Apple's displays are cluttering the product line.

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by movmkr, Jan 28, 2003.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    #1
    I think Apple needs to steamline their product line using the screens. It's starting to get messy. They should do what they did for CRT's and say "4x3 is dead" and convert their whole line to widescreen. I think they started to create a nice symmetry when they used the same 17" screen for the iMac and Powerbook, who knows if they'll follow through with the rest. Anyway, here's my Apple line up.

    All Widescreen:

    Powermacs: 23" 20" 17"

    iMacs: 17" 15"

    Powerbooks: 17" 15" 13"

    iBooks: 13"

    This product line would only have 5 different screens as opposed to the 8 different screens in the current line up (two different 15" two different 17" a 14") and I think that's a lot cleaner.

    And since the screens are already there I guess you could add a 15" to my PowerMac and iBook line up, but I don't think the iBooks need two different sizes.

    Take care all - Matt

    PS - I left out the fractions on the screen sizes because I couldn't remember them all.
     
  2. macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Sol III - Terra
    #2
    How is this clutter?

    Apple sells three different sized LCD displays. The rest are screens that are built into other machines. This is not clutter.

    It's quite simple, you figure out which machine will do the job for you, then you pick the display you want to go with it. What is so difficult about this?

    And if you can't live with the screen size that goess with the product, you look for a different product. Or if it's the PowerMac, you might look for displays elsewhere. If Apple doesn't meet the requirements, some people will look elsewhere for computers and displays.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    #3
    Um...ok, maybe the point of my post wasn't clear. If you noticed I didn't really change which displays went with which Apple product or anything like that (no 17" iBook or 23" iMac).

    I was simply saying, Apple is all about simplicity and design. And I think a more symmetrical product line up (screen-wise) would look a lot simpler and allow Apple designs to flow together better.

    Nevermind that I would assume it's cheaper for a company to use the same 5 displays across their entire product line as opposed to 8 (especially when you're doing the same screen twice with the 15s and the 17s).

    Take care all - Matt
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2002
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    #4
    I've been thinking this for awhile, you are probably on to something here.
     
  5. macrumors 68020

    barkmonster

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2001
    Location:
    Lancashire
    #5
    I think having 2 of the 17" LCDs with a 16:12.8 Ratio, spread out over a desk could be very useful for audio, 1 screen for editing, 1 for mixing.

    I know it's not exactly the same because it's 2 physical displays and me being annoyed by the 20" LCDs being OS X is mildly clouding my judgement but if I could afford the 20" LCD, it would give me 1680 x 1050 in a 16:10 ratio. If I bought 2 17" LCDs instead (which is exactly the same cost as 1 20" minus the DVI-ADC adapter) I'd have a total screen area of 2560 x 1024 and I'd have the option of use a basic vga monitor as a second monitor while I saved up for the second 17" monitor.

    A widescreen 17" wouldn't be half as useful in a lot of situations where dual screens are used due to space contraints.
     
  6. Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #6
    Your analysis has some flaws...

    The size breakdown is as follows:

    Cinema/Studio Displays-
    17 20 23

    PowerBooks-
    12 15 17

    iMacs-
    15 17

    iBooks-
    12 14

    The Studio/Cinema Displays are unique to that line, but Apple uses some displays for multiple products, i.e. 17 inch in PowerBook and iMac (according to SJ at the MWSF keynote) and most likely the 12 inch is shared in the iBook and PowerBook. This leaves 7 unique screens.
     
  7. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    #7
    No I think it's 8, let me see...

    Current Product Line:

    1. 23" Cinema
    2. 20" Cinema
    3. 17" 4x3 (is the 17" called a Cinema?)
    4. 17" Widescreen Powerbook and iMac
    5. 15" 4x3 iMac
    6. 15" Widescreen Powerbook
    7. 14" iBook
    8. 12" iBook and Powerbook

    "My" product line (just cause I want to write it out again):

    1. 23" Cinema
    2. 20" Cinema
    3. 17" Cinema, Powerbook, iMac
    4. 15" Powerbook, iMac
    5. 13" Powerbook, iBook

    Take care all - Matt

    PS-Sorry if this ends up posting twice, I got an error messege the first time.
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    zarathustra

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #8
    I think the lineup he wrote out in the first post was something HE wanted. So you are correct, but he is also.

    I agree with him streamlining the product line. I could see a 17" widescreen monitor, just like the one in the iMac/PB, but the problem is a 13" widescreen. Even a 15" widescreen would look too "squashed" and unpractical. Think about it: if its 16:10 widescreen @ 13", the dimensions of the monitor would be 11"x 7". If you cut off 1.5" off the width of a letter size piece of paper, turn it sideways, that's what you get. It's not bad-bad, but you'd find yourself scrolling in documents a whole lot.

    I think the monitors are fine, and with the price cuts, they are downright great. We just need those PPC970 PowerMacs...
     
  9. Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #9
    movmkr:
    Yes, you're right, it's 8...I keep wanting to lump the PowerBook and iMac 15" together as the same one.
     
  10. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    #10
    As for the 13" iBook, I'm coming from a graphics (photo, video, sound, etc) point of view. I prefer more screen realestate side to side than up and down and will gladly sacrifice a little extra scrolling for it. It also works better for DVD's. What's the current iBook measurement...I know I should be about to figure it out knowing the diagonal (12.1) and the ratio (4x3), but I can't...

