Apple LCD Updates

[JonYo]

Ummm...just bought one

Soooo, I just bought one of the big flat 20" apple displays last week to go with my rev "B" (I use the term "rev" loosely here!) DP 2.0GHz G5 which hasn't yet arrived. Should I be kicking myself since these display updates are looking pretty imminent according to the rumormill? I didn't know new displays were rumored to be coming very soon when I made the purchase...

 

[rendezvouscp]

Soooo, I just bought one of the big flat 20" apple displays last week to go with my rev "B" (I use the term "rev" loosely here!) DP 2.0GHz G5 which hasn't yet arrived. Should I be kicking myself since these display updates are looking pretty imminent according to the rumormill? I didn't know new displays were rumored to be coming very soon when I made the purchase...

Kick yourself if the display has arrived. Otherwise, don't.
–Chase

 

[maesy]

Looking Good!

 

[Awimoway]

By dropping displays under 20", Apple is widening the divide between the professional and the consumer. In other words, Apple is prodding the "prosumer," the neutral-buyer, to get out of Switzerland and pick a team: iMac or PowerMac.

 

[BWhaler]

All I ask is they aren't a terrible upgrade like the rev. B G5.

I've waited a year for a nice-to-have purchase, and the new G5's are terrible.

Now I find myself hoping for a sweet headless iMac or G5 cube to go with these new monitors.

 

[Frixo Cool]

something is inherantly wrong when my monitor costs as much as my computer.

It's nothing wrong. My monitors always costed more than computer itself. For my business (video design & production) a monitor is the center of work and more important thing than computer and all CPU power itself.

About market for this babies - I'll be oredering two 30" and two 23" as soon as they are announced - and I work in not so reach Croatia where average monthly pay is just 500 euros. So, I can't imagine that some people in whealty USA are complaing to great price (it it's true) of just 2999$. I'll buy even if they price it higher.

My 2 cents .

 

[badboibillie]

Some slack here wuld be nice

He feels the same way i do from a previous post today. $999 would be the starting point for a monitor for the PM G5's. For some like myself the $699 was a good price point, $999 may force me to another brand.

I registered for the sole purpose of responding to some of these replies. If you think $999 for a 20" display is outrageous - then please check back into the year 2004 and realize that apple isn't all about overcharging their customers.

I would say $999 is a very good deal. Assuming the specs are on par with competitors, let's look at some:

Dell UltraSharp 2001FP Flat Panel - 20.1" - $999 from Dell
ViewSonic VX2000 Flat Panel (TFT) Monitor - 20.1" - $969 from NewEgg
Sony SDM-S204 Monitor - 20.1" - $949 from NewEgg
ViewSonic VP201s Flat Panel (TFT) Monitor - 20.1" - $989 from NewEgg
Hewlett Packard L2035 Flat Panel (TFT) Monitor - 20.1" - $965.71 from ShopperWiz

... and I could go on to list about 1/2 a dozen more...but you get where I'm going? Of course there are the cheaper LCDs, but why go with cheap if you're spending close to a grand? And I know Dell's got those coupon deals and such, but you're probably looking at around $850 for Education Discount pricing - so you can definitely find a cheaper deal. But sure, retail's at $999, which is at the upper end of the $900 range that all these other higher-end competitors fall in, but remember that the apple display will probably be wide-screen - which makes it an even better deal!

So please make sure you know the market before you go crying about prices.

 

[the future]

These prices sound great, actually. But there is NO WAY IN HELL that Apple will sell the 23" for 1499 or 1599. Maybe 1699, but probably 1799. Which would still be fine.

Must-stop-searching-for-"reasons"-why-I-really-really-"need"-the-30"...

Edit: no 17" = no headless iMac/new Cube/Power Mac mini. Shame about that.

 

[rdowns]

Apple doesn't compete in the low-end market. Apparently they don't want to sell displays with low margins, just like they don't want to sell computers with low margins. IMO, the only reason Apple offers the eMac is so they don't lose the entire education market. The $100 per unit or so they would make on low end stuff is hardly worth bothering with and such products would compete against their own higher end products.

