Why are they so expensive?

Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by rye9, Mar 28, 2006.

  1. rye9 macrumors 65816

    rye9

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Location:
    New York (not NYC)
    #1
    This may be a really dumb question but I am curious... how come a 23" screen, just a screen, costs as much as a 17" screen, processor, hard drive, airport card, 512 MB RAM, graphics card, etc... (iMac)

    On one hand, you can spend that much to get a full-blown computer, or you can spend it on a screen. I know some people only need the screen, but why are they so expensive?
     
  2. MattyMac macrumors 68000

    MattyMac

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Location:
    NJ/NYC
    #2
    I never thought of it that way. If I was considering buying a new screen, I definitely would change my mind and just buy a new imac. :rolleyes:
     
  3. bursty macrumors 6502a

    bursty

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Location:
    STL
    #3
    Apple seriously needs to drop the prices on the displays. Dells prices are consistently about half of Apples for nearly the same screen.

    Yes I know, the Apples are so much prettier....:rolleyes:
     
  4. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #4
    Well, to be fair, 23" is a lot bigger than 17". It's over 80% bigger, in fact, and more difficult to manufacture.
     
  5. Keebler macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Location:
    Canada
    #5
    bigger and people will buy it

    it's almost 2x's the size of a 17" screen, it has a usb/FW hub in the back (ok..so that's not too expensive, but it sure is convenient) and lastly, like alot of overpriced things in life,

    people will buy it.

    i gather it's more professional users than consumers who are buying them. i've seen quite a few pics of editing rooms where they typically have 30"s and 23"s.

    you could ask the same question about a Lexus ES330 and a toyota camry. virtually the same car, different name....very different prices. although, the es330 is one sweet ride.
     
  6. joshysquashy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    things at the very cutting edge of technology are always extremely expensive.

    as previously said, these are for proffesionals (and people with more money than sense!)

    i think they are overpriced, but because they are so big they cost much more to produce, and probably smaller amounts are made (which increases the cost)
     
  7. wwooden macrumors 68000

    wwooden

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Location:
    Burlington, VT
    #7
    It does take a lot more time and care to make a 23". That means more pixels that could go bad, potentially more defects in the surface of the screen as well. They just have to have higher quality control and that means a higher price, it is not a linear scale when creating bigger displays.
     
  8. grapes911 Moderator emeritus

    grapes911

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Location:
    Citizens Bank Park
    #8
    I've heard that about 40% of all LCD panels are defective when first made and cannot be used in a monitor. The larger the screen the bigger chance of a defect. Who pays for these scraped pieces? You, the customer. And since larger screens contribute to this percentage more than smaller screen, the larger screens have a larger added cost to the final price.
     
  9. mark! macrumors 65816

    mark!

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2006
    Location:
    America
    #9
    17x2=34.
    how is a 23" almost twice the size of a 23" screen.
    even 30" isn't.
     
  10. steelfist macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    #10
    and people buy diamonds at very high prices even though they are just as pretty as glass. (well, maybe a bit more)
     
  11. mark! macrumors 65816

    mark!

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2006
    Location:
    America
    #11
    Glass is dull...and not clear...and it scratches too easily, brakes too easily, and isn't rare at all.
     
  12. wordmunger macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #12
    iMac: 1440x900
    1296000 pixels


    23-inch cinema display: 1920 x 1200
    2304000 pixels

    2304000/1296000 = 1.78 = 178 percent.

    23-inch display is 78 percent larger than the iMac display.

    If you need to display more than 1296000 pixels, you'll want the larger display. If you want more computing power than an iMac, you can't use the iMac as the display for a powermac.
     
  13. supergod macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto
    #13
    Very simple highschool math.

    17" refers to the diagonal measurement of the screen, not the area of the screen. Obviously there are a whole lot more than 17 square inches in a monitor. The area in a 23" screen is significantly more than that in 17", like about double.

    The screen is a two dimensional area: measuring it with a 1 dimensional diagonal measurement is misleading and pretty stupid. But then again, so is not knowing extremely basic math.
     
  14. mark! macrumors 65816

    mark!

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2006
    Location:
    America
    #14
    Makes you feel smart correcting someone about highschool math when they are in highschool math, eh?

    my bad.
     
  15. jruc4871 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #15
    you must have gone to charm school
     
  16. Benjamindaines macrumors 68030

    Benjamindaines

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Location:
    A religiously oppressed state
    #16
    The screens haven't been updated for 2 years [​IMG]
     
  17. mark! macrumors 65816

    mark!

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2006
    Location:
    America
    #17
    But they still look flippin awesome!
    The 30" got updated though...
     
  18. Atlasland macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #18
    :D

    Maybe, but the man has a point. It is quite a simple calculation/concept.
     
  19. colinp macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    #19
    Diamonds aren't actually rare at all. The diamond mines are just controlled by one company who can control the amount of diamonds in the world and hence keep the prices high.
     
  20. Benjamindaines macrumors 68030

    Benjamindaines

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Location:
    A religiously oppressed state
    #20
    Someone is real big on the "giant conspiracy" theory, do you have any proof on that? This is the first I've ever heard of that.
     
  21. grapes911 Moderator emeritus

    grapes911

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Location:
    Citizens Bank Park
    #21
    I've heard of it. But I think its one of those things that there is just a little truth to the story and conspiracy theorists have blow it way out of proportion.
     
  22. rhsgolfer33 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    #22
    The dell 3007 30" is $2199 and the Apple 30" ACD is $2499. Only a $300 difference. Sure the Dell has media card readers, and hdcp, but if you use your monitor for design or alread own a large TV and just want a good looking monitor that matches your Apple then the ACD is your monitor. The only Dells I see that are priced a good deal less than their Apple counterparts are last years models, and even then their original price is close to the comparable Apple ACD.
     
  23. grapes911 Moderator emeritus

    grapes911

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Location:
    Citizens Bank Park
    #23
    Dell gives out coupons pretty regularly. You can't compare the retail price of Dell monitors with Apple monitor prices.
     
  24. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #24
    Try Googling DeBeers diamond cartel and you'll learn all sorts of interesting things, including the use of 'conflict' diamonds, the relationship between diamonds and terrorism funding, as well as the market that exists for industrial diamonds. You can also find the article from Wired about the creation of artificial diamonds and how much DeBeers fears such a thing.

    Buying a diamond is buying into a whole lot of big bads for what amounts to a shiny rock.
     
  25. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #25
    Well the fact of the matter is that today, diamonds of gem quality and size can be manufactured inexpensively and not mined. http://www.gemesis.com makes such gems, but adds chemical impurities to the diamond to make them brightly colored -- so called "fancy" diamonds -- to differentiate them from "natural" diamonds. Apollo Diamonds http://www.apollodiamond.com seems to be taking this a step further and not coloring their diamonds. Note that small "industrial diamonds" used for polishing and cutting applications are routinely manufactured and not mined.

    Just like large LCD displays, it takes quite a bit of effort to achieve low-imperfection gem quality diamonds, which is why the cost can go up steeply with size, and a display (or diamond) that is twice the size will generally cost more than twice as much.

    B
     

Share This Page