Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

FrankieTDouglas

macrumors 68000
Mar 10, 2005
1,554
2,882
Why? Do you sit the same distance from your 27" monitor as you do a 15" MacBook Pro?

I do. Just because it's bigger, doesn't mean I sit further back. Just means I can see more content simultaneously in front of me.

(currently use a 27" iMac paired with a Thunderbolt display)
 

that user

macrumors member
Jan 4, 2011
49
4
One thing that's been bugging me about these displays is that it's not a good desk buddy to an iMac. While the screen sizes are identical the heights don't match and they look strange next to each other.
 

el-John-o

macrumors 68000
Nov 29, 2010
1,588
766
Missouri
Heres hoping they'll introduce sensible pricing points... (Over everything else).

It's actually pretty competitive. Most IPS, high resolution displays in the 27-30" range push $800 to several THOUSAND dollars.

This isn't a cheap TN display like you find at best buy for $200. Forget the docking ability, aluminum enclosure, etc. It's an IPS panel at a high resolution, those two factors alone are what make it a thousand dollar display. That's why you'll see a lot of pro's in the design field using Apple Cinema/Thunderbolt displays, or a similar high res IPS display.

The IPS is necessary for accurate color representation once calibrated, and the high resolution is necessary because there can be some distortion and color inaccuracy on digital images if you don't view them at 100% pixel-for-pixel. With pro DSLR cameras running anywhere from 15 to 36+ megapixels (most in the 20ish range), it can be really hard to have a manageable image viewed at 100%

It's not ALWAYS necessary, but it's a good idea. When you 'zoom out' of an image, say to 33%, then that means that you suddenly have more pixels than you have space, so the pixels get dropped or combined by the software in order to give you a representation of the image. For some that's no big deal, but for others it's unacceptable to edit an image that isn't pixel-for-pixel.

Why? Do you sit the same distance from your 27" monitor as you do a 15" MacBook Pro?

For reasons mentioned above, compounded even further. A 'retina' thunderbolt/cinema display might be at 5120x2880 resolution, that means a 15 megapixel image (4492x3328, though it does vary some by camera) can be viewed at 100% and you can view almost the entire image! So you can make corrections with pixel-for-pixel accuracy without viewing only a small portion of the image (and thus having to zoom in and out, etc. Large images become unwieldy!)

Like many things in the pro market, it's not for everyone. The typical hobbyist doesn't need it, you certainly don't need to worry about absolute color accuracy going through family snapshots in iPhoto taken with your iPhone, but nonetheless there ARE uses for a retina display.

In the video world, which is beginning to move towards 2k and 4k video, it also allows an un-cropped 100% pixel-for-pixel view of their video without sacrificing too much screen real estate for tools, timelines, etc.

For playing angry birds or browsing the web perhaps not, but there are definitely uses. It's sort of like asking 'Why buy a Mac Pro'? Well, for most folks, an Apple notebook, a Mac Mini, or an iMac has all the horsepower they'll ever need. BUT, there is that (often PRO, get it?) market that needs a lot more horsepower than a consumer machine can offer. Imagine a professional studio grinding through hours and hours of 4k video footage (or even 1080p), those dual CPU's, fast graphics cards and abundance of RAM sure do come in handy!
 

apttap

macrumors member
Apr 3, 2010
84
0
My TBD is being delivered today. Hopefully the announcement comes before the return window closes.
 

barkmonster

macrumors 68020
Dec 3, 2001
2,134
15
Lancashire
Apple:

Introducing the new all-in-one Mac Pro.
Need a tower and a proper GPU? Silly you...
And it is the Pro because we say it's Pro..

:rolleyes:

:D

I agree completely. This is the perfect response to the usual fan-boy argument from self proclaimed professionals that there doesn't need to be an entry level Mac with some level of expansion because those are "Pro" features!

They always ignore the fact Apple offered an entry level desktop or tower system for the entirety of the G3 - G5 era then overnight, the cheapest user expandable system they offered shot to £1699 on their switch to Intel with only the woefully under-specified Core Duo Mac Mini and the aforementioned all-in-one iMac as an alternative.

These days, it's even more crazy not to offer an entry level system without having to opt for the Mac Mini or iMac because so many parts are common to both their desktop and laptop systems and they could likely just build a screenless iMac in the same case as the Mac Pro, call it simply the Mac and charge a mid price point between the entry level iMac and Mac Pro, £1299 maybe.
 

el-John-o

macrumors 68000
Nov 29, 2010
1,588
766
Missouri
One thing I've never understood about this website.... and it never fails. On every thread, on every single product Apple makes, whether its a Thunderbolt cable or an outdated overpriced Mac Pro, there's always somebody on here arguing AGAINST getting a better deal on Apple products. Maybe their parents buy their stuff.... or they are just so rich that prices don't matter. Either way, I don't get it.

Wouldn't you be happier if that same product was maybe 10 percent cheaper? Obviously Apple is doing well and would still make money on pretty much everything they sell. Why argue against that? Do you really own THAT much stock?