Many Mac owners respect the quality of Apple products so they really want Apple displays. They might be satisfied with a $500 17" Apple LCD and then Apple would loose a sale of a $1000 20" model. This is just my opinion.

I wouldn't consider a 17" (especially widescreen) display the low end. I think Apple is making a mistake if these rumors are true. I'm in the market for a new system and while I can afford anything I want, a 20" LCD is just too damn big for my needs and workspace. IMO, Apple ofering a 17" is good business. Would a 17" LCD steal some sales of 20"? Sure, but less stolen sales than those who go elsewhere for 17" LCDs.

 

[rdowns]

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!

The 30" LCD HD market is hardly big enough for any manufacturer to corner it. There is only one way for Apple to drive consumers to purchase more Apple products, make a damn small form factor G5 tower and give consumers an alternative to overpriced iMacs. iPods are in a few million homes, has that helped Apple's market share one iota?

 

[orangedv]

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.

I am a 'serious' graphic designer and I feel I need to make a point here. Several people have commented on us serious designers avoiding flat displays because of colour accuracy. This is simply untrue. Various ads and web sites tell us that there are all sorts of clever gizmos and software that will match the colour on screen with printed output. Ok confession time......NONE OF THEM EVEN COME CLOSE TO WORKING! There said it. I, and every pro I know works 'colour blind' on whatever montior is at hand. We check our colours with pantone calibrated print proofs off the office laser. We decide which colours to use with a pantone swatchbook, never ever ever with one we mixed up on screen. That is suicide! You show a client a proof on screen and he agrees to it, then send it off to the printers, you can bet your bottom dollar you will get a reject along with a comment along the lines of "Hey! That's not what it looked like on screen!" I know one designer who had to swallow the cost of 3 new power macs for making this mistake. Whole print run rejected.

The calibrators can only accurately match on part of the spectrum at the expense of another part. Usually you end up with very yellow whites if you fine tune it to match most colours. Most of us gave up on that and trust the printed output. Screens and printers use different colour mixing physics. (additive and subtractive) any attempt to make one pretend it is the other will have limits. Beware!

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I registered for the sole purpose of responding to some of these replies. If you think $999 for a 20" display is outrageous - then please check back into the year 2004 and realize that apple isn't all about overcharging their customers.

I would say $999 is a very good deal. Assuming the specs are on par with competitors, let's look at some:

Dell UltraSharp 2001FP Flat Panel - 20.1" - $999 from Dell
ViewSonic VX2000 Flat Panel (TFT) Monitor - 20.1" - $969 from NewEgg
Sony SDM-S204 Monitor - 20.1" - $949 from NewEgg
ViewSonic VP201s Flat Panel (TFT) Monitor - 20.1" - $989 from NewEgg
Hewlett Packard L2035 Flat Panel (TFT) Monitor - 20.1" - $965.71 from ShopperWiz

... and I could go on to list about 1/2 a dozen more...but you get where I'm going? Of course there are the cheaper LCDs, but why go with cheap if you're spending close to a grand? And I know Dell's got those coupon deals and such, but you're probably looking at around $850 for Education Discount pricing - so you can definitely find a cheaper deal. But sure, retail's at $999, which is at the upper end of the $900 range that all these other higher-end competitors fall in, but remember that the apple display will probably be wide-screen - which makes it an even better deal!

So please make sure you know the market before you go crying about prices.

Well, nice first post.

You might want to read more carefully before accusing someone of "crying" about a particular topic. I was lamenting that if the rumors are true there is no lower cost option, as there is now.

I was lamenting the info that Apple was doing away with the 17" LCD monitor. Currently that model is $699, and a "new" model one could expect given the pricing from others like you mentioned, $599 would be a reasonable expectation.

