Apple Thunderbolt Display Supplies Again Running Low at Third-Party Resellers

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jun 25, 2013.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    Inventories of the Apple Thunderbolt Display are dwindling at some third-party resellers, according to a report from MacTrast. The site spoke to a number of retailers including MicroCenter, Fry's, CDW, Best Buy, MacConnection, and others.

    Several stores said they had limited stock, while a number more said they were backordered or otherwise completely out of stock. One retailer, Adorama, went further, saying the Thunderbolt Display was "no longer available".

    MacTrast called their customer support line and were told that "the manufacturer is no longer allowing us to order new inventory for this item, and it has been removed from our system".

    [​IMG]
    Shortages of products at third-party resellers can occasionally be an indicator of a future refresh or discontinuation, but for a low-volume product like the Apple Thunderbolt Display, we can get mixed messages.

    For example, this past January, AppleInsider reported similar shortages of the Thunderbolt Display at third-party resellers, but 6 months later, there is no replacement for it.

    Regardless, redesigned Thunderbolt displays are expected at some point, perhaps alongside the new Mac Pro which is expected later this year. Potential features for a revamp include Retina capabilities, support for Thunderbolt 2, USB 3.0, and the MagSafe 2 connector that was introduced last year. The display may also be redesigned with the thinner profile and new display assembly process that Apple introduced with the new iMac late last year.

    Article Link: Apple Thunderbolt Display Supplies Again Running Low at Third-Party Resellers
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    Schizoid

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    they need something to accompany the cube, err I mean Mac Pro later this year
     
  3. macrumors 68040

    Cynicalone

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Location:
    Okie land
  4. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    #4
    will my 2011 sandy macbook pro be able to display 4k?

    edit: 15 inch with amd graphics
     
  5. macrumors member

    calearne

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Location:
    United States
    #5
    A 21.5 inch size would go nice with smaller iMacs.
     
  6. macrumors 68020

    Kissaragi

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    #6
    surely a 4k display of some size must be coming soon with apple making a big thing about that at wwdc
     
  7. pgiguere1, Jun 25, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2013

    macrumors 68020

    pgiguere1

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    #7
    Not at a decent refresh rate, no. Only with Thunderbolt 2 (not released yet) we'll be able to achieve real 4K at 60Hz.

    Perhaps Thunderbolt 2 is the reason why the rMBPs haven't been refreshed yet.

    I'm hoping for a 2880p Retina Thunderbolt display though, even if it's not released this year. 4K at 27" would imply a reduction in real estate once you turn HiDPI on. It'd be perfect for a 21.5" Retina iMac though.

    EDIT: Just to clarify, 60Hz 4K is possible without Thunderbolt 2 if you have DisplayPort 1.2, which Thunderbolt 1 doesn't have and Thunderbolt 2 will have. In other words, it would be possible to have 60Hz 4K right now if Macs used a regular mini DiplayPort without Thunderbolt, but obviously Apple won't drop Thunderbolt just to have 4K support just a little earlier.
     
  8. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Location:
    La Jolla, CA
    #8
    Damn a 30" ACD 4k would be lovely. Matte screen! :D
     
  9. macrumors 68030

    baryon

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    #9
    It is strange how the Apple Thunderbolt Display is thicker than an iMac, even though it only contains a screen. It also almost costs as much. Is the image quality at least better than that of the iMac? Plus if you buy it, you'd think you'll have a screen for many years (the main reason to buy a Mac Mini or Mac Pro is so you can upgrade it part by part, rather than the whole machine at once) yet you'll be limited by USB 2, Thunderbolt 1 and MagSafe 1 if you bought the current version.

    I mean it's great that a screen has these hubs built in, but then it becomes just as prone to obsolescence as a computer. Wouldn't it be great if all you had to upgrade was a little chip inside that carried the controllers and the cables? Why replace the whole screen, unless they really do make a Retina screen, of course, but that won't necessarily happen.
     
  10. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2005
    #10
    4K is really close to Retina on a 27" screen. I think Retina is around 2500 vertical lines where 4K is at 2K vertical lines.
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    seveej

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    #11
    OK.

