Apple 17'' Widescreen LCD?

[tech4all]

Now I'm starting to wonder if Apple will drop the 20" and replace it with a 17" LCD. I know that seems odd, but that would increase the gap between the 20" and 23" ACDs. There's a 7" gap between the 23" and 30" and if they introduced a 17" to replace the 20" that would make a 6" gap between the low end and the middle one. That way there will be much more of a difference between the ACDs.

Just a thought.

 

[gugy]

Because a 30" cinema display is too small? Because you want to consolidate your TV and computer displays?

bring the 40" plus size.
I'll buy one.
For a designer large screens are great. The 30" now seems small!

 

[Xavier]

I wouldn't mind this happening! I have been stuck with a 15 inch (not even wide screen) for a long time, but being low budget, haven't been able to afford the models I wanted. I hope that Apple produces this

 

[lorductape]

this is perfect. I'm using a 17' core 2 duo desktop, with a dual monitor. right now, the monitor I have is 20; 4:3. It's rather inconvenient having to resize my windows when I switch them from monitor to monitor.

for people who can't wait, or iif diigitimes proves innacurate as usuall, try this one that I (was) planning on getting:click

 

[danielwsmithee]

Prices

I just hope they adjust their prices while they are at it. I love the Apple monitors but they are overpriced. Go to CompUSA and you can find at least 4-5 20" wide-screen monitors from $250-$399. At $699 they are way out or touch with the rest of the market. I could see paying a $100 premium at $499 but not $300.

A 17" monitor would be nice to pair with a mini or even with 17" iMac to use as a dual monitor workstation.

 

[zoran]

Well Apple should just first make a face lift in ACDs both specs and price and then lets all just start thinking about the new 17" wide lcd. Personally i dont give a sh@t about a such a small display, the 23" ACD suits my needs, only its price and its potentials dont!
Damn it!

 

[Earendil]

Maybe Apple just needs to lower its monitor prices to sane levels as opposed to the ridiculous prices that they currently stand at. Justify them all you want, if Apple really wants to push its monitors, those prices need to come down. They might have flew 3 years ago, but enough is enough.

I just got a 22-inch LCD for $370 (US), and it's not a piece. Quite frankly, I can't really tell the difference. Plus it has better adjustments and I/O. It doesn't have the Apple look, and it only has 1050 horizontal lines of res but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me.

"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"

Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.

(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)

Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.

Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.

Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies

Now, back on topic

I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400


That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.

 

[KindredMAC]

I like the idea of a 17" widescreen Apple LCD..... however ONLY if it is priced at $199. Like everyone keeps saying, you can pick up a mighty nice 19" Widescreen LCD at Best Buy or Walmart for between $179-$249. I should know, I have 3 ProViews hooked up to my PowerMac G5 at home and have loved life for the last 9 months!

But in reality, I don't think a 17" is Apple's answer. Lowering the prices of the current model lineup is indeed the way to go. I've been one of the biggest bitchers about Apple's price point on LCD's for years now. That 20" LCD should not be anymore than $299. Plain and simple...simple and plain!

The 23" model should be in the ball park of $499 and the 30" should pop in at $999. Then to really goose people, Apple should bring a 36" model in at $1499.

Apple LCDs are not worth the extra price tag as long as you do your home work before purchasing an LCD monitor from a different company.

 

[danielwsmithee]

Now I'm starting to wonder if Apple will drop the 20" and replace it with a 17" LCD. I know that seems odd, but that would increase the gap between the 20" and 23" ACDs. There's a 7" gap between the 23" and 30" and if they introduced a 17" to replace the 20" that would make a 6" gap between the low end and the middle one. That way there will be much more of a difference between the ACDs.

Just a thought.

No I think 20" is still the sweat-spot.

 

[emotion]

I just hope they adjust their prices while they are at it. I love the Apple monitors but they are overpriced. Go to CompUSA and you can find at least 4-5 20" wide-screen monitors from $250-$399. At $699 they are way out or touch with the rest of the market. I could see paying a $100 premium at $499 but not $300.

Read this https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/252327/. They still seem over priced but not so much now.

 

[Earendil]

It kills me that the least expensive Apple display is $700. I just can't justify the tax over a Dell display, and I'm amazed how others can. A Dell 2007WFP (their 20" widescreen display which uses the same panel that's found in Apple's 20") is $400. It also sports inputs for VGA, composite and S-Video. And for a Dell, the display is reasonably attractive.

The Apple displays give you a shiny aluminum bezel, firewire routing, and software display controls. Is that enough to merit a 75% markup?

So, I'm thrilled if this is true and Apple is putting out a less-expensive display option. But I'd love it if they brought the rest of their lineup into check with the competition.

It is in check with the competition...
Perhaps you don't know who Apple's competition is?

Maybe Apple should bring it's laptop line down to the $300 cheapo Dell level while we're at it

 

[MacSA]

meh - does this matter? Isn't 17" is getting to be a bit skimpy by any consumer standards.

I'm still using a 15" monitor.

 

[danielwsmithee]

Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.

While I agree with your thought process behind your post that Apple is targeting a different audience. That target audience is dwindling very quickly as Apple's prices increase in comparison to the rest of the market.

 

[Earendil]

But in reality, I don't think a 17" is Apple's answer. Lowering the prices of the current model lineup is indeed the way to go. I've been one of the biggest bitchers about Apple's price point on LCD's for years now. That 20" LCD should not be anymore than $299. Plain and simple...simple and plain!

You people are incorrigible. I do hope people start reading the thread or doing some research before anyone else makes a fool of themselves.

