Apple LCD Updates

[technocoy]

Sorry, but your price is crazy talk too. If Apple sold 30" high resolution displays for $1999, they'd probably be losing $500 apiece (based on the rumor of what suggested retail might actually be). It's nice to dream of amazing prices but let's get back to reality.

i stated the rumored price previously in the post, which IS a rumored price. i think they will offer them at the higher price point as well (and they will still sell like hot cakes, because that is still a good price for a good quality 30in lcd HD monitor) but my statement was simply that IF they offered them at 1999 or even 2499 they could likely corner the market on 30in LCD HD monitors. it may be worth not making much money on each unit in order to start getting apple's high quality experience into non-macintosh homes. it may drive consumers to purchase even more Apple product.

but yes, i agree that they will most likely not introduce them at a 1999 price point... but it sure would be nice!

 

[Mlobo01]

ps8 quick mock-up

 

[ITR 81]

Well I need a 30in for some home use video and photo editing.

Though I just bought a 42in Plasma for work...I'm thinking I may buy two more 42in or 50in Plasma's for some series media center workings at home.

I wonder if Apple will ever make a Plasma display..even if it was TV/Display...

 

[technocoy]

Are you sure about that? Every LCD I've seen looks noticably worse at lower resolutions. Even Apple's specs. list only one resolution as "optimum."

I'm very happy with a 19" LCD at 1280x1024. That's approximately 86 dpi, compared to 95 - 100 dpi for Apple's displays.

correct. 19in display will look bad at lower resolutions than 1280x1024, but only because the pixel density/screen size ratio starts to become to large and you lose the crispness of the images because you actually start to see the pixel edges in a graphic. CRT's do this as well, but it just looks blurry, whereas on a lcd it remains sharp. does that make sense? i think we're saying similar things here. i don't like looking at something that size, but that doesn't make it a bad image.i can put my 22" on lower widescreen resolutions and it looks fine, just HUGE!

 

[dongmin]

$999 for the low-end is out of control!!!!!!! I waited a year for this!?!?!?!?

Answer me this - why wouldn't I pay the $599 for the old 17" flat panel?

What do I get for 400 bucks more? (aside from having TWO cable to plug in now...)

If you're fine with a 1280 x 1024, then, by all means, get a 17". You can find a decent Samsung to match the G5 PMs for $500.

For people who want more desktop space in a widescreen package will opt for the 20". Apple is competing where they can offer a value. 17" LCDs can be had for $350-400 nowadays, probably at razor-thin margins. Not Apple's territory, sorry.

The 23" at $1499 would be a killer value (especially since I'll be able to get it for $1199 through the ADC). I've yet to find one under two grand.

Plus usb AND firewire! That's another $50 for a hub.

 

[furrina]

Can anyone hazard a guess at how much the "old" ones are going to go for (from Apple) once the new ones come out? Specifically the 20". Do you think they'll run out right away?

 

[Dahl]

$999 for the low-end is out of control!!!!!!! I waited a year for this!?!?!?!?

Answer me this - why wouldn't I pay the $599 for the old 17" flat panel?

What do I get for 400 bucks more? (aside from having TWO cable to plug in now...)

It's still just a rumor, let's all remember that.

 

[areyouwishing]

I have an LCD at home and Dual CRTs at work (I work in the digital dept for a printing company). LCDs are great for clarity, HORRIBLE for color. Anyone who wants to do serious graphic design work won't buy these LCDs unless they just plain do not care about color accuracy.

Now a lesson on color...

It seems to be a common misconception that LCDs are easier on the eyes... that depends on a lot of factors. LCDs by nature only display about 266,000 colors, whereas CRTs display about 16 million colors. To simulate 24-bit color an LCD takes the 2 closest RGB values and flips between the 2 of them for the given pixel.. the problem with this is that sometimes these 2 values can be very close, and sometimes they can be very off... so you don't have very accurate color, because vast amounts of color look the same.

 

[iMeowbot]

Now that you mention the fluorescent light, my eyes are starting to strain. Maybe all this stuff is in my head.

Most likely it is. The CCFL lamps used in LCD backlights aren't like the old ceiling tubes that run at 50-60 Hz. Instead, they use specialized supplies that run them at much higher frequencies, in the 30-200 kHz range. Fluorescents do emit UV, but that's filtered.

 

[iDave]

but yes, i agree that they will most likely not introduce them at a 1999 price point... but it sure would be nice!

No doubt! When I first heard the rumor of a 30" display from Apple, my guess was that the price would be $3999. $2999 sounds pretty good, comparatively, but it's still out of my ballpark. I hope to buy a new 23" model if it's cheaper than the current one. Otherwise a new 20" Cinema Display for $999 sounds great! I've been waiting and saving for a long time.

 

[alexrd]

lower resolutions are native ones... panther automatically shows the recommended resolutions. this talk of lower resolutions is rediculous. take down the resolution if it is to high... this is the weirdest argument for a monitor i have heard.

