Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Cinema Display Updates?

Wait, I just thought of something. Playing Deus Ex or Unreal on a 30" screen might be worth whatever price Apple would put on such a screen. I think it just became practical. 😀


Now if Apple develops one that I can watch TV in good quality on, I can MAYBE justify the purchase to the wifey. 😀
 
30" CD? oh my god. like I could afford that.

how about a 17" widescreen like the imac for $599 or the 20" for $899. Then we'll talk.
 
Originally posted by srobert
Now if only they could make the frame of their LCDs Narrower. When putting to Apple branded LCD side by side, you got a pretty big GAP between adjacent screen edges. Could they make the frame as thin (or even thinner?) as powerbooks?
Click to expand...


Or better yet, they could take the existing screens and repackage them in a form factor that places the screens EXTREMELY close together. The screens don't change, just the packaging. Then tie the connections together inside the case and you have 2 screens side by side (maybe angled towards each other) with only one display connection to the mac.
 
Fast User Switching as an Alternative to Multiple Monitors

I'm looking forward to having multiple desktops without multiple monitors by using the Panther's fast user switch - one desktop on each side of the cube.

It doesn't help for all applications, but for what I do the multiple desktop thing should be great!
 
17" going away?

I actually sold the nice blueberry picture that's on the box for the 17" displays. It's only been used on the bos since the beginning of summer. Apple paid some darn good money for that photo and I believe they purchased rights for 3 years.
 

Attachments

  • ak-4483.jpg
    ak-4483.jpg
    55.8 KB · Views: 1,721
Ever seen Final Cut Pro?

I have a 23" Cinema HD now, and yes, it's big. Big enough, in fact, for my everyday tasks like Photoshop, InDesign, and iTunes. But for the folks who use apps like Final Cut, whose interfaces could probably fill 2 or 3 displays, a huge single display could be a welcome addition to the Apple family.

And imagine the size of the iTunes visualizations!

🙂
 
Originally posted by Peyote
Would a 30" screen even be practical?

I mean, how useable would a screen that size be? You would have to constantly turn your head back and forth just to see each edge of the screen.
Click to expand...

No problem...I do it all the time while running two monitors.

Hmm...two of the 30" persuasion...
 
Originally posted by arn
I disagree

https://www.macrumors.com/downloads/darkscreen.jpg

arn
Click to expand...

that's my favorite movie.. anyways off topic

i could totally see using all that space... i'm thinking of buying another display in the next year, if they dropped the price of the 20" to that what i bought my 17inch for or introduced a 17.4 or some widescreen variant like that: i'd totally look into getting one, as a web designer when using photoshop or dreamweaver or flash or director and maybe all of them at the same time... that much space really does cut down on time.

--Augz
 
A monitor the size of a TV pretty much fits into the digital hub idea...

I know there's a lot of apps based around this idea - but the size of the monitor has always been the weakest link.
 
I have been wanting to get a Cinema Display. Looks like my timing might be on the correct timing. Wonder if they will have a price decrease also? Can't wait to see what the design will look like! 😎
 
Well, for a few people it will be practical. Newspaper layouts, etc.

Is it possible to build two AGP 8x slots on the motherboard? It would be great to have two Radeon 9800 pro's running at full speed driving four 23" HD displays. Better cards and bigger displays would be great too, of course.
 
There is a price point open for the 30"

The price reduction of the 23" left the $3,000 to $3,500 price point open for something and a 30" would be a logical addition. Depending on costs the price point may end up below $3,000, but the key is that Apple was selling a $3,500 Cinema display and making money from it. That alone is sufficient for a 30" to be developed.
 
Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
yeah i can't see them dropping the 17" either...unless it's just not selling at all. maybe they are dropping it to replace it with a 17" widescreen display?
Click to expand...
Maybe they are not making enough money on the 17" (competition in that size is fierce) so to them it's not worth the hassle. The rest of the line has the advantage of being WS which is not that common on LCDs.

Oh well...
 
Originally posted by Peyote
Would a 30" screen even be practical?

I mean, how useable would a screen that size be? You would have to constantly turn your head back and forth just to see each edge of the screen.
Click to expand...
Then step a few centimetres back... Nowhere does it say that your nose should be touching the screen...😉 (you haven't seen MY nose: I can touch the screen with it AND see both sides of the screen...😀)
 
Originally posted by tutubibi
No 17". I don't think so.
Apple needs entry level display for people that are buying PowerMacs and even notebooks. Without 17", the lowest priced apple display would be 20" at almost $2,000 CAD.

