Poll: Would you buy a new Apple LCD at these prices? [Archive]

musicpyrite

Jun 22, 2004, 03:59 PM

I voted no, because my computer is a laptop.
I know many people here who have a laptop and use an external display.

But serously, unless these are super-suped-up LCD displays, these things are going to go the way of hockey puck mice...

You could get an iBook for the price of the smallest screen.
You could get a G5 for the pice of the largest one.

I guess someone might need them, but, unfortunatly, I'm not one of them... :(

edesignuk

Jun 22, 2004, 04:00 PM

Maybe, but only if they had DVI (and even better dual input, as most LCD's do, u listening Apple!?!?!) so that I could use it with my PC as well without the need for expensive adapters. This is very important to me.

mainstreetmark

Jun 22, 2004, 04:11 PM

shamino

Jun 22, 2004, 04:33 PM

I paid $150 two years ago for a second-hand 22" CRT monitor that renders 2048x1536. And because it uses a VGA-standard input, I can use a KVM switch to share it with my two PCs and my Mac Quadra.

If Apple made these monitors with standard VGA-type inputs so I could do the same kind of display sharing, I'd be willing spend the money on one. But they don't, so I'm not. :(

As good as Apple's displays are, there is no room on my desk for more than one large-size monitor, so whatever I get has to be sharable with everything else.

boy

Jun 22, 2004, 04:46 PM

no way.

at $999, base model.. thats insane. but, it would be reasonable if they had a 17" for the poor people.. that would be a different story.

Waluigi

Jun 22, 2004, 04:54 PM

JOD8FY

Jun 22, 2004, 05:27 PM

No. Apple displays are very overpriced. I know I'll never need a 30" display, but $3,000 :eek:? You could buy a very nice PM G5 for that money. Even the low end is too expensive. They really should lower their prices.

JOD8FY

Bear

Jun 22, 2004, 05:28 PM

I also said no. I currently have a 23". I might buy another screen when it's time to replace my system - that way it'll be n AppleCare for 3 years.

The prices listed for the 20" and 23" are not much discount over the current price. I'd say a better price set would be: 20" - $799
23" - $1499
30" - $2499

Of course, I'm not the one setting the prices.

Bear

Jun 22, 2004, 05:30 PM

I'm getting the 20" the second it is announced. I can finally dump this POS 17" Studio Apple LCD I reluctantly bought last WWDC with my G5. Too bad for me there is an entire row of dead pixles, so the resale value is really bad. Oh well, I'm excited to have a monitor that matches my computer!

--WaluigiIf you bought it less than a year ago., you should be able to get it fixed under warranty. A whole row dead should definitely count as a broken display.

King Cobra

Jun 22, 2004, 05:57 PM

Voted no.

Apple's first LCD monitors bottomed out at $599. That's already a bit expensive.
Apple's second LCD monitors bottomed out at $699. That's expensive.
Apple's third LCD monitors (will maybe) bottom out at $999. That's ridiculous.

Read up on any 3rd party Mac-magazine that sells monitors of all sorts, and you'll find comparative 17 inch monitors at $390, while Apple's is still $699 (excluding discounts). Sure, there's the quality vs. price argument that goes into it, but so far, there isn't one solid set of arguments for the Apple model that I've seen in which I should buy the Apple monitor over the cheaper one if the Apple monitor is more than 1.75x the price of the cheaper. Either way, you're getting a medium resolution screen with adjustable brightness.

I think monitors should be bottomed out around $299 or maybe $399, as you already spent $3000 on a PowerMac, AppleCare, and memory upgrades. Remember the days of the first quicksilver Macs? Get one of those high-end models with AppleCare etc. and a 17 inch monitor, and you pay over $4000. Again, that is ridiculous.

MacFan26

Jun 22, 2004, 06:07 PM

I hope that these aren't going to be the real prices of the new LCD. I have a laptop, and was thinking of getting one, but there's no way I could afford that. And are they no longer going to be offering the 17" LCD? Maybe the future will change this, but it seems like more people would buy a 17" than a 30".

Chaszmyr

Jun 22, 2004, 07:23 PM

Only if the display quality was noticably better than the current 23'' display.

