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

[Irishman]

And how does it carry sound—I thought DisplayPort was audio only?

Nope. Displayport carries both digital audio and video.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2030...-which-display-interface-reigns-supreme-.html

----------

There is officially no such thing as an Quad HD resolution. Some TV-set makers used to call their TVs Quad HD but they all agreed to use the same marketing term Ultra-HD. There is 4K Ultra-HD (formally know as 4K) or 8K Ultra HD. The 4K stands for the resolution of 3840 × 2160, 4096 x 2560, 4096 × 2160 or 4096 × 1714 depending what the screen is used for.

I remember in '08 when Westinghouse - of all brands - introduced their 56" Quad HDTV for the princely sum of $50,000!

http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/westinghouses-56-inch-d56qx1-quad-hd-display-on-sale-for-50-00/

 

[MattDSLR]

thats great news

 

[MacSince1990]

I REALLY want this, but at $3500 bucks ill just have to wait.

That's in pounds... more like $5,500

----------

You will be waiting for a long while. Since the current regular display is $999, I doubt that the 4K will ever be in that price range.

*facepalm*

Given the original Apple Cinema Display retailed for $3999 (22", 1600x1024), and they now sell 22" monitors for about $99, I'm pretty sure the price will come down to $999-- or less.

 

[Spinland]

That's in pounds... more like $5,500

Which is nuts because Amazon sells the same monitor for $3210.10.

----------

Nope. Displayport carries both digital audio and video.

And anecdotally I still use the 27" Apple Cinema Display with mini Displayport interface, which happily receives both audio and video from the attached MacBook Pro.

 

[Peace]

Why would Apple list this then remove it ?

 

[Spinland]

Why would Apple list this then remove it ?

Perhaps the online stores in question went live before they were supposed to and then corrected it.

 

[Konrad]

Monitor-wise there will always be a better and less expensive than the Apple product alternative. Unless one must have the A. branded item on a desk. As for pricing and availability of any mainstream brands or even EU-made electronics, there are always available in the US where they are also always cheaper than in EU.

 

[SirHaakon]

I'm just pointing out when TV makers are telling lies. I'm frankly amazed that so many people here are desperate to let TV makers get away with lying to them!

Let's put this another way. If you had a "true 4K" cinema display (at 4096 × 2160 pixels - a 17:9 aspect ratio), that would satisfy you as a 4K screen, right?

Now lets say you watched some hi-res 16:9 content (you know, the current television standard aspect ratio for all HD and UHD content) on that screen - just slightly pillarboxed on the sides due to the difference in width, but still the same native 2,160 pixels tall - would that be any less "4K?" Well that's exactly what the UHD standard is: 3,840 x 2,160 - exactly what this new monitor displays.

It's not a scam, it's a 4x sharper picture than the current 1080p TV you have and as previously stated, perfectly acceptable to fit under the "4K" banner.

 

[katewes]

I am shocked that no one realises the reason for Apple selling this matte-screen monitor only in Europe, and not elsewhere. Once you realise the reason, you'll see ... oh, you remember that Quentin Tarantino movie, "Inglourious Basterds" ... Apple's attitude.

First some background: Apple, with its recent update to the MacBook Pro, has totally removed any matte, anti-glare screen from the Apple inventory. That's right, not one option for anti-glare screens.

Apple cannot care a stuff about people, such as some professionals, some people who need anti-glare -- you know that movie, Basterds by Tarantino.

But the you know that movie, Basterds .... Apple are forced to offer matte screens in Europe because there's a law about not having screens to be too reflective.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31990L0270:EN:HTML

So it's not because Apple care about their customers. Apple only care about what makes money. No, in this instance, Apple are forced to offer a matte screen by European law. Stuff them.

No one is saying a corporation shouldn't do things to make money - but every corporation that produces a certain product, where they have a virtual monopoly, have a responsibility to supply features that are needed by a minority that is sufficiently large. Apple has a monopoly on OS-X. It's just assine if you say, "If you don't like it, go use Windows". C'mon. So if we're realistically stuck with using OS-X, you see companies that take their responsibility seriously by catering to large minorities, such as professionals.

 

[McNoise]

headline is wrong ... it's not a 4K monitor ... it's 3K

 

[jimthing]

headline is wrong ... it's not a 4K monitor ... it's 3K

...oh look everybody, yet another complete and utter moron!

