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

Apple Offering 32-Inch 4K Sharp Displays in European Online Apple Stores [Updated]

Let's be honest. 4k? Who cares? How close do you sit to your screen that it'll make a difference? How much do you want to swoon over 3D TVs from 2 years ago?

Tech companies are looking for the next 'thing' but most people don't care about a resolution they can't see and will not be broadcasted in the foreseeable future. I say this as a techie but when techies get excited over a difference that's negligibly different to real people you end up with a flop and a few people with really expensive laser disc players.
 
Portal83 said:
Let's be honest. 4k? Who cares? How close do you sit to your screen that it'll make a difference? How much do you want to swoon over 3D TVs from 2 years ago?

Tech companies are looking for the next 'thing' but most people don't care about a resolution they can't see and will not be broadcasted in the foreseeable future. I say this as a techie but when techies get excited over a difference that's negligibly different to real people you end up with a flop and a few people with really expensive laser disc players.
Click to expand...

Professionals in the photo & video industry will care because higher resolution means more screen real-estate.

But I'm assuming you're referring to a Retina Display, having higher pixel density but lower usable resolution as it's done today with Apple Notebooks. I'd have to agree Retina Display will probably be more of a luxury than a need..

----------
SchneiderMan said:
Come on you can get a Seiki (a Japanese brand) 50-inch 4K 120Hz LED TV for around $700. And the IQ is quite impressive too.

Image
Click to expand...

Sure, but who's going to sit in front of a 50" display to do work? Not possible, you'd have to move away further, and as a result you probably won't be able to see any text at native 4K resolution..

So while It's an excellent deal for a TV, it won't be useful as a monitor, unless It's purely for gaming..
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I'm very mixed on 4K.

On the one hand, on a 32" you can actually use the native resolution to the fullest.

On the other hand on a 27" it'll be way too small to use native and way too big to use retina

I don't want a 24" 4K ugh, 4K is definitely not my choice. I just want a thinner thunderbolt display at current resolutions
 
Sounding like.....

a naysayer, this fact can signal Apple is not going to deliver their ownoffer of 4K displays anytime soon (as expected, in a Thunderbolt based display).....

I cant see the point of selling competitive hardware if you have a product ripe to sell (of your own)....Or maybe rumors are just that, rumors.....:confused:........:eek:

:):apple:
 
http://netonnet.se/art/tv-och-bild/lcd_led-och-plasma-tv/tv-50-tum-och-storre/andersson-led5062uhdpvr/191442.3115/

50" 4K tv in Sweden for $1,229 :)
 
sentiblue said:
I noticed some of you guys think it's $3,500... it's not
That's 3,500 Euros... equivalent to $4,800 based on today's rate.
Click to expand...

Sort of. You're right that that's straight rate swap but prices usually work out as roughly the same numerical amount for dollars against, well, it's actually pounds not euros in the OP. Probably due mostly to 20% sales tax and customs fees.
 
clukas said:
Hmm. Maybe apple should start selling apple branded $5000 garbage cans. Imagine the margins on those. They could offer us 16, 32 and 64 litre versions. The iRecycle. :D. The second gen. could feature different colors perhaps.
Click to expand...

They already do! They call it the Mac Pro. :D

mac_pro_new.jpg


I'll get me coat now. :D
 
More on this Seiki...

Actually, this Seiki is 100% Chinese, using animal mimicry in the brand name to come across Japanese. Yes, there is a Japanese Seiki Industries, as well, but the two are unrelated, except on the wannabe level by the former. Not that I am complaining, since the Chinese thingee will make a servicable Mac Pro main screen, yes, even at its 30 Hz sync, or all three of them, for a fraction of any one 4k, pardon me, Ultra HD tv or monitor now on the market, And it makes standard digital cable from Comcast look *almost* like HD... $474 at TigerDirect.com at present.
 
Last edited:
FrozenDarkness said:
I just want a thinner thunderbolt display at current resolutions
Click to expand...

Ditto. I'm hoping Apple cater to those whom prefer smoother frame rates and better performance over resolution. To me, 2560x1440 on a 27" monitor is close to retina (considering how far back I sit). YMMV, though.
 