Elan0204

Jun 22, 2004, 07:31 PM

I also voted no. First, not having a monitor less than $999 is insane, and most people don't qualify for any discounts, so don't bother with that argument. Second, I just don't need a 20 inch (or larger) screen. What I really wanted was the same screen as on the 17 inch iMac, only available separately.

I really think that Apple is missing out by not offering a $500 17 inch cinema display. If the rumors are true, and Apple is using DVI instead of ADC, then tons of Windows people could buy the new displays too. Perhaps after spending $500 on a great Apple display, they might be more inclined to spend the $2000 to get a matching PowerMac G5.

macridah

Jun 22, 2004, 08:07 PM

Some variables will be involved in my decision on whether i buy a new lcd monitor .

1. price
2. new design
3. color
4. if iMac G5 is still an all-in-one
5. iMac G5 specs

mkrishnan

Jun 22, 2004, 08:21 PM

I said no for the laptop thing...after thinking now and then that I should try spanning with my 15" KDS LCD, and never bothering to do it for six months, I realized I'm happy with my 12" diagonal of designer goodness. ;)

Wonder Boy

Jun 22, 2004, 08:50 PM

a forty incher (in the form of 2 20's) for 2/3 the price of a 30 incher sounds good to me...

Chaszmyr

Jun 22, 2004, 10:04 PM

a forty incher (in the form of 2 20's) for 2/3 the price of a 30 incher sounds good to me...

Theres a huge flaw in your reasoning. Two 20''s doesnt equal one 40''.

2x 20'' = 3528000 total pixels
1x 30'' = 4096000 total pixels

tveric

Jun 22, 2004, 10:22 PM

Wonder Boy

Jun 22, 2004, 10:29 PM

Theres a huge flaw in your reasoning. Two 20''s doesnt equal one 40''.

2x 20'' = 3528000 total pixels
1x 30'' = 4096000 total pixels

ah, im not exactly sure where i said anything about pixels or resolution quality. you assumed that.

my point is that if i can get 2 monitors for 2/3 the price of 1 and get 10 extra inches , thats what i am going to do. more screen realestate is priorty.

PowerMacMan

Jun 22, 2004, 10:33 PM

Do all the "no way, overpriced!" comments sound familiar to anyone?

"Only 4 gigs for $249?!? That's way too much! I'd buy one if it was like $99, or maybe $149, but at $249 they're not going to sell any of those."

Fast forward a few months, Apple can't even come close to keeping up with demand.

Lesson: most people on mac message boards are not the typical mac users - they're either poorer, or cheaper, or like to complain about overpricing a lot more. Or maybe a combo of all three.

I'm buying that 20" the minute it comes out. And if the 23" is $1499, I'm getting that instead. These are the Mercedes of computer monitors. And since I can't afford an actual Mercedes, I'll settle for the Apple LCDs.

Well that's not a nice thing to say about mose people here being either poor, cheap... and .... ok complaining, yeah people do that so I'll give you that one :)... but anyways, I for one am not... I am going to get a 23'' the minute that one comes out because I want it here pronto... and I'm sure people will be jumping all over them and they will be awesome as well... Monday is going to be a grand day while I sit back and stare at my computer screen all day, ON MY NEW PM G5 DUAL 2GHz! Yeah! I just may have to go out and get an extra-comfortable chair just to watch or hear what's going on at WWDC! :D

~Shard~

Jun 22, 2004, 11:18 PM

Hell, if those were the prices I'd go all out for the 30" - you only live once! Plus, I was initially thinking the 30", if it exists, would be more like $3999, not $2999, so I find those prices to be quite reasonable and realistic. Although $2999 is still an awful lot of money, it wouldn't simply be a computer monitor, and would last me for, well, quite a long time!

Chaszmyr

Jun 22, 2004, 11:31 PM

ah, im not exactly sure where i said anything about pixels or resolution quality. you assumed that.

my point is that if i can get 2 monitors for 2/3 the price of 1 and get 10 extra inches , thats what i am going to do. more screen realestate is priorty.