 

[JHankwitz]

At a normal viewing distance for a 32" display, you will not likely be able to see the difference between a 2k and a 4k display anyway. These monitors will appeal to those doing high-end video and those that think opulence elevates their personal image.

 

[jeffpoker]

I'm not super excited by an Edge-lit 32" LCD monitor with 800:1 contrast ratio.
And how useful is 4k at 32"? My personal opinion is that it's a waste of pixels but maybe if you stare at it from 12 inches you might see a difference?

 

[JHankwitz]

Apple should buy Sharp.

Why would Apple ever want to buy a company dedicated to producing and selling a low-margin product? In case you haven't noticed, Apple focuses on selling products at a high-margin.

 

[cs02rm0]

And how useful is 4k at 32"? My personal opinion is that it's a waste of pixels

If you're {blind,broke} then not very. Otherwise if you want to see more data than your monitor can currently display in one go, which is probably anyone that views even the MacRumors front page, very.

 

[gnasher729]

Last I heard, Apple was having to prop up Sharp to keep them in business so they could keep providing iPad displays and not be so reliant on Samsung. I wonder if they're selling these displays that could go along with a Mac Pro or Mini to further help them financially.

Just like they had to prop up Samsung a few years ago.

 

[gnasher729]

It's worse than that: " Retailing for £3,499.00 or approximately $5,700..."

So $5,700. PLUS the cost of reading lessons.

No, a UK sales price of £3,499 is not a sales price of $5,700.

First, you can't pay with dollars in the UK. Second, UK prices include 20% VAT. Which, thirdly, don't matter to any company buying this product since they can deduct the VAT from their own tax bill.

(Explanation to US citizens: When Dell for example sells products in the UK, they add 20% VAT to the price of each product and send that money straight to the tax office. If Dell buys one of these monitors and pays 20% VAT to Apple, they deduct that from the amount of VAT they have to send to the tax office, so effectively they or any other UK company that makes a bit of revenue don't pay VAT).

 

[stu.h]

I thought about selling my TBD and getting (another) manufacturers panel.

They all look horrendous! I'd rather stick with my 1440p screen till Apple bring something better out.

This is without taking into consideration the benefits of TB and ports on the back.

 

[Renzatic]

headline is wrong ... it's not a 4K monitor ... it's 3K

3840 lines of resolution. No, it's not "4K" exactly, but it's a simple round-up away from it.

Plus 4k sounds a helluva lot better than 1920x1080 times 2.

 

[Spinland]

Plus 4k sounds a helluva lot better than 1920x1080 times 2.

Back in the Bad Ol Days when hard drives were measured in mega instead of giga, the first "large capacity" drive I bought was listed as "130MB." How much would anyone like to bet me that the actual capacity was closer to 128? Same thing with "250GB" and "500GB" drives, and so on.

 

[Renzatic]

Back in the Bad Ol Days when hard drives were measured in mega instead of giga, the first "large capacity" drive I bought was listed as "130MB." How much would anyone like to bet me that the actual capacity was closer to 128? Same thing with "250GB" and "500GB" drives, and so on.

Back in those days, you'd probably only be short by a few hundred kilobytes rather than a whole couple of meg. The whole Base-2/Base-10 disparity really didn't start rearing its ugly head until we got into the the GB range.

My first harddrive was advertised as having 1.6GB capacity, and it had just shy of the full 1.6GB available to me. I remember how awesome that was because I could almost fit 2 whole CDs on that...

 

[aggri1]

On this screen you'll have relatively small interface elements in Mac OS X (or very large ones if you enable doubling (2X) mode), won't you? Is it similar to MacBook Airs in terms of pixel density?

 

[patseguin]

On this screen you'll have relatively small interface elements in Mac OS X (or very large ones if you enable doubling (2X) mode), won't you? Is it similar to MacBook Airs in terms of pixel density?

Isn't OS X resolution independent?

 

[aggri1]

Isn't OS X resolution independent?

No, it's not.

EDIT: unless you mean the weird scaling the retina MBPros use, which achieves something resembling resolution independence in an inefficient way.

 

[hopi]

I couldn't care less about a 4K monitor. All I want is for Apple to update their Thunderbolt display with the iMac style laminated glass and USB3. Why is that so hard? People have been waiting on this very obvious update for waaaaay too long. I'll be very upset if they simply kill the $1000 normal resolution Thunderbolt option and replace it with some ridiculous $4000 display.

Can't emphasize your statement enough - I hope one of the Apple marketing development guys will read your comment. Apple wake up and see what the users seeking for!