I would LOVE it if the products were cheaper. The point though, is, the prices actually ARE competitive. It's not a gouge that people think it is. Often there are features or design elements people take for granted because they don't actually need them (or realize that's what makes it expensive) like IPS panels, Li-Po batteries, etc.


It would be really great if they could fit a GPU into the display. That would make it the best external notebook display ever.

Since it's Thunderbolt that would be perfectly doable.

That would be AWESOME, and I was thinking the same thing. I bought a cinema display instead of a thunderbolt display for compatibility with my older machines and my PC's. The thunderbolt display doesn't do much for me. Eliminate a few cables sure, but, not worth losing compatibility with other machines. But if it had USB 3.0, a built in GPU, that would be awesome. Could really turn my MBP into a desktop replacement then. Or at least close. Would also mean less compromise for those of us who love the 13" form factor but have to give up a dedicated GPU to get it..
 

el-John-o

macrumors 68000
Nov 29, 2010
1,588
766
Missouri
:D

I agree completely. This is the perfect response to the usual fan-boy argument from self proclaimed professionals that there doesn't need to be an entry level Mac with some level of expansion because those are "Pro" features!

They always ignore the fact Apple offered an entry level desktop or tower system for the entirety of the G3 - G5 era then overnight, the cheapest user expandable system they offered shot to £1699 on their switch to Intel with only the woefully under-specified Core Duo Mac Mini and the aforementioned all-in-one iMac as an alternative.

These days, it's even more crazy not to offer an entry level system without having to opt for the Mac Mini or iMac because so many parts are common to both their desktop and laptop systems and they could likely just build a screenless iMac in the same case as the Mac Pro, call it simply the Mac and charge a mid price point between the entry level iMac and Mac Pro, £1299 maybe.

I agree. Unfortunately, despite what some would like to believe, Apple is a company that works for the almighty dollar, that's it. There isn't a substantial market anymore. Apple can do a better job and sell more products if they are small, sleek, clean, and easy, than if they are upgradeable, which requires them to be a bit bigger and adhere to certain standards (like the addition of PCI-E slots, etc.)

Those of us who were using computers in the 90's remember the blazing speed of technology improvements. We ALL upgraded our computers. CPU, RAM, graphics card, sound card, 2D accelerator, controller cards.... However, the last decade or so things have slowed down. Computers are less upgradable AND fewer and fewer would even know how to upgrade them if they could. There just isn't as much of a market for it. Sure, there are a few like you and I, but we are outnumbered by the 'sleek and small' market.

If there was a consumer grade but upgradable desktop from Apple, I'd own it. I don't need a dual socket motherboard or Xeon CPU's. But if I could have a quad core i7 desktop with a couple PCI-E slots and room for a couple of hard drives, it'd be perfect! Unfortunately, the only way to do that right now is with a hackintosh!
 

RoelJuun

macrumors 6502
Aug 31, 2010
449
207
Netherlands
My two gripes with the screen (I have the 27" ACD) is that there is NO power button (why o why) and the lack of connectors. On the connectors side it is quite obvious, all Macs use mDP, but connection to Windows based computers won't go easily.

My major gripe is the power button. Currently my ACD is connected to my iMac (and have different heights…) and there is no way to only turn off the ACD without pulling the plug…
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G5
Mar 10, 2009
12,227
3,827
One thing I've never understood about this website.... and it never fails.

Four huge factors you are ignoring.

1. This is a rumors site. There are more than few folks that try to leverage this site to make better picks on stocks. So yes... they do care more about the stock price than the products. Sadly, a subset card even less about the stock than they do leveraging a short term trade ( so they if bet long .... Apple is infallible. If they are shortening ..... Apple is doomed , Jobs death is the sign of the apocalypse , etc. ).


2. Despite being a rumors site there is almost as large a group of folks who take this to be an advocacy/evangelist site. A site where the faithful gather to defend against the evil infidels.


3. Apple has an established track record that if they can't see how to get the margins they want on a product they will dump it. (e.g., printers , etc. ). So faced with getting it or not.... some will side with continuing to get the product.

Maybe when Apple is constrained to a smaller possible set of products they will have to settle for lower margins, but for now to a large extent they don't have to because they are immobilized.


4. Lastly there is very often a disconnect between folks yelling "rip off prices" , " better bargains" and a perceived call for lower quality and more widespread commoditization (and associated homogenization ). Also if Apple doesn't have money to do things flexibility they won't be able to do innovative things in the future.

Typically this boils down to some sort of 'Apples vs Oranges' disconnect.
Stuff like "Thunderbolt cables should be as cheap as USB cables".
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
You're not reading it wrong.
Your HDMI devices are (likely) outputting it wrong.

Most HDMI devices (and cables, if I'm not mistaken) do support Full HD resolution only, rather than the 27" CD's native resolution. This includes most (all?) of Apple's Computers as well.

And because even most uninformed people know HDMI but not DisplayPort, chances are that some will purchase this thing and/or try via HDMI - and then find out later that it's native resolution isn't supported. Lest we forget all the other functionality (except sound).