Yes I realize that. But a 40'' would be equivalent to FOUR 20''s, not 2. a 30'' has more screen real estate than two 20''s

This is because screens are measured diagonally (corner to corner).

|..........| |..........|
|..........| |..........|
Hypothetically, this is like 2x 20

|................|
|................|
|................|
1x 30

|......................|
|......................|
|......................|
|......................|
1x 40

As you can see, if a 40'' existed, it would be 4x as big as a 20'', not 2x as big as a 20''

Wonder Boy

Jun 23, 2004, 12:14 AM

Yes I realize that. But a 40'' would be equivalent to FOUR 20''s, not 2. a 30'' has more screen real estate than two 20''s

This is because screens are measured diagonally (corner to corner).

|..........| |..........|
|..........| |..........|
Hypothetically, this is like 2x 20

|................|
|................|
|................|
1x 30

|......................|
|......................|
|......................|
|......................|
1x 40

As you can see, if a 40'' existed, it would be 4x as big as a 20'', not 2x as big as a 20''

fair enough. i just think having two monitors is pretty bad-ass.

sjk

Jun 23, 2004, 01:35 AM

Which video cards would work with the supposed 30" monitor at its optimal resolution(s)?

I'd be satisfied with a 20" LCD monitor -- it'll fit where my eMac is right now. Fine if it's attached to an AIO system but I didn't want to buy last year's iMac a month or two ago to get one.

Windowlicker

Jun 23, 2004, 01:39 AM

it's not that they're expensive -- I think $999 for a 20" is a good price -- but I don't have the money right now. what i'm looking for is around $600-700. don't have too much money because i just put all my savings on this lovely G5. :rolleyes:

Sir_Giggles

Jun 23, 2004, 02:27 AM

Does anyone here even comprehend how massive a 30" display is? OMG, at $2999 I would buy one in an instant, but I already have a 8 month old 20" Cinema display. :mad:

pimentoLoaf

Jun 23, 2004, 06:14 AM

A 23" would go nicely with Final Cut on me humble 17" pb -- not to mention (so I will :) ) that Master & Commander ought to be quite fine on it.

nsb3000

Jun 23, 2004, 07:21 AM

I voted no, becuase I already have a 23" Cinema, which I love. :D

I voted no because I still would not be able to afford them. CRTs are a still a much better value for the money, in my opinion.

1macker1

Jun 23, 2004, 08:19 AM

For the most part I think all od apple's prices are wayyy too high. but I would shell out 1000 for the 20 inch model in a heartbeat. That's not a bad price if you ask me. But the other 2 models are outta my price range. I will be getting one of these beauties. I'm just hoping CompUSA still has some of the older 20" models when the new ones are announced. Hehe, I'll save a pretty penny that way.

shamino

Jun 23, 2004, 09:31 AM

I voted no because I still would not be able to afford them. CRTs are a still a much better value for the money, in my opinion.
Personally, I agree.

But for many people, factors such as power consumption, heat production, weight, footprint, etc. are very significant.

I love my 22" CRT monitor, but I absolutely hate trying to move it anywhere. And clearing out space on my desk for it was rather difficult. If it was an LCD, I could attach it to a swing-arm mount and have a lot more desk space for other stuff. But an LCD with 2048x1536 resolution for a price within my budget isn't going to happen any time soon.

azdude

Jun 23, 2004, 10:20 AM

But for many people, factors such as power consumption, heat production, weight, footprint, etc. are very significant.

Oh, come on... be realistic--- we're Mac people. You forgot "looks."

djdarlek

Jun 23, 2004, 10:29 AM

Do all the "no way, overpriced!" comments sound familiar to anyone?

"Only 4 gigs for $249?!? That's way too much! I'd buy one if it was like $99, or maybe $149, but at $249 they're not going to sell any of those."

Fast forward a few months, Apple can't even come close to keeping up with demand.

.

WELL SAID!