    But by looking at the dimensions of the 12" powerbook (which is closer to the actual dimensions of the screen than the iBook), I would guess the 12" screen is 10ish x 8ish, you say a 16x9 13" would be 11"x7" I'll gladly trade the top/bottom inch and scroll a little more for the extra side-to-side inch.

    Take care all - Matt
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    zarathustra

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #11
    You are right, for DVDs it would be cool as hell. But I am a designer as well, and more often than not, the documents end up on press, you guessed it, in a portrait format. A4, Letter, Monarch, A3, and most publications are taller than they are wider. Overall a good suggestion though.
     
  12. macrumors 68000

    MacFan25

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Location:
    USA
    #12
    A 13" Widescreen iBook? I can't see it. Now, it would be different if say they offered the 12.1" regular screen, and the a 14" widescreen. But, just a 13" widescreen, I don't like. The iBook should be kept as portable as possible. A widescreen may make it akward.
     
  13. macrumors demi-god

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #13

    I'm an editor (video/film) and I'd much rather have more space at the top and the bottom. When I start getting into layers and layers of a/v or gfx it's a b*tch 'cause I keep having to scroll up and down thru the timeline to get to the layer I need to fix. Not to mention what my brower in FCP looks like. I've currently logged the first half of tape 1 of 10 and I have 45 shots so far. So, when I print out the final log sheet from Excel it will probably have 1000 rows.:Q


    Lethal
     
  14. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    #14
    Huh, I hear you with the mess of layers in AFX or FCP or whatever, those are a pain to scroll up and down through (especially once you start opening and collapsing them). But even with that in mind I'd still rather have the side to side space for my timeline and what not. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

    I don't own a widescreen yet (waiting for the update to the 15" powerbook), but I have worked on them, and ever since, 4x3 screens just feel clostrophobic. I don't know why, but widescreen has just clicked with me ever since I first saw it. Guess my brain is wired right to left.

    As for MacFan25 saying a widescreen iBook would be awkward. The dimensions would only be slightly different than what they are now, with the different being the trade in one inch (measurements not exact by any means) from the depth to the width.

    Take care all - Matt
     
  15. Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #15
    Regarding widescreens...

    There was a discussion here a while ago about what people preferred to watch, widescreen or 4:3 movies. Widescreen was the overall winner and someone mentioned that it's due to the way our eyes are situated in our heads. Since they're side-by-side we can take in more, visually, in a wide format presentation.

    So there. :)
     
  16. macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #16
    I think Apple needs to streamline their product line using the number of syllables in each product's name.

    iPod: 2
    eMac: 2
    iBook: 2
    PowerBook: 3
    Power Macintosh: 5
    iMac: 2

    What the hell!! That makes no sense whatsoever. The eMac has the same number of syllables as the i machines, and the Power machines have an unequal number of syllables, unlike the i machines. What's more, the iPod has the same number of syllables as the i machines as well, and it's not even a computer! What?!?!? Talk about a messy product lineup. How about this:

    iPod (silent i): 1
    eMac: 2
    iBookworm: 3
    PowerfulBook: 4
    Power Macintosh: 5
    iMacLooksLikeLuxo: 6

    Now that is a lineup that would actually make some SENSE. So much cleaner.
     
  17. macrumors demi-god

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #17
    Hmmm... if I could get a WS monitor that could rotate between portrait and landscape views I think I'd be in hog heaven. :)


    Lethal
     
  18. Moderator emeritus

    AmbitiousLemon

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2001
    Location:
    down in Fraggle Rock
    #18
    doesnt sony make lcds like this? i think i remember Alpha talking about it some months ago.
     
  19. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    #19
    I know I've seen rotating monitors before, I'm pretty sure one of them was widescreen also, but I couldn't find them in the quick half assed search I just did...but I do have this link for portrait mode on a laptop:

    http://www.lapvantage.com/portrait

    It comes with a portrait mode program for windows, I don't know how you'd do it on a Mac.

    Take care all - Matt
     
  20. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2002
    Location:
    New York City
    #20
    I prefer a couple of these 4:3 aspect ratio LCDs for Photoshop:

    NEC/Mitsubishi recently announced their $1600 20" LCD2080UX .
    http://www.necmitsubishi.com/products/home/nec_index.cfm

    LaCie recently announced their 20" photo20vision .
    http://www.lacie.com/news/news.htm?id=10013&CFID=116274&CFTOKEN=87570113
    perhaps it's the same as the NEC/Mitsubishi above as LaCie has a history of
    OEM'ing displays from them.

    Sharp's $2000 20" LL-T2020 even has 10-bit Gamma correction
    http://www.sharpsystems.com/pressRelease.asp?press=27

    Hopefully, the prices will drop to react to Apple.
     
  21. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2002
    Location:
    New York City
    #21
    Powerjack,
    Can you comment why these displays will only work in portrait mode in MacOS9 only?
    Is there any chance these will eventually work on OSX?
    Billy
     
  22. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2002
    Location:
    New York City
    #22
    The comparison was made by Powerjack at Spymac:

    http://www.spymac.com/comments.php?id=P237_0_5_0_C
     
  23. macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #23
    The word "Macintosh" is nowhere to be found on today's machines. It's Power Mac. They dropped the full word "Macintosh" a few years ago, haven't used it since. Kind of bugs me, but it's part of their "Apple is hip again" movement...

    So it's 3 :)

    pnw
     

Share This Page