PDA

View Full Version : expensive monitors


tamara6
Jun 29, 2004, 07:46 AM
I really hate to say it, but I will probably never own another Apple monitor. I just can't afford it. When did 20" become the smallest monitor someone would want to own? And how many people can shell out $1300 for a monitor? Would it really kill Apple to sell a smaller model at a reasonable price (I know the 17" is still available - but at $700, the price is still unreasonable).

Oftentimes you can tell what kind of computer someone is using by looking at the brand of the monitor. You can't usually see the box beneath their desk. If I see someone using a Sony monitor, I am most likely going to think they are using a PC. Apple is missing out! There are plenty of people out there that can barely afford a G5 and then only have a little more money left for a monitor. These folks are not going to spend $1300 for a lovely 20" screen - they will spend $450 for a nice Sony or Viewsonic or something. And Apple will loose out on the on-desk advertising that (I think) it so badly needs.

I know Apple wants to be cutting edge. It is just too bad they don't realize that some of us just want to get work done, with good equipment at reasonable prices. :(

MisterMe
Jun 29, 2004, 07:52 AM
I really hate to say it, but I will probably never own another Apple monitor. I just can't afford it. When did 20" become the smallest monitor someone would want to own? And how many people can shell out $1300 for a monitor? Would it really kill Apple to sell a smaller model at a reasonable price (I know the 17" is still available - but at $700, the price is still unreasonable).

Oftentimes you can tell what kind of computer someone is using by looking at the brand of the monitor. You can't usually see the box beneath their desk. If I see someone using a Sony monitor, I am most likely going to think they are using a PC. Apple is missing out! There are plenty of people out there that can barely afford a G5 and then only have a little more money left for a monitor. These folks are not going to spend $1300 for a lovely 20" screen - they will spend $450 for a nice Sony or Viewsonic or something. And Apple will loose out on the on-desk advertising that (I think) it so badly needs.

I know Apple wants to be cutting edge. It is just too bad they don't realize that some of us just want to get work done, with good equipment at reasonable prices. :(Would you like cheese with that whine? The Apple Store sells monitors for as little as $189.00. That is less than I paid for my Viewsonic.

tamara6
Jun 29, 2004, 08:01 AM
I can't find a new Apple monitor for less than $700 at the Apple store online. Where do you see one for less than $200?

jxyama
Jun 29, 2004, 08:25 AM
I know Apple wants to be cutting edge. It is just too bad they don't realize that some of us just want to get work done, with good equipment at reasonable prices. :(

please. those displays are priced adaquately. they aren't a bargain but they are in line with other displays in the market with similar specs.

you can't afford it does not mean they aren't reasonably priced.

Coolvirus007
Jun 29, 2004, 08:46 AM
I think it means that the displays the smallest displays that apple now sells is too large. It starts at 20"! I do think that the price of the screens are reasonable (sort of...) relative to the screen size but they should also think about indivisuals as well who can't afford $1200 after $2000 computer (minimum specs!).

tamara6
Jun 29, 2004, 09:20 AM
I think it means that the displays the smallest displays that apple now sells is too large. It starts at 20"! I do think that the price of the screens are reasonable (sort of...) relative to the screen size but they should also think about indivisuals as well who can't afford $1200 after $2000 computer (minimum specs!).

Yes, that is my point. I don't dispute the $1200 price for a 20" display. I just wonder why they don't make something smaller. Not everyone needs a 20" monitor (not that it wouldn't be nice, but for $1200, people may start considering their needs vs. their wants).

I think Apple could make a "cost effective" 17 LCD for $475ish - just for those folks who can't afford something better, but still want an *Apple* monitor to go with their *Apple* computer.

I just think it a lost opportunity.

ndanimal
Jun 29, 2004, 09:50 AM
Arrrrrrrrrrrr, I'm not convinced you can really consider that post whiney. $1300 for the BASE model is ridiculous by any standard. True it meets up with specs...but the price to spec comparison wasn't the complaint.