While a $300 to $400 delta between the 17" and new 20" LCD's from Apple is significant when you look at the marketplace. But you should know that, since you know the market so well. Following your logic why bother even having a PM G5 1.8 Dual in the lineup, when its only $500 more for the 2.0 Dual? Apple does it to meet price points. Maybe Apple has conceded the 17" price point to other vendors. For some of us we don't mind paying a bit more for Apple, but something that we can truly use.

The minor amount that you refer to ($300) is what many of us need to spend on the RAM and HDD space we need for the tasks.

 

[the future]

All he was saying was that 999 for a 20" LCD is not over-priced at all. Which is true.

I personally would like Apple to offer a 17" option as well, but getting a nice Samsung 17" is not the end of the world, you know...

 

[Ge4-ce]

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?

Well actually they don't!!

http://ati.com/products/radeon9800/radeon9800proseme/specs.html

And this is why I'm so excited about new display releases. The number 2 thing I really missed in the new G5 powermac (besideds the 3 Ghz wich was nr 1) was a new graphic card! ATI and NVidia both released a brand new card that almost doubles performance over current cards! Why are they not in a Mac yet??

The 9800 XT that now is a build to order option only supports up to 1920 x 1200 in digital mode, and up to 2048 x 1536 in non digital mode. Both are not enough to support the possible new 30" monitor.

And even more weird: even the new X800 does not support this resolutiono of 2500 x something!! as a matter of fact, only the pro workstation cards wich are not available right now for Mac, support this kind of resolution!!

there is defenitly something wrong with these rumors!!!

 

[rog]

These rumors have been around for what, a year and a half, and still no updates. Apple is still the only company with the nerve to charge $700 for a 17 inch LCD with 2001 era tech specs.

 

[joemama]

I am a 'serious' graphic designer and I feel I need to make a point here. Several people have commented on us serious designers avoiding flat displays because of colour accuracy. This is simply untrue. Various ads and web sites tell us that there are all sorts of clever gizmos and software that will match the colour on screen with printed output. Ok confession time......NONE OF THEM EVEN COME CLOSE TO WORKING! There said it. I, and every pro I know works 'colour blind' on whatever montior is at hand. We check our colours with pantone calibrated print proofs off the office laser. We decide which colours to use with a pantone swatchbook, never ever ever with one we mixed up on screen. That is suicide! You show a client a proof on screen and he agrees to it, then send it off to the printers, you can bet your bottom dollar you will get a reject along with a comment along the lines of "Hey! That's not what it looked like on screen!" I know one designer who had to swallow the cost of 3 new power macs for making this mistake. Whole print run rejected.

The calibrators can only accurately match on part of the spectrum at the expense of another part. Usually you end up with very yellow whites if you fine tune it to match most colours. Most of us gave up on that and trust the printed output. Screens and printers use different colour mixing physics. (additive and subtractive) any attempt to make one pretend it is the other will have limits. Beware!

You hit the nail right on the head. You beat me to this one. I have been in the graphics business for years, and couldn't agree with you more. No good designer EVER goes by screen...you print it out on calibrated office proofs, make adjustments, then send it to the 'print shop' for ANOTHER FINAL PROOF before printing thousands of copies. This was taught way back in Design 101.

 

[daveg5]

Well when all those "serious graphic designers" go blind after using CRT's all day, I'll take all their jobs.

// narco

Lets not get too snobby, good quality Crt's are a true bargain like lacie, sony nec, and when properly adjusted and viewed, can give hours of fatigue free viewing, no dead pixels, longer warranties, distortion free resolution scaling, cheap prices, 1/2-1/4 the price of similar resolution LCD's. almost unmatched till recently for vivid color (even in dark areas), viewing angles, and ms pixel response.
Of course there are many downsides to Crt's as we all know, too big, heavy, power hungry, radiation, etc. I own one (22" FS Sony) witch I love dearly, however I would love to compliment it with a 23" when finances are in order for the best and worst of both worlds.

 

[gothamac]

"it'll hang from a central pedestal"

"it'll hang from a central pedestal"
Sounds like iMac adjustability?

 

[~Shard~]

I hope this rumor is true - I like the sizes and the price points, and was expecting them to be higher - I think Apple will sell a lot of these if this is the case...