Sorry, but for LCDs this is just wrong. LCDs, TFTs and plasma displays actually have discreet components that comprise a pixel. Contrast this to CRTs, where a sweeping electron beam effectively "simulates" whatever resolution you are driving the monitor at (the degree to which the beam can be constrained and directed, as well as the speed at which it can be swept, determine the resolutions that the monitor can "simulate"). In a digital display, if you magnify the screen, you will actually see 1600x1200 (or whatever) little square picture elements (to coin a phrase).

When you drive such a monitor at a non-native resolution, groups of real, physical pixels are grouped together in software to form larger, virtual pixels. The qualitative visual result of this is a blurry image. True, some monitors perform better at interpolating than others, but even so, running a digital display at a non-native resolution is generally regarded as a Bad Thing.

Ample confirmation of this can be found by googling for: LCD non-native resolution blurry.

What I'd really like to see is better support in the OS for scaling the size of the GUI elements in many different resolution/pixel density combinations. In some ways we're still carrying the baggage of print days, so everything has to shrink to accommodate the larger resolutions. Expose is a good preview of how we should be able to scale any and all elements; not just making the window bigger or smaller, but the contents as well. Constraints should still be in place where necessary (desktop publishing, for example) but in a scenario like that, the OS should hopefully work with the app to make everything actual size on the display, regardless of resolution (unless, of course, you zoom in or out

Point being, the OS should eliminate the need to drive the monitor at non-native resolutions by providing ready control of the size of the GUI elements themselves.

 

[JustADecoy]

I'm interested in (read: obsessed with) the 23" display in the new lineup. So let's review what we (think we) know:

• 1920 x 1200
• $1499-1799
• Integrated USB 2.0 hub
• Integrated FireWire (400?) hub
• DVI Support
• Manufactured by LG Electronics
• High Definition (1080i) support

ThinkSecret suggests "the addition of one more cable", but that's not strictly necessary. This page at LG Electronics describes a 23" Widescreen LCD Color Monitor with a 'One Cable Media Station' that 'Minimizes Wire Clutter'. This image from a review shows the power going into the 'Media Station' and one cable coming out with an integrated USB hub on the monitor itself. Could the same technology platform be the basis for the Apple design? I hope so! I really want multiple inputs!

While we're on the topic, I could easily see Apple integrate ADC connectivity into the 'Media Station', if it exists. Sure, it'll cost more, but it allows Apple to save face on the ADC transition. If they do, I'm going on record with the opinon that it's wasteful and pointless. Sell a separate converter for old PowerMacs and the world will still beat a path to your door. Don't make me pay more for a connector I couldn't possibly use (I don't yet own a Power Mac, but I do own a Powerbook).

How about response time? Yesterday's standard is 25ms, but gamers swear by the new 16ms LCDs. This is a deal-breaker for me. If it can't perform as well as a Dell 2001fp, I'll go with two of them over one Apple branded monitor.

Of course, it's not likely to be this featureful if it's only $1799. The LG monitor above goes for over $2500! How good is Apple's deal with LG? How much markup are they willing to sacrifice to features?

My bet is on a 'Media Center'-like breakout box with a single-cable output and a drastically reduced set of inputs (DVI-I + component + S-Video would be my bet, give or take one input) and a 25ms response. Shipping at least a month out, because 1) it would frustrate me and 2) the cruel calculus of the ever-declining costs of production and 3) because they can... with limited availability (can you say iPod Mini?) for some time.

I hope I'm wrong. I almost certainly will be, one way or another.

 

[pentajigga]

i can attest to the high res problem.
i have a 22" cinema and got the 23". the 23" res was too small for me so im back to the 22". the 23" is sitting in its box in the next room, terrible i know... ive been meaing to get round to selling it.. hint hint....

when i used CRTs back in the day, they killed my eyes and gave me headaches. i switched to LCD and the problem wnet away, just my personal experience. for me a CRT seemed to be like shining a bulb directly into my eyes (since the bulb is pointed right at the user i think).

MY BIG QUESTION... will these things be able to be wall-mounted?

i hope so

 

[iDave]

It's still just a rumor, let's all remember that.

Ah, but such a juicy rumor. New Apple displays have been a long time coming. It's no wonder that there's excess inventory still around of the old models. That design is nearly four years old. People want something new.

 

[Bigheadache]

It seems to be a common misconception that LCDs are easier on the eyes... that depends on a lot of factors. LCDs by nature only display about 266,000 colors, whereas CRTs display about 16 million colors. To simulate 24-bit color an LCD takes the 2 closest RGB values and flips between the 2 of them for the given pixel.. the problem with this is that sometimes these 2 values can be very close, and sometimes they can be very off... so you don't have very accurate color, because vast amounts of color look the same.

Thats only true for the 6bit panels, like the Samsung 172X. You find that they quote 16.2 million colors, even though 6bit per color (or 18bit) is 262,144 they can interpolate up to 16.2 million. There are 8 bit panels (24bit) which do 16.7 million colors but they tend to have a slower response rate.

But you are definitely right about color accuracy at professional level. I remember seeing only CRTs used in design bureaus, with those color accuracy dongle things attached.