And c'mon, a sub-$200 monitor? You're just arguing for the sake of seeing your own post. A Mitsubishi CRT does not count as an Apple Monitor just because it happens to be sold at the Apple Store.

Let's not forget the real point here, which is that pirates are awesome

Horrortaxi
Jun 29, 2004, 10:35 AM
I really hate to say it, but I will probably never own another Apple monitor. I just can't afford it...I know Apple wants to be cutting edge. It is just too bad they don't realize that some of us just want to get work done, with good equipment at reasonable prices. :(
Dell, HP, Samsung, and NEC all make good equipment at much lower prices than Apple's. Feel free to use any of them. You apparently don't want a high end display, or it's high end price. It's really simple.

Mr. Anderson
Jun 29, 2004, 10:37 AM
They are high end - and there isn't another 23" LCD with 1920x1200 res on the market (that I know of). The 20" is great too, the wide format is very nice :D

But it is unfortunate they didn't lower the price a little....

D

jxyama
Jun 29, 2004, 10:40 AM
basically, this is apple keeping itself in line with its products. these displays are basically for PowerMacs. if you need something cheaper, they are telling you to get an eMac or an iMac.

just like they consider a laptop without built-in optical drives and full-6 pin firewire "lacking" (so they don't offer them), they consider apple displays being smaller than 20" "lacking" as far as using them with PowerMacs. so they don't bother offering them.

they are saying if you can afford a G5 PM and uses it as apple intended to (mostly serious professional work), then you should get at least a 20" display.

so while it's not "whining" per se, it's their philosophy, i guess. is it a bit arrogant? yeah, possibly. but just like flash based mp3 players, if apple doesn't see the benefit of offering feature stripped (as far as apple is concerned) devices for the sake of lowering the base price, we all know how apple is quite stubborn about not offering them.

tamara6
Jun 29, 2004, 11:07 AM
Dell, HP, Samsung, and NEC all make good equipment at much lower prices than Apple's. Feel free to use any of them. You apparently don't want a high end display, or it's high end price. It's really simple.

Yes, this is my point. How stupid is it to be using an HP monitor with an Apple computer? When Apple could make the same "good" (but not super wonderful) equipment.

they are saying if you can afford a G5 PM and uses it as apple intended to (mostly serious professional work), then you should get at least a 20" display.

Surprise, surprise - some people need the power of the G5 - that is floating point performance - for non-graphic work. Graduate students in the sciences, for example, or universities setting up computing labs for folks in the sciences or engineering. Dells are easy to buy because one phone call gets you everything, and it all looks co-ordinated on/around your desk. With Apple, you can't do that. Very few universities will set up a computer lab with computer/monitor pairs that are $3000. And very few grad students can afford that either. So either they get a PC setup or a G5 with some other brand monitor.

All I'm saying is that there would be a market for smaller, less "wonderful" Apple monitors for folks who have a G5 tower. And that a matching monitor makes the computer maker look good.

Eventually a G5 iMac will appear, and for a lot of people this will fill the need I've layed out here. But folks who want something that they can put a pci card into (to run lab equipment, for instance), would still need a G5 tower and a smaller monitor. Too bad they can't really turn to Apple for help.

Mord
Jun 29, 2004, 11:17 AM
Yes, this is my point. How stupid is it to be using an HP monitor with an Apple computer? When Apple could make the same "good" (but not super wonderful) equipment.



Surprise, surprise - some people need the power of the G5 - that is floating point performance - for non-graphic work. Graduate students in the sciences, for example, or universities setting up computing labs for folks in the sciences or engineering. Dells are easy to buy because one phone call gets you everything, and it all looks co-ordinated on/around your desk. With Apple, you can't do that. Very few universities will set up a computer lab with computer/monitor pairs that are $3000. And very few grad students can afford that either. So either they get a PC setup or a G5 with some other brand monitor.

All I'm saying is that there would be a market for smaller, less "wonderful" Apple monitors for folks who have a G5 tower. And that a matching monitor makes the computer maker look good.

