Apple displays...

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by mrgreen4242, Dec 17, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #1
    When and why did Apple start selling only 20" and up displays? $1200 for the cheapest monitor from Apple seems ridiculous! That's almost as much as the entry level PM... it just doesn't make sense to me.

    Was there any reason given for this move? Can anyone see any benifit to NOT selling a 17" LCD along side the rest of the models?

    Rob
     
  2. macrumors 603

    jeremy.king

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Fuquay Varina, NC
  3. macrumors 68000

    wPod

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #3
    i agree with mrgreen4242, it would rock if apple sold a 17" affordable monitor. i love the styling of the new apple monitors and would buy one to match my PB, but seeing that the cheapest monitor costs as much as my PB seems a bit rediculous. i would pay a little more than normal 17" monitors but to pay more than a grand, i might as well pick up a porjector and have a full wall of picture!!!
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    cmvsm

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    #4
    My 20" Cinema is stunning in terms of picture, design, and reliability. I also have the acrylic model which is just as awesome. Yes, a few extra bucks, but its all preference If you don't want it..don't buy it. What's the big deal? Dell always has something for ya! :eek:
     
  5. macrumors 68040

    jxyama

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    #5
    that's pretty much exactly why they aren't selling smaller/cheaper ones. apple doesn't do commodity products because it cheapens the brand and offers no profit margin to their liking.

    also, i think they discontinued the smaller ones because their target market (graphic pros) has no use for such a small display.
     
  6. macrumors 68020

    AmigoMac

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Location:
    l'Allemagne
    #6
    Here! Looking forward to see which monitor will use Steve @ MWSF, the first display to mirror was the 17" old school, I don't see any other possibility... will they start widescreen keynotes?
     
  7. thread starter macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #7
    Well that's exactly my point... if I don't want, or can't afford, a 20" ACD then I HAVE to buy from someone else, even if I would have bought an Apple 17" for a little more than a Dell or <fill in other brand here>. Seems pretty stupid to just not offer something that, most likely, 80% of your customers WOULD buy given the choice.

    You're assertion that Apple doesn't do "commodity" products because it "cheapens" the brand is assinine. If that were the case, there would be no eMac or iPod mini, and the color iPod would mean that the old B&W would be gone, becuase in comparison the old models are cheap! OMG the new iMac only has a 17" screen? No graphic pro would want that! Better get rid if it and go 20" and 22" models only! Or why sell those kludgy USB keyboards and mice when the BT models are definately better and more unique. PC users actually have USB mice, so we can't do that, can we?!

    The concept that Macs are for the rich, eleet, graphic artist, musician, etc only is something that I think is holding Apple back, and needs to be re-evaluated by the community at large.

    Rob
     
  8. macrumors 68000

    mklos

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Location:
    My house!
    #8
    I've always asked for a 17" Widescreen display. They already have the damn display with the iMac and PowerBook. Just put the damn thing in an Aluminum case with USB 2.0 Ports and sell it for around $699 or $799. Leave the FireWire Ports off it to keep the price down.

    I want a PowerMac, but with the one I want added to the cost of a display is over $4,000!!!!! Friggin' ridiculous if you ask me! I have to buy the display and the PowerMac at the same time in order to get AppleCare on both which is also crap IMO!

    Not everyone has the room for a 20" widescreen display or larger, nor does everyone have the $1,200 for a display, especially after spending $3,000 for a PowerMac, or $2500 for a PowerBook.

    If Apple would make an Aluminum 17" Widescreen display I think it would sell really well.
     
  9. thread starter macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #9
    Putting the iMac 17" display in a seperate case would be idea. $700+ would be exessive tho. you can get a nice 17" for $250, so Apple should be able to make one for $500! Would be nice, tho! Adding one to an iMac (with the screen spanning hack) would be pretty slick, too!
     
  10. macrumors 68030

    Capt Underpants

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    #10
    Except, unlike usual, the Dell 2005FP is not only cheaper, but also better! I don't understand what the big deal is about buying a 20" Apple display when you can get the same thing for half of the price. It doesn't make sense.
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    cmvsm

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    #11
    Where exactly does it state that the Dell and Apple monitors are identical? I'd like to read that if you have the article at hand. My wife's parents just bought a brand new Dell with all the bells and whistles for about $4,000. The LCD that came with it SUCKS! I was like "this is it???". I'm not sure how they ended up with that POS after paying all that cash. It's only a 15" widescreen and the resolution is really bad. I've heard great things about Dell's phone CS, but I've also heard that you're going to need it as the quality just isn't there.