Jeez, every product that comes out we have that happening.. ala the iPod mini.. boooo apple boooo! $250 for 4 gig thats insane! !!!! Yet they can't even make the buggers quick enought to supply the people who can afford them, so i very much doubt they give a flying toss about whether mr. i'm-so-cheap-i-wanna-save-my-$30-and-buy-a-dellpod wants to be all stubborn.. Surely you guys get it>? they whole Apple thing? why else would you be here? $3000 for a 30" lcd is a deal! can't you guys see that? I can now get a NEWER version of my old lcd (apple 20") for £650 instead of £1000+!!! if that isn't progress then what is?

kuyu

Jun 23, 2004, 10:39 AM

A 20 incher would be huge compared to the 17" that's out now.

If the 20 is widescreen and DVI, I'm in. If not, no way in hell I'll spend a G on a square monitor.

Hopefully with an edu discount that would be about $800. Sweet!!! :)

1macker1

Jun 23, 2004, 11:02 AM

$3000 for a 30" LCD isn't a deal. I doubt that many people think that. Some people might actually need a 30" display and dont mind handing out the cash for it. But it's no "deal"
WELL SAID!
Jeez, every product that comes out we have that happening.. ala the iPod mini.. boooo apple boooo! $250 for 4 gig thats insane! !!!! Yet they can't even make the buggers quick enought to supply the people who can afford them, so i very much doubt they give a flying toss about whether mr. i'm-so-cheap-i-wanna-save-my-$30-and-buy-a-dellpod wants to be all stubborn.. Surely you guys get it>? they whole Apple thing? why else would you be here? $3000 for a 30" lcd is a deal! can't you guys see that? I can now get a NEWER version of my old lcd (apple 20") for £650 instead of £1000+!!! if that isn't progress then what is?

wdlove

Jun 23, 2004, 11:34 AM

I voted for the 23" at $1799. That is the one that I have wanted for almost a year. The timing just depended on the purchase of a G5. $2999 is a little too steep for the 30"

whooleytoo

Jun 23, 2004, 11:35 AM

Do all the "no way, overpriced!" comments sound familiar to anyone?

"Only 4 gigs for $249?!? That's way too much! I'd buy one if it was like $99, or maybe $149, but at $249 they're not going to sell any of those."

Fast forward a few months, Apple can't even come close to keeping up with demand.

Lesson: most people on mac message boards are not the typical mac users - they're either poorer, or cheaper, or like to complain about overpricing a lot more. Or maybe a combo of all three.

What makes you think it's the same people complaining about both? I think the iPod Mini is a great deal (though I already have all the iPod I need - 'til the battery dies..).

But I'm unlikely to touch these monitors. I neither need nor have the deskspace for a 23 or 30 inch monster, though I'd like one. $999 for a bottom of the range monitor is ridiculous. About $599 to $699 for a 17" and I'd be happy. If this rumour is true, I guess it's a 3rd party monitor for me.

(And I doubt who's looking for a monitor for a dual G5 falls into the "cheap" or "poor" either!)

jasonbw

Jun 23, 2004, 12:30 PM

I'd like to see them keep a 17" model, hell, i wouldn't mind a widescreen 15". theres still a market, but i'll bet the profit margins aren't as good.

ADC is a nice idea, but i could do nearly the same thing with the three individual cables and some tape, and it wouldn't cost me any extra (except for the tape). its also pretty likely that my monitor will outlast my cpu, so i'd like to be able to use it on another machine without having to shell out $100 for some transitional device.

iPC

Jun 23, 2004, 12:59 PM

I don't have enough room on my desk for a 20" display. And I don't have enough room for a bigger desk.

What is so wrong with 17" size? :rolleyes:

FuzzyBallz

Jun 23, 2004, 02:38 PM

I might get my current 20" Cinema a companion of equal size. Given the new LCD uses DVI, it shouldn't be a problem at all. Hmm... dual 20". I loved my dual Sony 18" LCD, and now this. Wait, do I have enough desktop real estate to accommodate all the large LCDs? Bleh, who cares, I'lll make it fit.

thogs_cave

Jun 23, 2004, 02:57 PM

I wouldn't buy any, but not because of the price. Apple will no longer offer a 17", and due to a visual problem, that's the largest LCD I can work comfortably on. I'm an unusual case, but I can't imagine everyone needing the real estate that a 20" or larger nets you.