Eventually a G5 iMac will appear, and for a lot of people this will fill the need I've layed out here. But folks who want something that they can put a pci card into (to run lab equipment, for instance), would still need a G5 tower and a smaller monitor. Too bad they can't really turn to Apple for help.

dude you see those white apple stickers that came with your mac just slap them an a 3rd party display and you have yourself a moniter and none will think your using a pc.

apple is realising that the one advantage a desktop has over a laptop (other than speed and expandability is that it can have a huge screen and there capitalising on this.

it's not just screen size that matters when buying a display you have to consider the brightness and contrast ect hich is where these displays come into there own.

if you dont have the cash just get a 3rd party one and live with it, you get what you pay for.

whooleytoo
Jun 29, 2004, 11:45 AM
I know Apple wants to be cutting edge. It is just too bad they don't realize that some of us just want to get work done, with good equipment at reasonable prices. :(

The prices for the monitors are probably reasonable (I haven't looked into large LCD prices much), but it's the lack of choice that's (as ever) the problem with Apple's range.

I want a Mac with an upgradable graphics card, at least one vacant internal drive bay, and a monitor around 17" that matches in styling (I'm a slave to fashion).

Currently that means, I go for a G5 1.8 x 2, plus a 20" monitor (unless anyone knows a 3rd party monitor that's similar in styling). That's a lot of CPU power and screen space I don't need. There's nothing wrong with Apple's current offerings, I just wish they'd offer more choice.. </rant>

chw
Jun 29, 2004, 12:19 PM
The way I see it is these high end monitors are designed to be mated to either the PowerMac or the Powerbook. They are targeted to a certain market segment and I don't think they expect everyone to just go out and get one. What I do see is that Apple may come out with a consumer line which will be tailored to the lower end consumer. Given the rumor about the headless iMac and the now VESA mounting kit, whose to say that Apple would not come up with a low end line soon that can be mated to a next gen headless iMac. I can totally see this as the industrial design cues are digressing between the consumer (iMac) and the proconsumer (PowerMac) lines, Apple may just have a consumer line monitor up their sleeves.

Grimace
Jun 29, 2004, 12:42 PM
The way I see it is these high end monitors are designed to be mated to either the PowerMac or the Powerbook. They are targeted to a certain market segment and I don't think they expect everyone to just go out and get one. What I do see is that Apple may come out with a consumer line which will be tailored to the lower end consumer. Given the rumor about the headless iMac and the now VESA mounting kit, whose to say that Apple would not come up with a low end line soon that can be mated to a next gen headless iMac. I can totally see this as the industrial design cues are digressing between the consumer (iMac) and the proconsumer (PowerMac) lines, Apple may just have a consumer line monitor up their sleeves.

I was definitely thinking the same thing. A 15", 17", and then maybe even a 19 or 20". Leaving the 20" as the smallest monitor would be good for looking toward the future of displays, but there are still a lot of people willing to pay for 15"+ displays.

Mr. Anderson
Jun 29, 2004, 12:46 PM
Samsung has a 24" monitor....

and it goes for over $4k or more. These Apple monitors aren't that badly priced.....

http://reviews.cnet.com/Samsung_SyncMaster_241_MP/4505-3174_7-30076901.html

D

whooleytoo
Jun 29, 2004, 12:54 PM
Samsung has a 24" monitor....

and it goes for over $4k or more. These Apple monitors aren't that badly priced.....
D

I think a lot of people (at least 1 - me) who are complaining about the price of these monitors are more complaining about the entry level price. It wouldn't matter to me if you doubled the size of all of them, it's not the value of the monitors that's an issue, it's the price. :(

Does anyone know if anyone else makes widescreen LCDs about 17" or so in size?

jxyama
Jun 29, 2004, 12:57 PM
Surprise, surprise - some people need the power of the G5 - that is floating point performance - for non-graphic work. Graduate students in the sciences, for example, or universities setting up computing labs for folks in the sciences or engineering. Dells are easy to buy because one phone call gets you everything, and it all looks co-ordinated on/around your desk. With Apple, you can't do that. Very few universities will set up a computer lab with computer/monitor pairs that are $3000. And very few grad students can afford that either. So either they get a PC setup or a G5 with some other brand monitor.

if PC setup works, then you obviously don't "need" the G5.

universities won't care if the monitors match or not.