 

[Bigheadache]

The 30inch is reported to have a resolution of 2560x1600. Does anyone know if the radeons actually support this resolution with full 3d acceleration? Does a normal 165 Mhz TMDS support this resolution?

 

[adamfilip]

For the record, just about every VGA or better CRT monitor sold in the past 10 years is progressive too - and at even higher refresh rates. The last interlaced computer monitor I used was in '93 on my old Amiga 500.

YEAH Amiga.. I had a 500 too... wish I still had it... back then i had no idea what i was doing.. but it was a good game machine!

GO AMIGA!

 

[Dahl]

Ah, but such a juicy rumor. New Apple displays have been a long time coming. It's no wonder that there's excess inventory still around of the old models. That design is nearly four years old. People want something new.

I was talking about the prices.
Hell, they better come out with some new displays soon, WE NEED THEM!

 

[iDave]

I was talking about the prices.
Hell, they better come out with some new displays soon, WE NEED THEM!

Funny how we forum watchers can get so worked up over a rumor that might be way off what actually ends up happening. Those who have waited for the 17" Studio Display to come down in price or get better specs are now upset over rumors.

Rumors like the recent ones at TS and AI about displays don't fly around quite as much as they used to and you can usually tell the ones that have a chance of being accurate. These recent ones seem credible. It would be so typical of Apple if they end up dropping the low end display, forcing Apple fans to buy elsewhere or suck it up and buy the 20" model.

 

[JGowan]

My 23" ACD-HD is large. but I am unhappy with the high resolution. I would prefer a lower resolution and more easy to read and see detailing and text ... With Apple's OS that is not possible.....a great failing, IMO.

From the rumors, the 30" will have some ridiculously high resolution that keeps details still as small as on the 23". - Mark B Anstendig

??? I own one and the few times I need to see a bit better with small text (etc), multiple help is right there:

1) Apple Menu>System Preferences>Displays: many resolutions there to choose from.

2) Apple Key-J in the Finder (or any other window): allows you to select your TEXT SIZE for icons (from 10pt to 16pt) ... also move your icons to any size you need, all the way up to 128 x 128 (huge, even at the native resolution!)

3) Apple Key & PLUS or MINUS KEY (-, +) in Safari and other browsers: Makes Text Bigger or Smaller

4) Apple Menu>System Preferences>Univeral Access>Turn Zoom On: Great for zooming in on Small pics or Quicktime movies.

I keep my icons at about 80 x 80 pixels and my text at 11pt and all is well. Everything is quick to get to, it's easy to navigate to easier viewing in no time, no matter how small.

 

[JGowan]

Well need I remind you that the majority of Apple's customers are not in the graphic design business? If they want to lose all the business they would otherwise gain in the 17" LCD market that's their masochism for ya.

And its not that some people can't AFFORD a bigger display, its that they just aren't going to pay a thousand dollars for the lowest priced Apple Display. $1000 = an iBook G4, it's a tad insane not to have a more competitively priced solution from Apple.

Let them buy CRTs then. In 1995, I spent $850 on a CRT 17" Sony Trinitron 800x600 and thought it was an insane amount of money, BUT... I realized that the montor was the window to the soul of my computer, if you will.

Considering that it's been 9 years and a MUCH BETTER monitor will soon be available for only $150 more than a really nice monitor almost a decade ago, I say that money is well-spent.

You can spend a lot of money on a really great and fast computer and then totally ruin the experience by going cheap on the monitor.

 

[JGowan]

... the 23" is sitting in its box in the next room, terrible i know... ive been meaing to get round to selling it.

You need to eBay that mo-fo before Apple announces the new models and you can't get all the money you can NOW.

 

[proglife]

I'm thinking that $899-999 for a 20" sounds too good to be true.

A sign of a truely blind zealot, and I'm as bad as any. I received my 19" Formac LCD a few months ago and it's great. It took months to get built, but the warranty and contrast ratio and every other spec bested the old Apple specs by far. There is a bit of the associated "screen door" effect, but you disregard it within the hour.

And as far as color goes...if you are a serious graphic designer (and you all have heard of the company I work for), it's good enough. If it's not dead on, you'll make proper adjustments. IMO, it's worth a day's work compared to my old LaCie CRT that I'm typing on from home right now.

Why can't I afford a Powerbook? Oh yeah..Apple and Republicans...what a conundrum.

 

[wolfywolfbits]

OT.. but yeah, go Amiga!

On topic: I think the prices sound pretty good, but I think the problem is with ditching a low end model (i.e. 17"). I'm guessing they want the average consumer to purchase an eMac or iMac (with a display built in), and the Apple LCDs are just meant for pros, with money.

I think this is a continuation of their neglect for the pro-sumer market. A market that wants a low-end headless G5 and a wide screen 18" LCD. Until then I'm going to have to keep being a pro-sumer that has to pay pro prices for Apple

 

[proglife]

OT.. but yeah, go Amiga!

On topic: I think the prices sound pretty good, but I think the problem is with ditching a low end model (i.e. 17").

Not just a little problem...it's a huge problem, and it sounds too retarded to comprehend. Like PC people can't understand the prices already!