They should keep a small screen for those who don't want/need a large one. Their LCD's are prime, I think they are some of the best on the market, but I guess I'll have to stick with my Samsung Syncmaster. Which isn't a bad thing at all... ;)

goodwill

Jun 23, 2004, 02:57 PM

Hypothetically, in an Apple Utopian world, what would you guys say/recommend to be the ideal/right price for the displays. What would you be willing to say is a "fair" price for each of the current sizes of the 20in, 23in, 30in so you wouldnt be questioning the price? If Apple were your company and you were selling them, what would you make different?

Id sell the 30in at $2499.07

the 23 in at $1099.19

the 20 in at $675.42

-hh

Jun 23, 2004, 03:15 PM

Voted no.

Apple's first LCD monitors bottomed out at $599. That's already a bit expensive.
Apple's second LCD monitors bottomed out at $699. That's expensive.
Apple's third LCD monitors (will maybe) bottom out at $999. That's ridiculous.

Read up on any 3rd party Mac-magazine that sells monitors of all sorts, and you'll find comparative 17 inch monitors at $390, while Apple's is still $699 (excluding discounts).

I also voted no.

These LCD prices are even more rediculous when you don't throw out CRT's. You can get a 19" CRT today for under $150.

Nevertheless, this is simply indicative of Apple's general strategy to avoid low-profit commodity-type products, and the lack of anything small and inexpensive is simply their strategy to maintain margins by "escaping" upscale.

Personally, as much as I wouldn't mind having some more desktop real estate, if I'm going to watch a DVD, I'm not going to stay in the office - - I'll take it out to the TV room.

-hh

-hh

Jun 23, 2004, 03:33 PM

Personally, I agree (with CRTs being a much better value for the money)

But for many people, factors such as power consumption, heat production, weight, footprint, etc. are very significant.

Just as there are also people for whom its necessary to own a 4WD SUV in Southern Florida, to surive their winter's intense weekly blizzards :-)

Let's face it: the power consumption is a Red Herring when we account for the difference in original purchase price. I think the last time I ran the numbers, it was something like a 20 year payback if you ignored inflation.

Heat production is also mostly a Crimson Kipper, as much of the USA is in a temperate climate zone that needs heat in the winter. If its really that big of a concern for you, invest $79 at Home Depot for a Maytag Cameo White 5200 BTU Air Conditioner (Model M3X05F2A) and cool down the whole room.

I love my 22" CRT monitor, but I absolutely hate trying to move it anywhere. And clearing out space on my desk for it was rather difficult. If it was an LCD, I could attach it to a swing-arm mount and have a lot more desk space for other stuff. But an LCD with 2048x1536 resolution for a price within my budget isn't going to happen any time soon.

Desktop real estate is a concern for some. Its also a contrived "claim" at times too. In my office, we have "L" shaped desk areas and the corner of the L is a huge dead space that's perfect for sucking up the mass of a huge CRT monitor.

Overall, I see a monitor's weight as the only really meaningful concern, but even here, how often do you have to move a monitor for a desktop PC around? Probably not that often. College students moving in/out of dorms are probably the most frequent movers, and I'm sure you can find a couple of guys who would be happy to lug it to/from to your car for $10, and at 4x/year times 4 years of college, you've only incurred a $160 cost, so you're still ahead of the game with a CRT.

But then again, its a toy, so objectivity is not a requirement.

-hh

etoiles

Jun 23, 2004, 03:48 PM

the price for the 20" seems average (not really overpriced if you look what is out there), but the 23" and 30" seem like really good deals !

As for a cheaper 'entry level' alternative: I guess if you can afford a G5 at 3K, then you should also be able to afford a few extra hundreds for a bigger display (a G5 on a 17 screen ? what ?)... if you are on a tighter budget, you can get an iMac or iBook. Or just buy a 3rd party screen.