(ordinary) university computer labs will buy iMacs and eMacs if they wanted coordinated looks or order all at once.

shelling out a lot of money for G5 does not "entitle" you to being able to buy a matching monitor. if you wanted a matching monitor, that should be part of your budget. otherwise, get a non-matching monitor for your G5 or budget the entire setup, including the monitor, from somewhere else cheaper. your complaint is valid that apple is lacking entry level monitors. but unless you can present a business justification for why apple should offer one, you really don't have much leverage - because you aren't in apple's target consumer set for apple monitors. so instead of just saying, ugh, i can't afford the 20"! "whining," let's hear some reasons why apple offering low end monitors would be profittable or how it fits into their product offering philosophy. this is the same thing as headless iMacs. apple hasn't sold one because thus far, they believe it doesn't fit in with their product offering philosophy and aren't profittable. "oh, i'll buy one" on a rumor forum isn't valid reason for them to offer one.

i was a graduate student. in physics. if surely had a lot more to worry about than matching monitors to get my work done.

flyfish29
Jun 29, 2004, 01:04 PM
Oftentimes you can tell what kind of computer someone is using by looking at the brand of the monitor. You can't usually see the box beneath their desk. If I see someone using a Sony monitor, I am most likely going to think they are using a PC. Apple is missing out! There are plenty of people out there that can barely afford a G5 and then only have a little more money left for a monitor. These folks are not going to spend $1300 for a lovely 20" screen - they will spend $450 for a nice Sony or Viewsonic or something. And Apple will loose out on the on-desk advertising that (I think) it so badly needs.
:(

I believe they should have cheaper monitors that do help with the issue above. I agree totally with your comments about branding and the fact that many computers will look like they are not Apple if there is no apple monitor. This is always an issue thought as I would say most don't own Apple monitors- no facts here, just a guess. It certainly could help their branding if they exapnded their line to less expensive models as well. But I feel like this line of monitors really helps set the bar for computing which is what apple is about so who knows which is best. Affordable is not their real purpose...that is why they include monitors on their consumer lines...right?!?!

edesignuk
Jun 29, 2004, 01:11 PM
This is stupid...shall we clear things up, and please before responding make sure you understand this :rolleyes:

The purpose of this thread is to debate the fact that Apple's cheapest monitor (not inc. the old 17") is $1299. This is the price of a computer. Apple should offer something smaller that will be in the price range of more customers. There are a lot of people that will save & struggle to get a Power Mac G5, and they would save a little bit harder to get an affordable Apple monitor to go with it. But, as things are, $1299 is a hella lot of money.

Again, this is not about the monitors being bad value/expensive, it is about the cheapest monitor being so expensive (again, not to say that it is bad price for a 20" screen, but that it is bad that the cheapest model available should cost so much!), and them not offering a cheaper, smaller screen than the 20".

Capt Underpants
Jun 29, 2004, 01:15 PM
Stop with this "Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean it's expensive" crap. It just makes people want the monitor more, knowing that they can't afford it, and that's not cool. So lay off the nagging on the NORMAL people that can't afford 1,300 for an entry level apple monitor. It's madness. I know that no one in my family can afford it, and none of my friends could. Would I love to have one: yes. Will I get one eventually: yes. Until then, though, I don't need people telling me that I'm not rich enough to afford Apple's products.



edit: Finally someone gets what this thread is about. Thank you, edesignuk!

jxyama
Jun 29, 2004, 01:22 PM
This is stupid...shall we clear things up, and please before responding make sure you understand this :rolleyes:

The purpose of this thread is to debate the fact that Apple's cheapest monitor (not inc. the old 17") is $1299. This is the price of a computer. Apple should offer something smaller that will be in the price range of more customers. There are a lot of people that will save & struggle to get a Power Mac G5, and they would save a little bit harder to get an affordable Apple monitor to go with it. But, as things are, $1299 is a hella lot of money.

