Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Gruber was right about this too.

I guess Apple is lowering its manufacturing costs by having the 27" iMac and their now only ACD be the same display. They should release a 21.5" ACD too though.
 
If you consider buying a high quality display, don't go for apple. That has never been a good choice. There was one advantage once, and it was the hugeness of the 30 inch display. But this advantage has vanished long ago.

About the matte: This discussion will never end as about 50% of the users like them and 50% do NOT like them. I do not like them particularly but the choice to get a matte on a mac laptop is simply ugly. Drawing, Coloring, Imaging as well as coding and writing, I all do on an external matte display not from apple. In the office, we got Eizos for high quality imaging and Samsungs for normal work. More expensive but absolutely worth the price.

To make this clear: When you talk about quality of a display, people still think of brightness (which is mostly useless as displays are used indoor and the eye adapts quickly), contrast (which is why apple goes glossy), color gamut (which does not relly matters much for everyday use) and LED (which is ok). But they often forget about the ergonomical aspects. Don't let you fool by statements like 85% bigger color gamut or contrast ratios of 1:1000000000. Go to a store, look at the display when running and decide if you could work with that after having used it for at least 10 Minutes.

I saw people tilting their screens to the floor to not get the glare, I saw people moving to dark corners in the office to not get the glare, I saw people wiggling their head to see what the display should display and not what it mirrors. Me personally, I use a matte display connected to my Mac and use it as the primary monitor and the glossy as the palette display. Matte is way superior in productivity. The only advantage of glossy is the darker blacks which results in the higher contrast ratios.

Again, If you need a GOOD display, do yourself a favour and do not consider apple.
 
The problem with all the other hi-end matte screens out there is there so damn ugly. As another poster pointed out you want something that fits with your Mac.

Sadly more proof Apple is slowly abandoning the pro market.
 
So silly that Apple sells their displays for so much, then to only go with a single size at fricken $1,000. They truly do not want to be in the external display business anymore except for the iMac and selling a limited quantity of "trophy displays".
Nothing but raising profits. If you want Apple display, you need to pay more for it now.
On the other hand, HP has what could be a killer display for us graphics folks.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/957524/
It even has HDCP.
And 10-bit colors.
Hope that next version of OsX gets 10-bit colora like Windows7 already has. If there ever will be next version of OsX...
 
Gruber was right about this too.

I guess Apple is lowering its manufacturing costs by having the 27" iMac and their now only ACD be the same display. They should release a 21.5" ACD too though.

If this is right, they won't be offering a bigger monitor until they release a bigger iMac of the same size...

OTOH I really liked the aluminum design of the 30 inch. I think the black border is OK for iMacs but the "white apple logo on black" doesn't look good...

EDIT: Not that I can afford a Mac Pro or anything...
 
It's not better. They are cheaper because it's the same panels used for TVs, but for most uses of a computer the additional height is very beneficial. Just look at MacRumors: The number of posts you can see at a time is limited by screen height, not width. And monitor makers sell it as an advantage, but it isn't.

I remember when I first saw 16/9 (SD) Widescreen TVs here in Japan in the 90s. At first they seemed "shorter" rather than "wider", because I was so used to the 4/3 TVs. I was missing the height... Now I' OK with 16/10 computers, but the illusion struck me again when I saw a 27 inch iMac in person and it didn't seem bigger than the 24 inch I have at home. If I ever buy a 27 inch, I'll put them side by side and compare...
 
The 16:9 ratio doesn't really bother me. The loss in physical screen size and number of pixels does bother me though. A 2844x1600 30" screen would have been fine. A 32" with a 3072x1728 screen would be more like it though. I'm sure Apple will eventually release such a screen though and they'll probably market it with a whole "we listened to our customers, they loved the size of our old 30" screen and loved the DPI of our 27" screen. So now we introduce the best of both world, the 32" high res screen".
The bigger monitor you get, you start to realize how low-res most big HDTVs really are. That 27" screen has more resolution than a 60" HDTV.
 
It really seems like Apple is putting a lot of effort into pissing off Mac computer users lately. Yet they still have record sales ... so who am I to tell them what to do. Its obviously working for them.

But I can't get rid of the nagging feeling that they are just doing this to see how much they can get away with. I can't really come up with any other reasonable explanation for their choices lately. No one could possibly be arrogant/ignorant enough to actually think these are intelligent product choices, could they?

"If I were running Apple, I would milk the Macintosh for all it's worth -- and get busy on the next great thing. ..."
 
After my 20" CD died after only 14 months of use I gave up on ever EVER again splashing super-mega-ultra premium amount on Apple screens!

Although bad news it doesn't affect me slightest :)
 
I am guessing that they weren't making enough money on them to bother with them anymore. If they were profitable and selling like hotcakes they would be crazy to discontinue them.
 
Apple are only interested in developing and making produces that appeals to the widest audiances now. If it wont sell a billion in its first week then they wont borther.
 
All display manufacturers need to do is put a brushed aluminium (aluminum) bezel/frame around their screens. That should keep the style over substance crowd happy.:D
 
I honestly question why apple would choose to eliminate the 30" display.
it just confuses me, but if it cuts down on productions costs, so be it.
 
BINGO! Well said.

Many of you are probably too young to remember that Apple used to make a sweet line of laser printers as well. Eventually the market's downward pressure became too great and it was not worth Apple's effort to continue with the printer business.

Oh, and that was one of SJ's first things to dismantle upon his return as then iCeo.


The computer monitor market is cut-throat. Apple is probably finding it difficult to compete while still maintaining their margins.

This is probably just their token monitor offering for those who insist on having an Apple display. They are likely buying 27" screens at a more favorable price since there's an iMac that may be using the same part.

There is no such advantage for the 24" nor 30" screens.

It would be safe to expect in the future that Apple only offers one monitor at the same size of the screen of the largest iMac. If you want a different sized monitor, buy from a third-party monitor manufacturer. It appears that Apple is willing to concede that low-margin market (just like they have conceded the netbook marketplace).
 
I think it's very likely there will be a 21.5" ACD before long, maybe in time for the next revision. They can use the existing iMac screen (which I think they do anyway for the ACD line) so it's a cost effective no-brainer for them.

Especially after a lot of people on here (myself included) have asked for a smaller size display. I tried a 27" iMac and it was far too big for close-up use for me.
 
Come on, Apple! It's a mistake to discontinue them.

It's not. It doesn't make much economical sense to go after a low volume market (30" matte displays), when they can offer 90% of pixels for 60% of the cost, and in addition throw in lost of additional features as well. Sounds like a great deal to me.

But I will agree, that there must be a matte option for the stubborn image/video professionals who don't want to simply rearrange the light source behind them :rolleyes:

PS: Looks like the Matte and ugly HP 30" display is a good choice for $1299, for those who are crying murder out there.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.