my $0.02

york2600

Jun 23, 2004, 03:52 PM

How stupid is Apple if they're not offering a $300 monitor and a $600 monitor. Not all of us have $1000 to spend on a monitor especially one that most likely isn't competitive against 3rd parties (they never really have been). If Apple prices its monitors at such high prices they are simply handing sales to 3rd party vendors. I looked at Apple LCDs for my G4, but laughed at their prices. $550 out the door I have an 18in Samsung LCD that is very high quality. Sure it doesn't match my G4, but who cares if I save HUNDREDS of dollars. My University is full of G4s, but a small handful have Apple monitors. The school is not going to fork over that cash to get an Apple monitor. We don't all need 20in monitors and we can't all afford them. Give the option for bigger and better for those who want that, but don't forget the guy that is fine with a cheaper 17in monitor.

sjk

Jun 23, 2004, 04:14 PM

Let's face it: the power consumption is a Red Herring when we account for the difference in original purchase price. Want to pay my electricity bill here to run a dual 2.5 G5 vs. something like an iMac? :D

QCassidy352

Jun 23, 2004, 04:17 PM

all of the people complaining about the cost are missing something here. $999 may be high for a "low end" LCD, but it's not high for a quality 20" LCD. Most of the people here don't seem to be complaining about the prices so much as about the fact that there isn't a smaller model than 20".

And I'm getting a 20"er the day it comes out. :D

Chaszmyr

Jun 23, 2004, 04:58 PM

all of the people complaining about the cost are missing something here. $999 may be high for a "low end" LCD, but it's not high for a quality 20" LCD.

That's a good point, but it needs something addressed. Lots of people here seem to be under the impression that Apple's 20'' and 23'' displays are horribly inferior to their comparably priced competitors. All i can say about that is I think they are dead wrong.

SeaFox

Jun 24, 2004, 12:46 AM

I vote NO because LCD still do not match CRT's for refresh rate, let alone price.

Wake me up when 20" OLED's are $799 and we'll talk.

iLilana

Jun 24, 2004, 12:49 AM

however... i just ordered a dual 2.0 with a hansol 18 inch lcd
it may change.

BeigeUser

Jun 24, 2004, 01:21 AM

BeigeUser

Jun 24, 2004, 01:33 AM

First of all, I don't think the predicted lineup is overpriced. The offer decent value for what they offer.

But I do believe that Apple needs a lower priced LCD for the rest of us "poor people". Some people on these boards seem to have a problem with poor people but remember that we are poor because we've just spent or are going to spend large amounts of cash to buy a Powermac. (You didn't think we were planning to connect those beautiful LCDs to Dells, right?) Those that need the larger size will somehow find the money to get one but there are people who need the speed and expandability of Powermacs but don't need the real estate of a 30".

CTerry

Jun 24, 2004, 08:48 AM

A 20 inch Cinema Display would go very nicely with the 15 inch PowerBook I have plans to buy.

edesignuk

Jun 24, 2004, 09:14 AM

I vote NO because LCD still do not match CRT's for refresh rate, let alone price.
Refreh rate is not an issue on LCD's, it's response time & contrast ratio you need to look out for.

shamino

Jun 24, 2004, 11:38 AM

Heat production is also mostly a Crimson Kipper, as much of the USA is in a temperate climate zone that needs heat in the winter. If its really that big of a concern for you, invest $79 at Home Depot for a Maytag Cameo White 5200 BTU Air Conditioner (Model M3X05F2A) and cool down the whole room.
Nevertheless, if you've got several in the room already, that room will be hot. And running an A/C unit 24/7 is going to be expensive.
Desktop real estate is a concern for some. Its also a contrived "claim" at times too. In my office, we have "L" shaped desk areas and the corner of the L is a huge dead space that's perfect for sucking up the mass of a huge CRT monitor.
You obviously don't know me :)

At my office, I've got five computers (four desktops, attached to three 20" CRT monitors, and a laptop) The "dead" corner in the L-shaped desk is quite in-use, holding a monitor, two keybaords and a SPARCstation.

At home, my desk is much smaller. A standard 30"x60" desk surface that currently has a Mac Quadra, a Mac G4, 22" monitor, scanner and three keyboards. (With two PCs on the floor next to the desk). Plus the devices that sit on top of the computers/monitors - two sets of speakers and two tape drives.) Adding another monitor is out of the question, so any replacement must be able to attach to all four computers. My current monitor has two inputs, and I use a KVM switch to let three computers share one of the inputs.