    I HOPE this means, that they intend to "broaden" the lineup.
    1# I really wish for a 23-24" model in the FullHD+ resolution range, I'd even be okay if they'd package the 21,5" iMac Display in a TBD enclosure
    2# The current 27" is okay, but I find it ridiculous, that its enclosure has a greater "volume" (cm3) than the 27" iMac
    3# i Expect apple will introduce a 4K display at some point, but this may be too early...

    RGDS,

    P.S. Please, keep the FW800 port alive.
     
  12. isomorphic, Jun 25, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2013

    macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    #12
    1.5 times the current 2560x1440 (in each dimension) gives the ultra-HD "4K" resolution of 3840x2160. That would take the DPI from 109 to 163.5.

    It may not be "Retina," but I wouldn't complain about two on my desk.

    However, if none of their current kit can drive that resolution, they may just update the Thunderbolt 27" with the things the article lists and come out with a Thunderbolt Pro display (30"? 32"?) to be paired with the Mac Pro.

    Then I could finally retire my 30" Cinema Display.


    Edit: "Quad-HD" is actually the existing resolution 2560x1440; 3840x2160 is called "ultra-HD."
     
  13. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    #13
    For all intents and purposes, would 4K not meet some definition of retina? There was some hint that they might straight up double the resolution of a 27" display (to 5120x2880), which isn't drastically more pixels than 4K (3840×2160).

    It seems people I know complain that elements are too small on the 27" iMac anyways, so HiDPI mode at 3840x2160 could be about right for many, I think.
     
  14. macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #14
    No one wants a 4K display more than me, but for price reasons I'm not sure I see Apple bringing that to the market this year. I personally would prefer them not update the display until it is ready for 4K, so that they can roll out 4K as soon as possible.

    I guess, however, that Mac Pro users will want a 4K display even if notebooks don't support 4K, so there is room in the market for two new displays.

    Also, 4K on a 27" display would qualify as "Retina" as the idea behind retina is not so much about the actual pixel count as your ability to perceive the pixels. People generally view a 27" display from farther away than they view their iPhone screen from, so the pixel density doesn't need to be as high to qualify as "Retina."
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    #15
    OMG, could you image the "Apple" price for that? Probably close to 4K
     
  16. macrumors regular

    cmanderson

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    #16
    It depends how far you are sitting away from the monitor. As "Retina" is simply marketing speak based on a bit of proven science.
     
  17. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    #17
    nah, all of you got it wrong. it's just going to be the same TB display but thinner.
     
  18. macrumors 68020

    pgiguere1

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    #18
    Nope, it's practically the same thing, actually a little worse since you don't get the glare reduction and "painted on" effect offered by a laminated screen, which is also the reason the iMac is so thin compared to the TBD. The TBD's design is based on the old iMac, which used to be a lot thicker than now. It's really due for an update now. Apple must have been waiting for Thunderbolt 2.
     
  19. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    #19
    It seems obvious to me that Apple is going to release some kind of "4K" display, given how they talked it up when they introduced the Mac Pro. My money is on 4K "retina" Thunderbolt displays being available alongside the new Mac Pro.
     
  20. macrumors 68030

    PinkyMacGodess

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest America.
    #20
    More totally incredible monitors I can't afford. Yippee...

    I've got a 20 inch, and love it, but that was when I had money... :(

    ----------

    Correction: The 'tube'. Or the mortar.
     
  21. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2010
    #21
    I think I've read this exact story about 3 times in the past year.
     
  22. macrumors 65816

    bacaramac

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    #22
    Maybe offer two colors as well. Anodized black and standard silver. Really wanting a slightly bigger iMac, but would settle for a slightly bigger ACD.
     
  23. macrumors 68020

    pgiguere1

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    #23
    Regardless of the visual acuity thing, Retina has always meant doubling the resolution in each axis in the past. I doubt Apple would call Retina something that's not double the previous res, no matter factors like your viewing distance and such. 4K would offer the real estate of a 1080p screen with HiDPI, which is very low for a 27" monitor. It would represent a downgrade in real estate from my 7-year old 24" monitor, which IMO is unacceptable.
     
  24. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    #24
    Not sure why these were not refreshed at the same time the iMacs were. There should be no reason these, essentially gutless iMacs can't have the same thin profile the iMacs currently do.
     
  25. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2012

Share This Page