Again, this is not about the monitors being bad value/expensive, it is about the cheapest monitor being so expensive (again, not to say that it is bad price for a 20" screen, but that it is bad that the cheapest model available should cost so much!), and them not offering a cheaper, smaller screen than the 20".

thanks for the clarification. to that, i offer my take on why apple doesn't offer anything cheaper than $1300 and smaller than 20" for LCD displays.

basically, apple decided that the segment of buyers who would be turned off from buying a G5 because they cannot afford a matching apple LCD is small. they reason that people who buy G5 will either

1) be able to afford a $1300/20" or more monitor and actually have no use for anything smaller anyway (professionals, mainly)

2) or need the G5 for the power and don't really care about the monitor (scientists)

again, as it stands, the only time apple gets hurt by its decision is when someone decides not to buy a G5 system altogether because he/she cannot afford a matching LCD. apple apparently decided that it's not worth it for them to offer a cheaper/smaller display to cater to the "minority" G5 buyers who can't afford $1300.

you can disagree, of course, but i can see their point of view too.

jxyama
Jun 29, 2004, 01:28 PM
[rant]Until then, though, I don't need people telling me that I'm not rich enough to afford Apple's products.


i also don't need people posting over and over and making it sound like apple is just being personal and nasty by not offering something you want. apple has reasons. that's why i suggest we post and discuss about why it would (or not) make business sense for apple to offer new 17" LCD at $700 with Al encasing. they decided that it doesn't. that people who really can't afford LCD displays at $1300 can be catered to by iMac and eMac.

just like flash based mp3 players or cheap headless computer, apple is not really into making commodity products. i argue that they consider 17" LCDs to be in that category now.

"i am not rich. i can't afford the good stuff but i still want one anyway." type of rant gets old pretty quick.

Capt Underpants
Jun 29, 2004, 01:30 PM
thanks for the clarification. to that, i offer my take on why apple doesn't offer anything cheaper than $1300 and smaller than 20" for LCD displays.

basically, apple decided that the segment of buyers who would be turned off from buying a G5 because they cannot afford a matching apple LCD is small. they reason that people who buy G5 will either

1) be able to afford a $1300/20" or more monitor and actually have no use for anything smaller anyway (professionals, mainly)

2) or need the G5 for the power and don't really care about the monitor (scientists)

again, as it stands, the only time apple gets hurt by its decision is when someone decides not to buy a G5 system altogether because he/she cannot afford a matching LCD. apple apparently decided that it's not worth it for them to offer a cheaper/smaller display to cater to the "minority" G5 buyers who can't afford $1300.

you can disagree, of course, but i can see their point of view too.

I totally see your point, but I still have a doubt in my mind. First of which is this: If Apple thought that a cheaper monitor wouldn't sell, then why are they still selling the old 17". WOuldn't it make sense to aluminize the 17" and sell it for 699 rather than keep the old style and the price? Atleast give us something for our low end, aluminum wanting people.

Or, maybe Apple thought that the only people deserving of a sub 20" display were iMac customers. Will they sub 20" aluminum displays only be available on the G5 iMac? Will the G5 iMac even be aluminum? Who knows. It would be nice if the Apple introduced a 17" aluminum display when they introduced the iMac revision. The same display could be used to fill the low end display for the powermac side and the 17" iMac display. This would cut Apple's costs, and hopefully drive down the price of the 17" display by a hundred bucks or so.

Of course, that is just wishful thinking as of yet.

Capt Underpants
Jun 29, 2004, 01:32 PM
i also don't need people posting over and over and making it sound like apple is just being personal and nasty by not offering something you want. apple has reasons.