    Like I said before, to each his own, but the color reproduction for print work is second to none on the Apple, IMO, to any other monitor that I've used in the past.

    Shoot over the Dell/Apple equivalence article as I'm curious to read it. Thanks!
     
  12. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #12
    The new Dell 20.1" Widescreen LCD has better slightly specs than the 20" ACD, also a lot of reviews are comming out that its a fantastic screen.
    I also heard that it uses the same LCD company that Apple uses (LG I think it was...)
     
  13. macrumors 68040

    jxyama

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    #13
    i never said macs are for the "rich and eleet (sic)." i said apple doesn't do "commodity" products that "cheapen" the brand. eMac and iPod mini are not commodity products, esp. mini. geez, what was that roar at MWSF '04 that mini was ridiculously overpriced?

    i don't think you have the definition of "commodity" right. it doesn't mean "low priced." eMac is low priced but is not a commodity product. and neither is B&W iPod. commodity means the price is the primary distinguishing point - and as evidenced by all the posts at MR asking why dells and irivers are cheaper, eMac and iPod's main draw isn't the price. (relative to other Macs, yes, but not relative to other competiting products.)

    USB keyboards and mice are still mainstream and will remain so for quite some time. offering those are not incompatible with my point that apple tends to push the edge of demand. lack of floppy disk, inclusion of ethernet, wireless, firewire, CD-drive, combo drive, super drive, etc. are/were all pushing the edge of demand to where apple believes the world will go. and they believe displays smaller than 20" aren't really cutting edge any more and hence they are no longer being offered.

    they believe the time has past for such small displays, as far as in their product line. they aren't saying 17" displays are useless. apple believes that as a product line, offering 17" display is like offering computers without a CD burner. the time has past.
     
  14. macrumors 68030

    Capt Underpants

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    #14
    I don't know (and don't feel like searching) for a Dell and Apple article. What I do know is that if you look at the specs, the Dell 2005FP beats the 20" Apple Cinema Display hands down. Let's Compare, shall we.

    Apple: 20" Viewable, 1680x1050 resolution, 250 cd/m2 brightness, 300:1 contrast ratio, DVI, 2x Firewire 400, 2x USB 2.0, $1299

    Dell: 20.1" Viewable, 1680x1050 resolution, 300 cd/m2 brightness, 400:1 contrast ratio, VGA, DVI, S-Video, Composite, 4xUSB 2.0, $799 List, but can be found for as little as $599

    You tell me which one is the better deal.
     
  15. macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #15
    The Dell monitors do offer value. I had "ordered" the 2005FPW (got the 2001FP in its place - long story). Decided to keep the 2001FP after Dell gave me a final offer of $150 savings off the original 2005FPW order at $599, including 12 months interest free financing (sorry to those that replied to my post about the issue - the wide screen was cool, but the savings will go towards a much needed mobile HDD).

    If you want wide screen the 2005FPW is the way to go. And with the coupons from Dell, even the 2001FP is a great way to go. Now if I could only find a way to remove the Dell logo from the monitor, I would be happy.

    My day and half with the Dell 2001FP is been really sweet. No dead pixels. Used the calibration under the Display settings to get the display the way I like. The Dell does seem to require the 2.2 gamma, otherwise it seems to be washed out.

    That being said Dell USA is hell to deal with. Telephone voicemail tree hell. Conflicting statements from different reps. Reps that have English as distant second language. But if you push them, you can get concessions. I just hope that this 2001FP has the same life as my Viewsonic LCD that is now 5 years old.
     
  16. macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #16
    Would love to know which Dell monitor your parents got. My experience says otherwise. Though Dell support sucks, but for me so far Apple rocks. I mentioned in a different thread that if Apple had a 17' in the $500 to $700 range I would have bought that instead of the Dell.
     
  17. macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #17
    I heard that the 2001FP was also a rebadged LG. I question Steve's comment that everyone uses LCD screens that they reject. Nice sound-bite, but where is the beef?
     