So, will today be the day, or WWDC?

 

[uzombie]

Because they can!

Why would anybody buy a 30" monitor when they can buy and use two 20" monitors (given that their graphics card can support this) for 2/3 the price?

I certainly wouldn't...

Because I can have two(2) 30" displays on my desk! Now THAT is a desktop display!

Too bad Apple can't comply with VESA.

 

[1macker1]

Same price of a top of the line G5, i think it's a bad thing too when my monitor cost more than my computer. So i'm getting the 20".

It's nothing wrong. My monitors always costed more than computer itself. For my business (video design & production) a monitor is the center of work and more important thing than computer and all CPU power itself.

About market for this babies - I'll be oredering two 30" and two 23" as soon as they are announced - and I work in not so reach Croatia where average monthly pay is just 500 euros. So, I can't imagine that some people in whealty USA are complaing to great price (it it's true) of just 2999$. I'll buy even if they price it higher.

My 2 cents .

If you only make 500 euros a month, how can u afford a 3,000$ monitor. Do you not eat, pay rent, buy cloths, etc...

 

[uzombie]

There is proof!!

You hit the nail right on the head. You beat me to this one. I have been in the graphics business for years, and couldn't agree with you more. No good designer EVER goes by screen...you print it out on calibrated office proofs, make adjustments, then send it to the 'print shop' for ANOTHER FINAL PROOF before printing thousands of copies. This was taught way back in Design 101.

The issue is that most designers are self-proclaimed. They haven't taken Design 101 (nor 100, a prerequisite). For example, Photoshop is for retouching and enhancing images; its is not an illustration program for print. RGB does not translate into inks.

So yes, world, the FINAL Press Proof is the actual output; not the display. If told anything else, I have a bridge for sale.

 

[PowerMacMan]

I hope this rumor is true - I like the sizes and the price points, and was expecting them to be higher - I think Apple will sell a lot of these if this is the case...

So, will today be the day, or WWDC?

WWDC, b/c of the promotional offer with the current 23'' display ending on June 26th...

 

[mainstreetmark]

So, lets hear it for a 30" Powerbook, eh? That ought to be enough space to cool those G5 spaceheaters.

Dang, that thing would be enormous.

 

[areyouwishing]

You hit the nail right on the head. You beat me to this one. I have been in the graphics business for years, and couldn't agree with you more. No good designer EVER goes by screen...you print it out on calibrated office proofs, make adjustments, then send it to the 'print shop' for ANOTHER FINAL PROOF before printing thousands of copies. This was taught way back in Design 101.

In the Pantone Swatch realm I would agree with you 100% I would never pick a flat color from screen. Photography is waaaay different. A properly calibrated monitor with THE BEST POSSIBLE color management setup is ABSOLUTELY essential. I don't have the option of scanning, printing, adjusting, printing, adjusting, print, adjust... etc etc. There isn't the time nor the money to do that, and I can do all of my color adjusting and have 97% predictable output based off of screen...once again this is purely in the photography realm.

"calibrated office proofs"
How many of you graphic designers use US SWOP ver2 as your working CMYK profile? Now, How many knew that it wasn't even calibrated for a specific workflow, but is just merely an average of multiple (i forget how many) printers throughout the world.

The issue is that most designers are self-proclaimed. They haven't taken Design 101 (nor 100, a prerequisite). For example, Photoshop is for retouching and enhancing images; its is not an illustration program for print. RGB does not translate into inks.

Hey Copernicus,
Break out of your box and stop living in CMYK only output, I almost feel sorry having such a limited amount of color spectrum on your end.

Please see THIS to learn a little more about RGB output... and yes, you did read that correctly... 36-bit 68 billion colors.

Photoshop is only for "retouching and enhancing" ? I sure hope you lump color correcting in to "enhancing" for your customers sakes. Unless they like un-color corrected images. I also know A TON of illustrators that would be mighting mad hearing that Photoshop isn't an illustration tool either... for a lot of things its quite essential.