Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Thunderbolt Display Supplies Begin Running Short at Third-Party Resellers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Severely? Last I checked, every Mac from 2011 on have Thunderbolt. Most who want to buy a $IK Thunderbolt Display probably aren't going to bat an eye dropping $600 on a Mac Mini.
I have a 30" with the proper matte display that I enjoy immensely.
But I could trade down to a glossy 27" to gain the audio & lose the extra cabling under my desk.
But I could trade down to a glossy 27" to gain the audio & lose the extra cabling under my desk.
We are still rockin 2 Final Cut Pro workstations (Dual processor 1.8 G5 1gb RAM) using the 20 Cinema Displays using the ADC.
If/when we replace these with iMacs they will transition to capture stations from our studios
Viva la G5 and ADC!
If/when we replace these with iMacs they will transition to capture stations from our studios
Viva la G5 and ADC!
I have owned an iPhone 4 since the day it was released (I now own a 5), and I own an iPad retina as well. I work as a graphics artist and sit in front of this monitor for hours a day as well. I was going to say that normally, people don't sit more than 12 - 16" away from a desktop monitor, but now that I think about it, monitors will likely start to become touchscreen devices, which will require closer viewing distances
Aside from this, you make a very good point - I do catch myself glancing closely (to view pixels in photoshop) often! I guess a retina wouldn't be so bad. However, the pixel density of the iPad retina may not even be necessary (for a desktop monitor). The pixels may not even need to be quadrupled. As someone mentioned earlier, simply improving the pixel density, but changing the resolution so that everything becomes slightly larger would be excellent. In other words, we don't need to scale 2x, but instead create new resolutions that best fit viewing distances/clickable areas. (though scaling 2x, would be much easier, as done on the MBP, iPad and iPhone.)
I consider the TBD one of the best investments I've made recently ... I think I paid $909 plus tax at Adorama in NYC.
For my money, I'll skip the needlessly-thin 27" iMac and upgrade my TBD when the new one is released. Of course, if Apple drops the price $100, cuts the glare and adds USB 3, I won't complain. I'll miss my FW800 drives, but I imagine FW800 is done for in the next iteration.
To those who think the TBD is priced too high, I offer some sage advice: Buy a Dell! The TBD is proof one gets what one pays for.
For my money, I'll skip the needlessly-thin 27" iMac and upgrade my TBD when the new one is released. Of course, if Apple drops the price $100, cuts the glare and adds USB 3, I won't complain. I'll miss my FW800 drives, but I imagine FW800 is done for in the next iteration.
To those who think the TBD is priced too high, I offer some sage advice: Buy a Dell! The TBD is proof one gets what one pays for.
Thread should have been closed right there. There isn't anything wrong with this display save for the lack of USB 3.0.
The other models do have ports, but some don't have LED, ethernet or Firewire 800. That's where the beauty of the thing comes in.
The price is worth it over the competitors. I have a Thunderbolt display next to two high-end HP LP and ZR Series 24" and 30" monitors. The Thunderbolt display wins on many fronts.
I love the fact that it has a light sensor and auto adjusts brightness. Plus it's integrated with the Display settings on the Mac. (You can adjust the brightness right from you Mac keyboard.)
The display powers on and displays an image much quicker than anything I've seen.
Plus, the screen just looks great in our office.
I love the fact that it has a light sensor and auto adjusts brightness. Plus it's integrated with the Display settings on the Mac. (You can adjust the brightness right from you Mac keyboard.)
The display powers on and displays an image much quicker than anything I've seen.
Plus, the screen just looks great in our office.
Comparing this monitor to the $400/$500/$600/$700 monitors on the market is unfair. When you look at what this monitor brings to the game from a color accuracy standpoint, and from features such as being a plug and play hub for Macs, including networking, etc., $999 is not too much. In fact, some of the competitors' comparable monitors are more expensive, without the built in hub capabilities. Then there's the build and materials quality compared to plastic monitors.
I hope Apple doesn't screw us. They made the 27" iMac a different height from the 27" ACD and TBD, which was bad enough, but then they made the new 2012 27" iMac a different height from the 27" ACD and TBD again!
I just took a quick look at it and this would be a VERY nice alternative if the price isn't right.
What makes you say that? The keyboard and mouse seems far more practical. Unless somebody can think of an input method that requires even less energy, I think it should stay that way for quite a long time.
“We’ve done tons of user testing on this, and it turns out it doesn’t work. Touch surfaces don’t want to be vertical.
It gives great demo but after a short period of time, you start to fatigue and after an extended period of time, your arm wants to fall off. it doesn’t work, it’s ergonomically terrible.
Touch surfaces want to be horizontal, hence pads.” - Steve Jobs
“Other people have tried that with desktops, and I think to say it hasn’t caught traction is probably an understatement of the year” he explained. Whereas, say, an iPhone is “sort of an intimate experience.” - Tim Cook
You do know the connector ports....connect to something inside right? It's a Camera, Thunderbolt, USB, Firewire 800, Gigabit ethernet hub inside there.
$999 is pretty good price for this plus a top quality 2560X1440 display. Look at NEC and other displays at this quality level and they are as much or more with far fewer connectivity options.
How cool would it be to have these displays look identical to the iMac 27", including the chin to allow space for all electronics and the connectors in back, and as thin overall as the edges of the iMac 27"? Imagine have one of these sitting on each side of your iMac. No need for retina for sure.
The price is worth it over the competitors. I have a Thunderbolt display next to two high-end HP LP and ZR Series 24" and 30" monitors. The Thunderbolt display wins on many fronts.
I love the fact that it has a light sensor and auto adjusts brightness. Plus it's integrated with the Display settings on the Mac. (You can adjust the brightness right from you Mac keyboard.)
The display powers on and displays an image much quicker than anything I've seen.
Plus, the screen just looks great in our office.
I doubt that. It'd be different if you'd mention something other than personal experience. If you feel the ACD is better, that's all well and dandy, but you can't say that the HP LP and ZR monitors don't compare panel wise then talk about light sensors and aesthetics
No sense made here.
Exactly. The only thing I can figure is people are comparing it to 1920X1200 el cheapo displays.
----------
The pro release isn't related to this monitor since most people who own one use a laptop.
----------
We are talking about this monitor and what people are comparing it to. Not anything else. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean they aren't true.
Agreed, but let's not compare build quality to something that remains on a desk for a majority of it's life. By build quality I mean casing. The ACD isn't the most color accurate panel, and one that's more image friendly can be had for around the same price, and give you some hub features.
QUOTE]The pro release isn't related to this monitor since most people who own one use a laptop.[/QUOTE]
Agreed! And it's be nonsense to have Airplay in an ACD when it doesn't have a CPU or WiFi radio. Adding that and it's even more of an iMac then it already is.