  18. macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #18
    Right on! Even my 2001FP has revised specs packed with it that shows 500:1 contrast ratio.
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    cmvsm

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    #19

    Specs tell you only part of the story. I could give you some great "specs" on an Intel Xeon DP 2.4Ghz machine, but we all know that the dual 2.0 G5 smokes it on the spot in just about every app. This of course is despite the specs that you see on the processor. Not to say that the Dell isn't a good monitor, as it has gotten great reviews. I'm simply saying the Apple 20" Cinema Display (plastic enclosure), of which I just bought a second one for $799...is much better in terms of price versus performance.
     
  20. macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location
    #20
    ^^ You realize how wrong you are, correct? ;)

    Dell uses, or used LG in the past, like Apple. Dell isn't getting what Apple rejects. They're just selling the same or better, but at a lower cost.

    Your shpeal concerning colour reproduction accuracy would be true if there was a difference, but there isn't. There aren't too many LCD producers in this world, and I doubt Dell is getting sabatoged LCDs that purposely don't produce accurate colour so that Apple gets the accurately coloured LCDs to allow Apple to sell them for more.

    You may be getting your money's worth on your Apple display(s), but you'd be getting even MORE with your money by purchasing from Dell. I may not like their computers, but their LCDs are quite good, and at least I can be objective.
     
  21. macrumors 68030

    Capt Underpants

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    #21
    How can you say that the old cinema display is better price versus performance? You bought an old Apple monitor for the same price(and sometimes more expensive price, depending on coupons) as a new dell monitor, and it has half of the features! A 16 Ms response time is a 16 Ms response time no matter which way you cut it. The Dell will always have more ports than your old 20" display. I don't see how your old cinema display has better "price versus performance".
     
  22. macrumors 6502a

    cmvsm

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    #22
    The "old" Apple monitor is better than the new in my book. Matter of fact, its the last PRO monitor that they produced. Many of the reviews can attest to that including PC Magazine.

    In terms of 16ms response time...I'm assuming your talking about gaming performance..yawn..again. Buy a PC and CRT and be happy.

    More ports than that Apple? That may be so and if you use them that much, then you must need the Dell. Take a look at all of your ports right now and tell me how full they are. I'm curious to know.

    Look, metaphorically speaking, if you want to put the $99 Maaco Sunday special paint job on a newly restored 67' vette, then by all means go for it!! Whatever floats your boat! :eek:
     
  23. macrumors 68040

    jxyama

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    #23
    come on, guys are posting facts to prove their point - and you are just ignoring them.

    "I'm assuming your (sic) talking about gaming performance..yawn..again." "Take a look at all of your ports right now and tell me how full they are." :rolleyes: it doesn't matter that you find gaming boring or that don't use all the ports. these guys listed facts that shows dell monitor to be better spec'ed. you can't argue contrast ratio or brightness. those are hard numbers.

    16 ms is, i believe, the TFT response time. they are pretty much the same for all LCDs - because there are only finite number of LCD manufacturers. apple and dell do not own their LCD fabs - they get their plates from the same place.

    your metaphor makes no sense. dell monitor uses the same LCD plate as apple's and there's no spec that is better about apple's as opposed to dell's. if dell monitor is a "restored '67 vette" then so is apple's.

    a better metaphor would be comparing a high-end camry that is cheaper but better spec'ed to a low-end lexus that is more expensive. right now, you are arguing that just because camry has a toyota logo and not a lexus one, it's worse than lexus, even though they are both made by toyota and the hard specs are in camry's favor.

    you can like the lexus better - whatever floats your boat - but arguing one is more superior than the other without any fact to back it up is rather pointless.
     
  24. macrumors 68030

    Capt Underpants

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    #24
    I don't even have the monitor, I'm simply knowledgeable enough to know which one is the better deal, and which one performs better! It's a no brainer, so to speak!

    You only addressed response time! How do you explain the better brightness and contrast ratios? Maybe those are just for gamers, too? Maybe it's a pointless argument, because even when the facts are given to you, you still think you're right. You are wrong. [/discussion]
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    cmvsm

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    #25
    Again, value is in the perception of the buyer. As I stated before, specs given by the manufacturer are not always definitive. That's like saying that every television you buy that displays resolutions for HDTV is equivalent. We all know this is untrue. Besides, Capt. Underpants doesn't even own the monitor in which he argues for. Give me a break.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page