I'm not taking the lack of a 17" display in an aluminum display personal. heck, I'm not even in the market for the 17" display. I am going to buy the 20 incher. I just wonder why Apple is lacking a display that, obviously, there is a market for.

edesignuk
Jun 29, 2004, 01:33 PM
that people who really can't afford LCD displays at $1300 can be catered to by iMac and eMac.Oh please, don't even try it. Both the iMac and eMac are tech piles of ____. They are not an alternative to someone who want that bit more power, and would like an afforable matching display.

jxyama
Jun 29, 2004, 01:34 PM
i think the 17" was left behind for sale for the similar (but not the biggest*) reason apple sold G4 PMs after G5s came out. (*the biggest reason, of course, was OS9 bootability, i know.)

just a bit mismatched, old style stuff for cheap. apple is famous for maintaining the low end prices rather high. why rant about it now? i feel like this is something to be expected.

if apple didn't mind "commoditizing" their products with cheap low end products, then we would still have 5 GB iPods for sale at $150 and 500 MHz headless PowerMac at $500, etc.

jxyama
Jun 29, 2004, 01:36 PM
Oh please, don't even try it. Both the iMac and eMac are tech piles of ____. They are not an alternative to someone who want that bit more power, and would like an afforable matching display.

geez, please read. i said that's what apple thinks. and apple decided not to cater to people "who want that bit more power, and would like an afforable (sic) matching display" because they don't see the profit in catering to them.

no, iMacs and eMacs aren't lower end alternatives to PowerMacs. i never said that. i said that's what apple thinks.

edesignuk
Jun 29, 2004, 01:39 PM
geez, please read. i said that's what apple thinks.Since you appeard to think like/understand Apple, I aimed my reply at you. If this is not the case then that's fair enough. The point still stands no matter who it is targeted at.

Capt Underpants
Jun 29, 2004, 01:39 PM
i think the 17" was left behind for sale for the similar (but not the biggest*) reason apple sold G4 PMs after G5s came out. (*the biggest reason, of course, was OS9 bootability, i know.)

just a bit mismatched, old style stuff for cheap. apple is famous for maintaining the low end prices rather high. why rant about it now? i feel like this is something to be expected.

if apple didn't mind "commoditizing" their products with cheap low end products, then we would still have 5 GB iPods for sale at $150 and 500 MHz headless PowerMac at $500, etc.

A 17" monitor compared to a 500 MHz headless powermac and a 5 GB iPod is hardly fair. A 10" monitor would be what those items should compare with. A 17" monitor is the standard size these days. It's what comes with most computers, and I think Apple should offer an aluminum version. Nuff said.

Horrortaxi
Jun 29, 2004, 01:40 PM
Yes, this is my point. How stupid is it to be using an HP monitor with an Apple computer? When Apple could make the same "good" (but not super wonderful) equipment.

Is it stupid to use an HP monitor with an Apple computer? Do the carpet and drapes always have to match? If you've got the G5 because you need its power I don't see why you'd be so concerned with looks.

The thing I've love about Apple is that I always know I can trust their stuff. It's always nop notch and you don't even have the option of buying a piece of crap from them. They just don't sell anything that's not "the best" and to me that's worth the price.

potterfast
Jun 29, 2004, 01:51 PM
that is found in the iMac repurposed as the entry level aluminum monitor. Maybe at $499.

jxyama
Jun 29, 2004, 02:15 PM
Since you appeard to think like/understand Apple, I aimed my reply at you. If this is not the case then that's fair enough. The point still stands no matter who it is targeted at.

no, i don't know what apple's thinking. but i wanted to go a bit more than just ranting about lack of products.

my point also stands that apple market research seem to disagree with the "tech savy" crowd's assessment that there's profit to be made from people who can barely afford the G5, claims to "need" the power of G5 and also need an affordable matching monitor. (just greedy, cheap people? :D ;) :p )

tamara6
Jun 29, 2004, 02:45 PM
IDo the carpet and drapes always have to match? If you've got the G5 because you need its power I don't see why you'd be so concerned with looks.