AndyUnderscoreR said:
Ultra HD, also known as Quad HD isn't called 4K any more precisely because it's NOT 4K.

No matter how many times you try multiplying 1024 (or 1000) by 4, you won't get 3840!

This isn't a 4K display because it doesn't have at least 4000 pixels across the screen. End of story.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia said:
4K resolution is a generic term for display devices or content having horizontal resolution on the order of 4,000 pixels.
Click to expand...

By using the phrase "on the order of" I guess they can try and sell anything from 3800 and above as 4K. Like the HD term before it, "4K" will eventually become pretty meaningless - I saw an ad for "HD" hair product the other day...
 
dlewis23 said:
I REALLY want this, but at $3500 bucks ill just have to wait.
Click to expand...

And by the time these 4K displays come down in price, they'll come out with 4K OLED.....and by the time these come down in price they'll come out with 8K OLED displays. :D We're all in this together. We want the newest tech and think that if we wait a couple of years it'll come down in price. But too often, something even better enters the market and we start all over.

----------
lilo777 said:
"it is not clear why Apple has decided to offer it solely in Europe"

It's because in USA most Apple stores are so small that 32" monitor simply won't fit into them. The vaunted sales-per-square feet efficiency comes to bite Apple in the rear.
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense. That's why they can't sell them in the US online store. :eek:
 
lilo777 said:
I wonder why Apple decided to offer some third-tier third party displays. I'd rather they started with some established brands like NEC, EIZO, Dell or Samsung.
Click to expand...

Are you 15? Sharp is a top brand.

----------
FrozenDarkness said:
I'm very mixed on 4K.

On the one hand, on a 32" you can actually use the native resolution to the fullest.

On the other hand on a 27" it'll be way too small to use native and way too big to use retina

I don't want a 24" 4K ugh, 4K is definitely not my choice. I just want a thinner thunderbolt display at current resolutions
Click to expand...


Linus Torvalds is looking for you and will give you an atomic wedgie. (Google it)
 
phoenixsan said:
a naysayer, this fact can signal Apple is not going to deliver their ownoffer of 4K displays anytime soon (as expected, in a Thunderbolt based display).....
Click to expand...

When the MacPro was announced at the WWDC keynote, there was specific mention of third party 4k displays. Since I'm sure every word of that was sweated over, that sounds like a pretty clear statement that Apple wasn't planning to produce their own 4k display for the nMP launch.

Anyway, the Thunderbolt display is primarily a 'prosumer' peripheral for MacBooks that really take advantage of the built-in power supply and 'dock' features. The price of 4k panels is going to put them out of the 'prosumer' price bracket for a while, and full Pros will demand a wider choice of things like size, colour calibration facilities, interfaces, UHDTV vs. true 4k than Apple is ever likely to offer.

Also - as has been discussed elsewhere - UHD is not an optimal resolution to replace the existing 27" display for general use: text and icons would be too big in pixel-doubled 'retina' mode, too small in 1:1 mode and while I suspect a 'scaled' mode somewhere in between would look OK on a 4k display, people would balk at paying several thousand $/£/€ to run in non-native resolution.

My wild guess is that the next logical step for Apple - if and when suitable panels appear at an acceptable price - would be an iMac 'retina' 21.5" (or thereabouts) where a UHD display would neatly pixel-double the current 1080p resolution. …and maybe a matching TB display.
 
sentiblue said:
I noticed some of you guys think it's $3,500... it's not
That's 3,500 Euros... equivalent to $4,800 based on today's rate.
Click to expand...
That's not Euros mate.. It's pounds.

Pounds: 3500,-
Euros: 4170,-
Dollars: $5716,-

But the Apple prices Euros and dollars are mostly the same because of taxes so I think the price will be somewhere around 4170 dollars too :)
 
Chiefjop said:
That's not Euros mate.. It's pounds.

Pounds: 3500,-
Euros: 4170,-
Dollars: $5716,-

But the Apple prices Euros and dollars are mostly the same because of taxes so I think the price will be somewhere around 4170 dollars too :)
Click to expand...

Then you'd be nuts to buy it from Apple when it's $3,200 on Amazon.
 
a friend of mine placed an order yesterday, today, the product has been removed from the French apple store and his order has been cancelled :eek:
 
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