If I could get that monitor completely off of the desk (via a swing-arm or other kind of mounting) it would allow me to move other useful things (like the scanner) into its place, which would be very convenient. (Of course, only if the monitor on the swing-arm is a flat-panel, otherwise I'd still need that space for when the monitor is swung in front of me. :D ) It would also make room for me to move my two PC's off of the floor and onto the desk, where I'd rather have them.
But then again, its a toy, so objectivity is not a requirement.
This explains a lot. If you see it as nothing more than an expensive toy, no wonder you don't think any of these arguments have any merit.

MrSugar

Jun 24, 2004, 12:05 PM

Refreh rate is not an issue on LCD's, it's response time & contrast ratio you need to look out for.

Thank god someone said it. I have seen so much LCD bashing from people that are obsessed with CRT's. I personally used to use dual 22" ViewSonic P225F monitors that are EXTREMELY nice CRT's, so I have been around the block on the CRT market. At the same time, LCD's have SOME nice beneifts. The only downfall now days being color. Contrast, brightness, angle, pixle response time, all of these things are better than ever on new day LCD's. I for one will be buying a new apple LCD as soon as they come out!

sjk

Jun 24, 2004, 03:49 PM

And running an A/C unit 24/7 is going to be expensive.And noisy, which mostly negates benefits of having quiet systems. :(

tbabb

Jul 14, 2004, 01:15 PM

I must admit lusting after the new Apple LCDs but I doubt I will pay full retail for one.

Apple's policies regarding replacment of LCDs with stuck or dead pixels leaves me cold. If Apple's policies leaned more towards the customer favor than with Apple, I might feel different.

IMHO Apples Applecare policies on this issue do not match the premium price and quality of the monitors themselves.

Users that have purchased LCDs from Apple with dead or stuck pixels know that Apple is less than accommodating in this area. Apples first tier support seems geared towards getting the customer to "go away" and just be happy with one or two bad pixels. Having been there myself, I am extremely reluctant to repeat that experience.

If I do end up "caving in" and purchasing one of the new displays, I will be very cautious with choosing a dealer with acceptable policies regarding customer satisfaction and replacement issues.

Macmall certainly is not on my list.

/end rant

djdarlek

Jul 14, 2004, 01:39 PM

I must admit lusting after the new Apple LCDs but I doubt I will pay full retail for one.

Apple's policies regarding replacment of LCDs with stuck or dead pixels leaves me cold. If Apple's policies leaned more towards the customer favor than with Apple, I might feel different.
/end rant

Thats all very well.. but *someone* has to stand up for Apple, and today is perfect for me to do just that. After purchasing AppleCare for my aging Powerbook ti 550, I have sent it back 2 times. Once for a replacement DVD drive (after I foolishly dropped my laptop about 4 ft.) and second, last week, to fix a broken hinge.

I'm sure you're all aware of the dire paintjob given to ti. books, and needless to say my laptop was looking very shabby around the edges. The hinge had completely snapped off and generally it was working, but looked a mess.

It came back today, with a completely new case. I am over the moon!!!!!!

My point is that Apple aren't the money greedy hoe's you thought they were! :D

wdlove

Jul 16, 2004, 01:46 PM

Thats all very well.. but *someone* has to stand up for Apple, and today is perfect for me to do just that. After purchasing AppleCare for my aging Powerbook ti 550, I have sent it back 2 times. Once for a replacement DVD drive (after I foolishly dropped my laptop about 4 ft.) and second, last week, to fix a broken hinge.

I'm sure you're all aware of the dire paintjob given to ti. books, and needless to say my laptop was looking very shabby around the edges. The hinge had completely snapped off and generally it was working, but looked a mess.

It came back today, with a completely new case. I am over the moon!!!!!!

My point is that Apple aren't the money greedy hoe's you thought they were! :D

I concur with your praise of Apple. I had a chance to actually see a dead pixel, it was at the lower right hand corner. IMHO it was barely noticeable.

My wife's PowerBook had a signal that was weak when using wireless. They replaced the Airport card and gave her a brand new lid with screen because of a problem with the antenna.

itsumo

Jul 16, 2004, 02:06 PM

Perhps another point to consider is that CRT monitors work by blasting radiation directly at your head, and LCDs - don't.