Maybe they will replace 17" with 17" wide? 😕
Click to expand...

I don't think Apple can or should be competing in low end products. the market is saturated with lower priced 17" LCD screens. Apple should drop it and go with the bigger screens, instead.
 
Originally posted by arn
they're 20"s actually. But more screen space is like RAM. You can never have too much. 🙂

Obviously, the 30" display will be for Apple's high end market.... but I'm sure there are those who want/need it.

arn
Click to expand...

You bet. In my company, we use PowerMac G4 with quad Iiyama AU5131 LCDs (1600*1200 each) configurations for our trading software. 2 of those 30" beasts could replace all that crap...

Any good?
 
Nooooo!

I LIKE having the biggest Display 😀

It's odd... people gasp when they see it, but it doesn't seem to be all that large to me.

...... The... err... Display. Is it getting hot in here?
 
I wonder if Quake III or Unreal would be really slow with a 30" display (running at 2400 x 1500, of course). Regardless, it would rock.
 
Originally posted by Peyote
The resolution of the screen has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

I think it does. Because the resolution is so high, you can concentratate on a window without turning your head.

There are 42" plasma screens that can be connected to a computer, but they aren't useful on a desktop because the resolution is only 1028x768.
 
Anyone think there is a chance of Apple dropping the price of the 23" display a tad? I want to get one when I get my PowerBook but $2000 is painful. :-\
 
My dual monitors are not on the same plane. There's an angle in between the two so that the faces are more or less perpendicular to my line of sight.

At 30", I'd want a screen that had a curve to it so that the edges would be as close to my eyes as the center of the display was.

THAT would be sweet. - j
 
The poster who mentioned shrinking the frame of the monitors is dead-on correct. There is a massive gap b/w two apple monitors. A smaller frame would be quite welcome.

I also agree with the comments that Apple might not want to compete in teh 17" monitor market. To sell 'em, they have to be inexpensive - very unlike Apple. Sell premium monitors at premium prices and make the premium profit from them.

This all sounds very feasible to me. Will it happen? Who knows?

I actually rather LIKE turning my head a bit to look at my two monitors. It allows me to focus on the one area I really need to see while the rest (which is unimportant) blurrs in the periferal vision.

Folks who think that a monitor of any size can be too big for "anyone" is silly. It is likely that these people have not worked extensively on large posters or multiple page spreads where you just want to get a feel of the distance without zooming out to 10%. Video is another excellent point. Using FCE and previewing at 25% is annoying and helps to conceal minute flaws in the footage. Of course, most 'serious' video editors have an external NTSC display attached instead. That is certainly MUCH less expensive than a 30" display.

Furthermore, once you open up the ability to do something new or increase resources, people always come up with creative and sometimes even useful ways to make use of those resourses.
 
Originally posted by Peyote
The resolution of the screen has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I know what resolution is and how it works. I'm not talking about the physical size of the things on the screen. I'm talking about the screen being so wide that in order to look from one edge of the screen to the other you're gonna have to turn your head quite a bit.
Click to expand...

There are an increasing number of users that utilize dual displays. Many PowerBook users have large display they plug into at the office or home and operate in dual display mode. In each of these scenarios the display width is physically at least as large as any 30" display Apple could come out with.

How do people avoid neck strain. They simply put the application and panels they use most on the screen closest to them, and put the lesser used items, like panels and such, on the secondary display. With large displays like this I'm sure people will move their active work to a comfortable position in front of them and the lesser used items to the side.
 
A 30 incher is more likely to be in the 3000 dollar plus range.

I HATE those inflexible, huge bezels. They are tired, old, and just plain old bad. Hell, the rest of the industry went to ultra thin bezels over a year ago. Some went to it 2 years ago. For a company that supposedly prides itself on it's design sense, these monstrosities really do stand out as very dated design.

Plus, the guy was spot on about rotating. Both Viewsonic and Samsung LCD have been able to rotate for quite a while. They don't have any Mac software to support that, but the hardware sure rotates. The retail 9800 sure supports that. The OEM doesn't and probably won't ever.

Just watch the third quarter financial... this business of only giving their dwindling customers what apple wants and not what the CUSTOMER wants is the very reason unit shipments fall every quarter. Tight fiscal control has helped them the past 4-5 quarters, but there IS a law of diminishing returns there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back