Apple Officially Discontinues 30-Inch and 24-Inch Cinema Displays

[Full of Win]

i feel really let down by this news.
i don't want some consumer crap with speakers and a built in isight.
i want a freaking MATTE display, thats all. yes, i know, go buy some
other brand, well maybe i will. iJobs just proved AGAIN he doesn't
care about professionals.

i hope all the soccer moms will love the new displays, all that glass
will really compliment their minivans.

You and me too. The community cried out for a pro level monitor, and all we got was a fancy MacBook Pro accessory. I can deal with limited input (note the singular), piss poor scaler and poorly adopted input standards. But gee wiz, a glossy screen on something that size and the commoditized 16:9 screen to boot?

Seriously, did they sit in a room with a list of what the 'pro users' wanted and then design the antithesis of it? Pros want a matte screen option - glossy screen only check. Pros don't want a low grade webcam - low grade webcam included check. Pros would like a firewire option for CF readers and quick access to TDM - no FireWire input check. Pros want a longer cable so they can mount their MP's a few meters away - freakishly short cable check. Pro users would like the maximum amount of pixels - remove 0.4 MP and make it a 16:9 check.


I was in hopes they would come to their senses, given the 17 inch and later 15 inch MBP w/ matte displays. My 17 inch MBP Unibody w/ matte screen is a thing of art...too bad I will not be able to match it up with an equally stunning display. I've been making due with a three year old 23 inch ACD, guess I'll be looking at a plastic fantastic Dell or HP for my display needs. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

 

[potatis]

probably wants to make people used to higher ppi, then the 24" doesn't cut it, having less ppi than the older 23".
That the 30" is discontinued doesn't mean they won't release a new one or bigger in the near future.

 

[tmofee]

When people are more concerned about "fashion" instead of function we know that Apple can do no wrong since who cares about CPU power, high-end graphics or anything else of actual merit so long as it's Lady Gaga fashion friendly.

BTW, there is NOTHING wrong with those other monitors' looks. I actually take more issue with Apple because they don't offer a proper matte display. Reflections are EVIL.



Professionals? Hell, they don't even care about SERIOUS computer users anymore at the consumer level, let alone professionals. The fact "the most advanced operating system in the world" is still using OpenGL 2.1 says it all, I'm afraid...but then I would be forgetting the totally crappy GPU hardware and total lack of real desktop system other than a workstation level computer.



Sadly, this is THE reason why we have so many CRAPPY sounding albums out there so I'll have to disagree about using crap studio monitors. If you mix on CRAP, you get CRAP out. Garbage In = Garbage Out and it's NEVER been more true than in the music industry. A properly mixed album on a great system will sound as good as possibly can on any decent system. Bass and treble knobs were invented for crap speaker systems. If you mix for crap, your album sounds like crap. PERIOD. I used to review rock albums for sound quality and the one album that REALLY stands out in that regard in my mind was Firehouse's first album of the same name. I really liked a lot of the songs on it at the time, but it sounded AWFUL on my high-end rig and merely acceptable on a low-end rig (you cannot predict low-end sound; it varies far too much). Albums like the Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication add insult to injury and compress the sound so much that it literally clips like mad the entire album. How they could not hear that before they released it is beyond me. I guess they were using those crap speakers you guys were praising so much for mixing down albums with (I did notice the music videos sounded "ok" on a cheap tv speaker so I'm guessing that's EXACTLY how they missed such a travesty hack mixing job).

I'm mixing my current project on my Carver Ribbon speakers, but then I double check the sound on a set of Klipsch speakers in the den and a set of PSB speakers in my home theater room and I verify imaging against all three AND headphones (both a studio set and a set of JVC noise-canceling headphones. When it sounds great on all of them, I know it will sound great on anything but the absolute crappiest garbage out there (sadly, that would mean Apple's earbuds )

and then you have the bands who ruin their sound with the whole "loudness wars"... gah, dont get me started. i still find it funny that the latest metallica album sounds better from the files ripped from a guitar hero game than their CD version

 

[Val-kyrie]

Shift in Business Strategy

Seems odd not to have a 24" and a 27" LED Screen.

It is not odd; it is streamlining. It is no coincidence Apple is selling both a 27" iMac and a 27" display. A 21.5" display would not offer a high enough resolution to make it easy to sell as an external display. If ROI is considered, then a 27" external display offers the least additional tooling (no additional tooling, in fact) with the most potential for a return-on-investment (ROI).

Personally, I would prefer a matte version at a different resolution and size, but I don't think this will change in the foreseeable future. Apple's decision here shows that its primary focus is on consumer electronics, not on the professional market. They are clearly conceding the professional display market to other display manufacturers in favor of a prosumer/high-end consumer market. The focus is clearly on larger demographics as opposed to more specialized demographics. Good for shareholders; not so good for graphics professionals.

