Apple Offering 32-Inch 4K Sharp Displays in European Online Apple Stores [Updated]

[Amadeus71]

It's gone !

It appears it was an accident they posted that item online - it's gone now.

Assuming the item can be ordered from when the Mac Pro goes on sale, it's unfortunately a very good indication that this is what we're supposed to buy…because there's no Apple branded 4k display.

Colour me disappointed.

 

[Spinland]

I'm taking cautious optimism from the recent "glitches" related to the Apple store online. It tells me things are being changed behind the scenes, which in turn could lead to us seeing the final changes soon.

 

[winston1236]

Well there you have it. The apple tv.

 

[MacVista]

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple prices the 4K monitors at $3,999.

 

[newyorksole]

this is VERY telling. 2014 is about to be insane.

 

[blabliblu]

For me Apple hasn't innovated in years, but I feel they'll be the one pushing 4K to the market instead of the looser TV manufacturers.

 

[Takeo]

I couldn't care less about a 4K monitor. All I want is for Apple to update their Thunderbolt display with the iMac style laminated glass and USB3. Why is that so hard? People have been waiting on this very obvious update for waaaaay too long. I'll be very upset if they simply kill the $1000 normal resolution Thunderbolt option and replace it with some ridiculous $4000 display.

 

[cube]

DisplayPort 1.3 is required for 4K 3D @ 60Hz

Everything is obsolete

 

[itbeme]

I couldn't care less about a 4K monitor. All I want is for Apple to update their Thunderbolt display with the iMac style laminated glass and USB3. Why is that so hard? People have been waiting on this very obvious update for waaaaay too long. I'll be very upset if they simply kill the $1000 normal resolution Thunderbolt option and replace it with some ridiculous $4000 display.

Amen on your first point. But doubt we'll any refresh on what is long overdue (TB Display, MacMini etc). They'll flush inventory for the holidays, then refresh in early 2014.

On your second point - no they won`t kill the current model in favor of a 4k monitor. They do some stupid things fro, time to time, but the market for those high end monitors is very small compared to the current offering. They are not that stupid.

Wait until early next year.

 

[SBlue1]

Ultra HD, also known as Quad HD isn't called 4K any more precisely because it's NOT 4K.

No matter how many times you try multiplying 1024 (or 1000) by 4, you won't get 3840!

This isn't a 4K display because it doesn't have at least 4000 pixels across the screen. End of story.

There is officially no such thing as an Quad HD resolution. Some TV-set makers used to call their TVs Quad HD but they all agreed to use the same marketing term Ultra-HD. There is 4K Ultra-HD (formally know as 4K) or 8K Ultra HD. The 4K stands for the resolution of 3840 × 2160, 4096 x 2560, 4096 × 2160 or 4096 × 1714 depending what the screen is used for.

 

[cube]

Ultra HD, also known as Quad HD isn't called 4K any more precisely because it's NOT 4K.

No matter how many times you try multiplying 1024 (or 1000) by 4, you won't get 3840!

This isn't a 4K display because it doesn't have at least 4000 pixels across the screen. End of story.

You are confused.

"FullHD" is 1920x1080, QuadHD is 3840x2160, 4 times the number of pixels. There's no 1024x4 multiplication involved.

Cinema 2K is more than 2000 pixels wide, calling 1920 "2K" is an approximation.

Similarly for 4K.

I agree that you may want the full digital cinema resolution.

 

[AndyUnderscoreR]

You are confused.

"FullHD" is 1920x1080, QuadHD is 3840x2160, 4 times the number of pixels. There's no 1024x4 multiplication involved.

Cinema 2K is more than 2000 pixels wide, calling 1920 "2K" is an approximation.

Similarly for 4K.

I agree that you may want the full digital cinema resolution.

I'm not confused at all, I'm just pointing out when TV makers are telling lies. I'm frankly amazed that so many people here are desperate to let TV makers get away with lying to them!

Go look up the abbreviation "K" in a dictionary, and go look up the number 4
in a maths book aimed at 4 year-olds. Calling 3840 4K is not an 'approximation', it's just an outright lie, and if you can't see that then you've really had the wool pulled over your eyes by the marketing people.

 

[bhamss]

Dell UHD are on their way in the next week- 24-32". the 24" looks like a great deal at around $1500 and the 28" less than a 1K for I guess a lil less features.

But to all the posts saying you aren't going to find any 4k monitors for 1K-1.5K WTF are you talking about? Sieki as mentioned in other posts is already out at 4K and well under a $1000 and the Dells above are right in that wheelhouse price

and yea its not 4000 its 3840 bwahahaa. marketing should be saying come buy our 3.8409887272K monitors hehee

 

[nealh]

I REALLY want this, but at $3500 bucks ill just have to wait.

That is pounds....1.6x for dollar roughly or $5600

 

[karlwig]

Isn't a 32 inch 4K display kind of useless?

I'm going 4K when the time is right, but no less than 65 inch.

 

[Umbongo]

Isn't a 32 inch 4K display kind of useless?

No, not for professional content creation. This is not a consumer display.

 

[Triggerfu]

Apple (Sharp) 4K Monitor?

