively effecting the pro line of hardware. If it sold well (and I'm betting it would, especially if it was the same panel as the 17" iMac with a USB2 hub, iSight, and built in speakers in an iPod styled casing for ~$249) a 19" with the same features but a higher res (although all the 19" widescreens I've seen have had the same res as 17" WS ... someone must make a 19" panel with res between 1440x900 and 1680x1050) for ~$349 or so it'd really fill out Apple product line to meet the needs of all consumers, "prosumers", and real pros.

Man, if they did that I might pick up a MacMini next summer as well!
Here's to dreaming :)

EagerDragon

Nov 28, 2006, 11:37 AM

EagerDragon

Nov 28, 2006, 11:42 AM

Creating a low end monitor would be a very, very wise decision on Apple's part. Buyers of Mac Minis would appreciate having a less expensive Apple monitor to go with their stuff.

I disagree, take the price of a mini, add a good 17" monitor (4:3 (but not a super cheap one)) then compare the price to the 17" iMac. Not much difference and the iMac has better everything.

OdduWon

Nov 28, 2006, 11:54 AM

I disagree, take the price of a mini, add a good 17" monitor (4:3 (but not a super cheap one)) then compare the price to the 17" iMac. Not much difference and the iMac has better everything.

true ,but you could get dual monitors slightly cheaper... oh wait no graphics card, yeah what is up with the mini? it should be the coolest piece of hardware, but it has gotten no love. wheres all the love ?:p

Earendil

Nov 28, 2006, 12:50 PM

true ,but you could get dual monitors slightly cheaper... oh wait no graphics card, yeah what is up with the mini? it should be the coolest piece of hardware, but it has gotten no love. wheres all the love ?:p

The Mini is for people with no imagination, cool, or love.
Apple hasn't made the device yet to entertain our inexpensive tech savvy cool project computer needs yet :(

That said, if I had the dough I'd pick up a Mini right now and use as much imagination as possible, think it was cool anyway, and love it all the same. Mostly I'd just get it so I could duel boot windows and do software dev work so I didn't actually having to bring my work PC home :D

~Tyler

Earendil

Nov 28, 2006, 12:56 PM

Assuming for a second that this is true, I do not see Apple in this space. 17" LCD monitors have been around for years and they are inexpensive now. Why would Apple enter this market when it is unlikely to get the ussual return on investment?

Best point yet.

I think if we all dig deep down the only reason we want Apple to enter this market is so that we can have what can already be had, but with an Apple logo on it. Even I'll admit it.

17" cheap consumer monitors don't need innovation. They don't need a refresh, they don't need love from Apple's design team. Give it a few year s(if not a lot less) and the 17" monitors will be the equivalent of the 15" or 13" monitors. And who wants APple to design a cool 15" LCD :\

I think (and I could be wrong) that when people today buy a 17" monitor they are going for the cheapest display they can get so they can use their computer. If they have a little extra cash, they look at larger monitors. Aside from Apple never being able to compete for the cheapest of the cheap, it's also not what they do, or ever had done afaik.

I'd rather seem Apple make a consumer level 20" and sell it for $300 :D
And knock a little off the pro models if at all possible...

~Tyler

Object-X

Nov 28, 2006, 04:48 PM

PS, that isn't hard :rolleyes:
I just noticed that you are the same person I just (imho) shredded in two different posts above. Care to make a stand against anything I said as a direct response to your points? Or are you just gonna feed off someone else and reiterate yourself again?

I don't have time to answer your lengthy response point for point at the moment, maybe later tonight.

So, since my subjective opinion means nothing to you, I offer the following reveiw for your consideration from AnandTech. They compare the Apple and Dell 20" monitors. The link is the last page which has the conclusions, you can read the whole thing if you like.

The short of it is, in their technical opinion the Dell is better than the Apple. What's that? A "consumer" monitor is better than a "pro" monitor? Say it ain't so.

http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2400&p=11

So, I'll stick to my guns and say the Apple 20" monitor isn't worth the price they are asking, and they are keeping it high it to encourage iMac purchases over a mini/cinema combo. It's only an opinion. I don't mean to come off like I know more than I do. My opinion is based only on my experiance with both monitors and my own decison making process based on price and budget. Since we can't see the actual sales numbers there is no way to prove/disprove anything.

Oh, and the Dell was purchased for me by my work, the Apple by me for my home.

And just a funny aside. The Dell was stolen a few months ago by theives who broke into our offices. They took our Dell monitors and a Dell Precision workstation but left my $2000 Powermac G5 the Dell monitor was plugged into. Go figure. :rolleyes:

I got a 23" cinema to replace the Dell.

gkarris

Nov 29, 2006, 09:26 AM

I think that 17" is great - they've got'em already with the iMac. Prices to need to drop with the market. They'll still be more as the monitors are of better quality. IMHO:

17" - $399
20" - $599
23" - $899
30" - $1899

Bring back a $499 Mac Mini and a basic mouse and you have an inexpensive system!

(Maybe Apple could make a special "bundle" for $899?)

AppliedVisual

Nov 29, 2006, 09:03 PM

I think that 17" is great - they've got'em already with the iMac. Prices to need to drop with the market. They'll still be more as the monitors are of better quality. IMHO:

17" - $399
20" - $599
23" - $899
30" - $1899

I question the validity of a 17" stand-alone widescreen. Doesn't make sense, IMO. A 20" is already fairly compact and provides little more area and takes up no more room than a 17" 4:3 display.

As for pricing, I agree on some of what you posted -- the prices definitely need to go DOWN. What I don't agree with are the prices you posted -- even if Apple keeps a 20% premium over brands like Samsung, the prices should look more like:

17" - $269
20" - $349
24" - $629
30" - $1,699

...Like I said, those would be premium prices and are a good 10 to 20% higher than the going rate for good monitors with current panels (Samsung/Dell). Also with the next monitor revision, you can expect Apple to dump the 23" in favor of a 24" panel.

BenRoethig

Nov 29, 2006, 09:50 PM

I question the validity of a 17" stand-alone widescreen. Doesn't make sense, IMO. A 20" is already fairly compact and provides little more area and takes up no more room than a 17" 4:3 display.

As for pricing, I agree on some of what you posted -- the prices definitely need to go DOWN. What I don't agree with are the prices you posted -- even if Apple keeps a 20% premium over brands like Samsung, the prices should look more like:

17" - $269
20" - $349
24" - $629
30" - $1,699

...Like I said, those would be premium prices and are a good 10 to 20% higher than the going rate for good monitors with current panels (Samsung/Dell). Also with the next monitor revision, you can expect Apple to dump the 23" in favor of a 24" panel.

Or since Apple likes prices sort of clean make it

17" $299
20" $499
24" $899
30" $1699

Apple would still be completely ripping everyone off, it would just be close enough to reality where people might be inclined to bite.