I don't think the Apple LCDs are overpriced for what they are, but neither will I be buying one unless my circumstances change radically. Clearly, there's a market for them, and so IMO Apple are still making the right moves with these things.

laurawallace799

Jul 18, 2004, 11:20 PM

no way.

i have 3 LCDs. Total cost $1100 (one was an open box special). Apple's stuff is nice but too much $$$. :confused:

~Shard~

Jul 18, 2004, 11:32 PM

Apple's stuff is nice but too much $$$. :confused:

I'm of the belief that you get what you pay for, and having personally used Apple LCD displays in the past, I can say that they honestly do seem worth the money. I'm not saying they are the best, and you can't find better deals elsewhere for high quality displays as well, but I definitely would say the Apple LCDs are not "too much $$$" as you put it.

iNetwork

Jul 20, 2004, 06:15 AM

With the low end monitor starting at 1299 and going up beyond that, they are way too expensive for me. Apple is advertising their old 17" at an "affordable" 699; I guess if you compare it to nearly 1300 for 3 more diagonal inches!! I found the Samsung 172x, 17" 12ms response (not the 16ms that the new displays are). It is silver in color and has a slim edge for ~520 on newegg. I'm getting that one instead. :rolleyes: $500 is way more than I've ever spent on a monitor, I'm not going to dare spend 1300 on a monitor. BTW the 23" is 10% of my yearly pay in the Air Force. :eek: Thank goodness I'm getting out soon!

iNetwork

Jul 20, 2004, 06:29 AM

My point is that Apple aren't the money greedy hoe's you thought they were! :D
....if you buy applecare...

I didn't buy applecare on my iBook and they won't even talk to you after 90 days. You have to give them your CC # at pretty high rates even if something is truly broken.

djdarlek

Jul 20, 2004, 07:32 AM

....if you buy applecare...

I didn't buy applecare on my iBook and they won't even talk to you after 90 days. You have to give them your CC # at pretty high rates even if something is truly broken.

Well I have two friends, both using iBooks, and they both foolishly ignored purchasing AppleCare. And yes they have had problems. And yes they paid through the nose to get them fixed. I would HIGHLY recommend anyone who spends $1000+ on an Apple laptop to spend a little extra for peace of mind. laptops are prone to numerous random deaths.

L2GX

Jul 20, 2004, 07:38 AM

The apple screens are incomparable, but I won't buy a big lcd that does not have s-video in at the least, preferably even component.
Something that size and price should hook up 2 computers and a console or vcr without needing third party equipment.

-hh

Jul 20, 2004, 08:07 AM

Nevertheless, if you've got several in the room already, that room will be hot. And running an A/C unit 24/7 is going to be expensive.

So just run A/C continuously: objectively, you're still going to be ahead of the game financially. And if anything, amortizing a window A/C's capital costs across multiple units makes the case even stronger.

(crowded desk explanation)...This explains a lot. If you see it as nothing more than an expensive toy, no wonder you don't think any of these arguments have any merit.

No, you've misinterpreted what I've said because you personally appear to have a reasonable need. What I've effectively said that most people aren't like you: they don't have a really crowded desktop so as to use that justification.

So if its not justified by the net operating costs, alleviating an over cluttered desktop, the mass of an object that rarely has to be moved, etc, etc...what else can be the motivation?

The simple answer is that some --possibly even "most"-- people don't have a reasonably objective requirement, but they just simply want it.

YMMV, but I consider that to be one of the definitions of a toy.

FWIW, I'd personally accept someone's statement that an LCD is "beautiful" and they're willing to pay more to not have to look at an "ugly" CRT...because they're admitting to the fact that they're willing to pay for personal preference.

My point here is that human nature being what it is, people very frequently contrive some lame rationale by which they can claim with a straight face that its an "essential and irreplacable tool". (Gag).

We're all guity of doing this at times, myself included, but its a lot healthier for ourselves if we can be honest with ourselves and admit that even as adults, we still may make self-gratifying purchases.

-hh