This is addressed to.... AndyUnderscoreR .... Your point is??? Seeing as how your arithmetic belies what every 4K manufacturer declares their units technical specs as 4K using 3840 x 2160 as all of their reference points to classify a monitor with a 4K designation.

Their breakdown to classify 4K is as such:
1920 x 2 = 3840
1080 x 2 = 2160

Hence, the 4K derivative.... Are you still

 

[dysamoria]

Big whup. I don't plan on sitting 3 inches from my tv when I watch it. I'm sure if you sit a normal distance ( 10-15 feet ) from a 1080P tv and a new 4k tv, you wouldn't see much of a difference. So why spend that extra jack on a 4k tv!?

Maybe because this isn't a tv.

----------

Headline could read Apple opens first store at the worlds largest cult headquarters.

I like your attitude :-D

----------

Professionals in the photo & video industry will care because higher resolution means more screen real-estate.

But I'm assuming you're referring to a Retina Display, having higher pixel density but lower usable resolution as it's done today with Apple Notebooks. I'd have to agree Retina Display will probably be more of a luxury than a need.

Then you don't understand graphics professionals. Retina-like resolution doesn't mean you don't have the space for larger images. It means the GUI is scaled up in pixel count so that it is sharp, not pixelated, and therefore much easier to look at. Software like photoshop will be presenting your images at pixel for pixel presentation, and graphics pros then have bother the real estate to view their images without panning them around at 100%, and the sharpness to go with it. Essentially, the goal is to replicate print with a display. We aren't there yet but retina-style display technique is close.

 

[patseguin]

I bet it's sweet but I could never pay that much for a monitor.

 

[Spinland]

I bet it's sweet but I could never pay that much for a monitor.

The target customers will be deducting the cost from their taxes as a business expense.

 

[patseguin]

The target customers will be deducting the cost from their taxes as a business expense.

Yeah probably true. It's inevitable that they come down and can't wait to get one. Only problem is I have Windows 8.1 with a touch monitor. For a Mac, it would be off the hook.

 

[Robert.Walter]

I'm not confused at all, I'm just pointing out when TV makers are telling lies. I'm frankly amazed that so many people here are desperate to let TV makers get away with lying to them!

Go look up the abbreviation "K" in a dictionary, and go look up the number 4
in a maths book aimed at 4 year-olds. Calling 3840 4K is not an 'approximation', it's just an outright lie, and if you can't see that then you've really had the wool pulled over your eyes by the marketing people.

They do this because it would be idiotic to market a 3.840k TV. Most people don't have the visual or mental acuity to differentiate a 4% difference between that and 4.000k; the difference only matters to benchmarks and folks that like to pick nits.

Besides, if we are to get hung up on this, then we need to be consistent and slam the automakers for the gap between actual engine displacement and the badge on the fender, or lightbulb manufacturers trying to compare watts with lumens. The problem here is when we get so fixated on specs, that we forget to ask ourselves if we are satisfied.

 

[9000]

I couldn't care less about a 4K monitor. All I want is for Apple to update their Thunderbolt display with the iMac style laminated glass and USB3. Why is that so hard? People have been waiting on this very obvious update for waaaaay too long. I'll be very upset if they simply kill the $1000 normal resolution Thunderbolt option and replace it with some ridiculous $4000 display.

Worse, some people buy the TB display to use with a RMBP, and it has fewer pixels than the RMBP screen!

Forget the Apple Thunderbolt Display. How about just a big, 100% passive glass screen that takes some kind of optical video output (light in a fiber cable) from the RMBP and just projects it onto a 30" flat panel?

 

[richardw]

4K is not high enough for a 32" retina screen.

That's only 1080p of screen real estate. Imagine using a 32" HD TV with your Mac... everything would be way too big.

Will be interested when they're offering a screen with at least 2880 or ideally 3200 pixels high, and 5120 wide to match the space offered by the 27/30" ACD.

ETA: If we got 4k in the Retina MBP then it would be a far more appealing product. It only gives you the equivalent of 900 pixels high as it is now (piss poor)!

 

[Irishman]

Come on you can get a Seiki (a Japanese brand) 50-inch 4K 120Hz LED TV for around $700. And the IQ is quite impressive too.

Image

It's impressive if you send it a native 4K signal encoded in 24hz or 30hz.

Gaming online with it in FPS's? Forget it. You're gonna lose every time.

----------

I wonder why Apple decided to offer some third-tier third party displays. I'd rather they started with some established brands like NEC, EIZO, Dell or Samsung.

Sharp is not third-tier. LOL

----------

3840 x 2160 is Quad HD, Not 4k.

1k = 1024
4k = 4096

Even using the cheating disk drive definition of 1k = 1000, this is only a 3.8k display, not a 4k display.

Technically true. 4096x2160 is a commercial cinema format. What manufacturers are calling 4K displays should be called 2160p, or UHD - Ultra HD, or QHD - Quad HD. This is beginning to cause confusion among shoppers, just like LED, LED-LCD, and OLED will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

Here is from the SMPTE page.

http://store.smpte.org/product_p/stem 4096x2160 (rgb).htm

What's needed, of course, is more education.