Apple LCDs are not worth the extra price tag as long as you do your home work before purchasing an LCD monitor from a different company.

A little homework, Aye?.
That's funny, I was thinking the same thing...

Why do I find so much joy in pointing out other peoples ignorance and feeding them their own lines... I should be a college professor

 

[Earendil]

While I agree with your thought process behind you post that Apple is targeting a different audience. That target audience is dwindling very quickly as Apple's prices increase in comparison to the rest of the market.

I'm sorry, why is their target audience dwindling? Are there fewer professional graphics artists out there? Are there fewer people that demand professional color accuracy today then 5 or 10 years ago? I would be interested in a link to some research, because common sense to me says that day by day that market can only be growing.

Now I haven't done the research, but perhaps you can find a similarly specced 20" wide S-IPS LCD so we can see how out of whack Apple's prices are.

 

[danielwsmithee]

You people are incorrigible. I do hope people start reading the thread or doing some research before anyone else makes a fool of themselves.

I find you the one that is incorrigible. The 23" inch price is competitive where it is as your link so eloquently points out. The Apple displays are easily worth a 15-20% mark-up. The problem is since the last time the display prices were updated 20" wide-screen panel prices have dropped nearly in half. So a year ago when Apple released this $699 price point it was a good price because competitors were selling the same panels at $599. Now they are at $399 and some times as low a $299. Apple's display is worth extra just not 75% to 100% extra.

 

[danielwsmithee]

I'm sorry, why is their target audience dwindling?

It all comes down to how much extra you are willing to pay for the increased monitor specification. Most will pay 20% very few will pay 75%.

 

[joemama]

"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"

Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
.

Let's not forget, Apple is in the business of making money. If you don't think so, just look at the new iPods that do not come with an installer CD or a manual. Did Apple lower the price by 25 cents, the amount it might take to produce these? No - that's more 25 cents in Apple's pocket.

While Apple is targeting professionals and pro-sumers, they know they need to still compete. Their prices on monitors are WAY off.

By the time these 17" come out, after christmas, 17" monitors will be going for $150-200 max. If Apple did release one, with an iSight and one firewire port, maybe it's $249, at most. Anything higher won't sell.

Remember, companies may set the price, but it's the market that stipulates what people will pay. And if Apple wants a piece of the pie, they will adjust accordingly.

 

[Earendil]

I find you the one that is incorrigible. The 23" inch price is competitive where it is as your link so eloquently points out. The Apple displays are easily worth a 15-20% mark-up. The problem is since the last time the display prices were updated 20" wide-screen panel prices have dropped nearly in half. So a year ago when Apple released this $699 price point it was a good price because competitors were selling the same panels at $599. Now they are at $399 and some times as low a $299. Apple's display is worth extra just not 75% to 100% extra.

I find what you say quite plausible. However a quick search finds all monitors in that price point to be of the S-PVA panel type, and not SWOP certified (or at least advertised as such). Perhaps a more in depth search would reveal the monitors you are talking about, or perhaps since you are making the claim, you are aware of some?

I fully suspect Apple has a markup on their pro-sumor monitors. However I'm tired of people using Dell monitors as an example for outrageous pricing. No one here, or in any argument I've seen recently, has offered a different comparison. My knowledge of monitors may not be up to date, but when I bought my monitor, Apple's prices were in line.
My apologies if I'm not easily swayed from what my own research has shown to be true, until someone can come up with something besides "you're wrong"

I mean absolutely no disrespect in any of my arguments...

 

[Object-X]

A step backwards

I don't understand this. Apple has carried a 20" monitor as their low end for two years. Why offer something even smaller after so long? This seems like a step backwards. Why not reduce the 20" to $399 and lower the price of the other two? Dell is putting major price pressure on Apple with their monitors; though they are not as good looking, the price has no doubt won over many would be buyers...not me of course.

 

[4God]

If I remember correctly, Job's intent of the Mini was BYOM,K,M.
(Bring your own monitor, keyboard and mouse) The mini is for those
who already have these things. Get an iMac instead. In other words,
I see no need for a 17" monitor - especially wide screen.
A 17" iMac would be less expensive than a Mini and a 17" monitor plus
you would get dedicated graphics.

 

[Earendil]

It all comes down to how much extra you are willing to pay for the increased monitor specification. Most will pay 20% very few will pay 75%.

So you didn't mean their target audience was shrinking, what you meant was their target audience wasn't buying?

What you say is true for any consumer vs prosumer market.
The prosumers get more quality, to meet their requirements, and pay for those specifications + more because they are the best. Also a lower volume of products to a smaller prosumer base means you have to charge more per product.

If Apple wasn't satisfied with the number of units they were moving, and had a markup far above their (real) competitors, I would think Apple would lower it's prices, don't you? That would be the only way to make money if they weren't actually selling the monitors.

 

[danielwsmithee]

I mean absolutely no disrespect in any of my arguments...

Same hear. I just find it interesting that you seem to be ignoring the fact that 1 year ago you were willing to pay an approximately $100 markup for SWOP certification, yet you find it completely reasonable for Apple to essentially be charging $300 for it today? I'm about the biggest fan of Apple of anyone but their prices are out of touch on their 20" displays.

 

[emotion]

While Apple is targeting professionals and pro-sumers, they know they need to still compete. Their prices on laptops are WAY off.

The macbook is very competitive for it's size and portablility. Compare it to a similar Vaio or IBM. You'll be surprised.

 

[4God]

I don't understand this. Apple has carried a 20" monitor as their low end for two years. Why offer something even smaller after so long? This seems like a step backwards.

Exactly, as someone here said earlier, "the 20" is the new 17"