And yet people do like their monitor and computer to match. That's why Apple just came out with new Al monitors, so that they'd match their newish Al G5 computers.

Horrortaxi
Jun 29, 2004, 03:09 PM
And yet people do like their monitor and computer to match. That's why Apple just came out with new Al monitors, so that they'd match their newish Al G5 computers.
Exactly. So if you have to have the best there is, and you're into looks, you can now get a PowerMac G5 and a matching display. If you don't have to have the best, or don't care about looks, you have other options.

I remember not too long ago when all computer components matched. They were all beige.

whooleytoo
Jun 29, 2004, 03:23 PM
Exactly. So if you have to have the best there is, and you're into looks, you can now get a PowerMac G5 and a matching display. If you don't have to have the best, or don't care about looks, you have other options.

And what if you don't have to have the best, but do care about looks? ;)

It's not just about matching aluminium with aluminium either. Very few 3rd party displays (that I know of) use the same aspect ratio as Apple's widescreen displays. So the images is going to be squashed/stretched, or you can go for non-widescreen options. None of the above are particularly appealing.

Arael
Jun 29, 2004, 05:38 PM
Samsung has a 24" monitor....

and it goes for over $4k or more. These Apple monitors aren't that badly priced.....

http://reviews.cnet.com/Samsung_SyncMaster_241_MP/4505-3174_7-30076901.html

D
Please, don't just find and state the most expensive 1920X1200 LCD.

Samsung 243T, $2000-2400

http://www.streetprices.com/Electronics/Computer_Hardware_PC/Monitors/LCD_24in/SP1587596.html

HP L2335, $1700-1800

http://www.mysimon.com/HP_L2335_flat_panel_display_TFT_23/4014-3174_8-30788118.html?tag=ob_-5&orderby=-5&sort=asc

Arael
Jun 29, 2004, 05:42 PM
Is it stupid to use an HP monitor with an Apple computer? Do the carpet and drapes always have to match? If you've got the G5 because you need its power I don't see why you'd be so concerned with looks.

The thing I've love about Apple is that I always know I can trust their stuff. It's always nop notch and you don't even have the option of buying a piece of crap from them. They just don't sell anything that's not "the best" and to me that's worth the price.

That's not logically possible to 'not sell anything that's not the best', unless they sell only a single product in every category. Since they sell PM dual 2.5, the PM dual 2.0 is something Apple sell but not "the best".

Horrortaxi
Jun 29, 2004, 06:06 PM
And what if you don't have to have the best, but do care about looks? ;)

Don't buy from Apple. There isn't much of a compromise.

Arael, if it makes you happy, substitue "highest quality" for "the best." I realize there is a similar semantic problem there too but that's as much change as you'll get out of me. You know what I mean.

tamara6
Jun 29, 2004, 06:32 PM
Arael, if it makes you happy, substitue "highest quality" for "the best." I realize there is a similar semantic problem there too but that's as much change as you'll get out of me. You know what I mean.

So, um, explain to me again why Apple *can't* make the highest quality $500 17" LCD display on the market?

Horrortaxi
Jun 29, 2004, 08:27 PM
So, um, explain to me again why Apple *can't* make the highest quality $500 17" LCD display on the market?
I never offered an explanation. Apple doesn't want to do it--that's the only explanation I have. Maybe you should ask them why they don't.

nerd
Jun 29, 2004, 08:49 PM
So, um, explain to me again why Apple *can't* make the highest quality $500 17" LCD display on the market?

They could, but it's a waste of time and talent. They're interested in LCDs with the highest profit margin. These days 15" and 17" LCDs have been "commoditized" (i.e. everyone makes them cheaply). So, Apple focuses on the higher-end where there's still room for them to make a few bucks by out-designing (i.e. making cooler stuff than) their competitors (of which there are fewer).