So put it short: HDMI would be a bag of hurt™ on this display.
This is why it won't be included.

Actually, HDMI 1.4 would be welcome. The current MacBooks with HDMI out support HDMI 1.4, which is capable of providing native resolution for 4K displays. Thunderbolt's current implementation used in the MacBooks (everything prior to RedWood Ridge which is slated later this year) uses DisplayPort 1.1a for the DP protocol, which is incapable of 4K resolution output to a monitor.

Hence, a Thunderbolt display can't be 4K, while a HDMI 1.4 4K display would be hooked up to a MacBook (the GPU itself is quite capable of pushing the pixels, the display interface being the only limitation).
 

Johnf1285

macrumors 6502a
Dec 25, 2010
965
61
21.5" Thunderbolt Display would be epic, something that can be paired up with the 21.5" iMac nicely (even height, screen height, etc).
 

barkmonster

macrumors 68020
Dec 3, 2001
2,134
15
Lancashire
I agree. Unfortunately, despite what some would like to believe, Apple is a company that works for the almighty dollar, that's it. There isn't a substantial market anymore. Apple can do a better job and sell more products if they are small, sleek, clean, and easy, than if they are upgradeable, which requires them to be a bit bigger and adhere to certain standards (like the addition of PCI-E slots, etc.)

Those of us who were using computers in the 90's remember the blazing speed of technology improvements. We ALL upgraded our computers. CPU, RAM, graphics card, sound card, 2D accelerator, controller cards.... However, the last decade or so things have slowed down. Computers are less upgradable AND fewer and fewer would even know how to upgrade them if they could. There just isn't as much of a market for it. Sure, there are a few like you and I, but we are outnumbered by the 'sleek and small' market.

If there was a consumer grade but upgradable desktop from Apple, I'd own it. I don't need a dual socket motherboard or Xeon CPU's. But if I could have a quad core i7 desktop with a couple PCI-E slots and room for a couple of hard drives, it'd be perfect! Unfortunately, the only way to do that right now is with a hackintosh!

I agree completely. It's being 7 years now and that entry level sub-Mac Pro still isn't a reality but I think as Thunderbolt expansion systems become cheaper, maybe a 3rd party company will come out with a solution that you mount a Mac Mini or plug an iMac into and it offers SATA 6Gb/s expansion and several PCIe slots but that would still leave the GPU of the Mac itself as the weak point for some people because Thunderbolt is 2.5x PCIe and higher end GPUs are 16x, barefeats did an excellent analysis of Thunderbolts' potential and mentioned this. I think they're never going to please everyone with their line up till the entry level Mac Pro is reduced in price considerably.
 

iAco

macrumors regular
Sep 19, 2012
132
0
Apple can go to hell holding me back.

I just went ahead and got the maxed out iMac ~ $2.8K

If you plan on getting a $1100 display and have the latest MacBook Air - like I did - I suggest you sell the Air for $1K.

That's $2.1K you can spend on the new iMac. In additional to $700 out of your pocket.

The idea was that the iMac is for work and gaming and the iPhone is for everything portable. Kind of how executives live.

Laptops are kind of a thing of the past and an unbalanced mean between workstation and phone/tablet.
 

daneoni

macrumors G4
Mar 24, 2006
11,576
1,131
They're probably bringing out one with less connectivity that's half a mm thinner and charging insignificantly less for it then using spin to make everyone think they've practically re-invented the monitor.

Tell us how you really feel.
 

ThunderSkunk

macrumors 68040
Dec 31, 2007
3,783
3,990
Milwaukee Area
If they're upgrading it, I'd better be able to plug an AppleTV or AirPlay from my iPad to it.

Apples greatest potential is leveraging that they currently make all the pieces of the hardware puzzle. They just need to tightly integrate the user experience together and connect these pieces.
 

terriyaki

macrumors 6502a
Aug 4, 2005
640
9
Vancouver
I would love to get an Thunderbolt Display but they just cost way too much for me. Plus they no longer have a 24" model.

Here's to hoping the newer designs have a USB 3.0 hub and are more aggressively priced. The latter probably won't happen, though.

Speaking of monitors, I'm happy with my brand new U2412M. I got it on sale for $250. Add the Belkin Thunderbolt Dock (if Belkin ever sells it) and a USB 3.0 Hub to this setup and it would offer comparable specs and it would still be cheaper than the Thunderbolt Display.

Granted it wouldn't be quite as elegant, and it's 24" instead of 27".. but still, you get the idea.
 

Kobayagi

macrumors 6502a
Dec 18, 2012
918
2,075
Perhaps put a nice GPU inside? :) That would be a great add-on and would give more power to Macs without dedicated graphics.
 

camnchar

macrumors 6502
Jan 26, 2006
434
415
Bring back the Apple Display Connector!

Anybody remember these things? I still have a functional Apple Cinema Display from the early 2000s, which I've had to route through a ADC -> DVI adapter. I'm wondering how much more life I have left in it.
 

Attachments

  • adc-connector.jpeg
    adc-connector.jpeg
    39.6 KB · Views: 77
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.