 

[MorphingDragon]

It is not odd; it is streamlining. It is no coincidence Apple is selling both a 27" iMac and a 27" display. A 21.5" display would not offer a high enough resolution to make it easy to sell as an external display. If ROI is considered, then a 27" external display offers the least additional tooling (no additional tooling, in fact) with the most potential for a return-on-investment (ROI).

Personally, I would prefer a matte version at a different resolution and size, but I don't think this will change in the foreseeable future. Apple's decision here shows that its primary focus is on consumer electronics, not on the professional market. They are clearly conceding the professional display market to other display manufacturers in favor of a prosumer/high-end consumer market. The focus is clearly on larger demographics as opposed to more specialized demographics. Good for shareholders; not so good for graphics professionals.

The 21" is full HD.

 

[Val-kyrie]

The 21" is full HD.

Full HD is not the issue. The issue is how much more screen real estate is offered by an additional monitor. Unfortunately, most people also only look at screen size. They do not understand resolution. Personally, I think anything less than a 24" is a hard sell as an additional monitor to a consumer. They want something BIGGER, noticeably BIGGER. They look at a 15" or 17" laptop and then at a 21.5" monitor and say, why do I need the monitor? It is not that much bigger. But when they see a 27" monitor, their eyes open wide and they lust for the beautiful big picture before their eyes. Monitor sold.

Personally, I use a 24" HP LP2475W 1920x1200. I don't watch movies on it, but it adds a great deal of screen real estate on a matte screen. My preference.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Full HD is not the issue. The issue is how much more screen real estate is offered by an additional monitor. Unfortunately, most people also only look at screen size. They do not understand resolution. Personally, I think anything less than a 24" is a hard sell as an additional monitor to a consumer. They want something BIGGER, noticeably BIGGER. They look at a 15" or 17" laptop and then at a 21.5" monitor and say, why do I need the monitor? It is not that much bigger. But when they see a 27" monitor, their eyes open wide and they lust for the beautiful big picture before their eyes. Monitor sold.

Personally, I use a 24" HP LP2475W 1920x1200. I don't watch movies on it, but it adds a great deal of screen real estate on a matte screen. My preference.

Prosumers/Professionals are aware of and take account of the resolutions.

 

[faroZ06]

Relax, they'll probably make another 30" display. Otherwise, the pros would be pretty upset. That Cinema Display was getting old.

 

[Anuba]

Where are they going with this 4:3 > 16:10 > 16:9 crap? Will they stop now, or are screens going to become a long thin strips with resolution 8000x20?

16:9 is good for watching movies. Everything else.... web pages, PDFs, word documents etc is screaming for more space vertically. For that stuff, 16:9 makes about as much sense as a doorway that's 8 feet wide and 4 feet high.

A 16:9 MacBook Pro will have to be made even wider, or else we're not getting wider screens but shorter screens. If they make the MBP 17" any wider, I might have to consider those 8' wide doorways after all.

Relax, they'll probably make another 30" display. Otherwise, the pros would be pretty upset. That Cinema Display was getting old.

If they had any intention of replacing the 30" with a successor the same size, why haven't they done so already? Since when does Apple take breaks from products? Remember when they stopped making the MacBook Pro for 2 years and then brought it back? Or when there was no Apple keyboard for a year? No, because it never happened.

 

[EljayWasHere]

There are literally HUNDREDS of decent choices from other manufacturers to get a monitor.

Yes! Thank you!

I love my Cinema 30", but some sad day the magic blue smoke will escape it.

I love my HP LP3065 (3 DVI-D DDL inputs!). Now HP has a ZR30w, too (but only 1 DVI-D DDL, and 1 DisplayPort input).

Dell offers the UltraSharp 3008WFP and 3007WFP-HC. I have no experience with these, but they are available.

NEC has the LCD3090W-BK-SV and MultiSync LCD3090WQXI-BK. Again, no experience with these.

DoubleSight Displays DS-305W. Never heard of them before, but I saw it on the Dell site.

And that's just after a quick 30 second search.

If you really want a 30" monitor, there are good ones (and probably not-so-good ones) to choose from. Which are matte, and not glossy (as it turns out, I don't detest glossy as much as I expected I would).

 

[ildondeigiocchi]

Discontinuing the 30" Apple Cinema Display is a sad and pathetic move on Apple's part. Especially since they did not release a revised version of the product. The quality of the 30" ACD simply cannot be compared to the new 27" display! (The 30" was much better in all aspects)

 

[Val-kyrie]

Prosumers/Professionals are aware of and take account of the resolutions.

Prosumers sometimes take resolution into account; high-end consumers not so much. Prosumers are not professionals.

 

[Full of Win]

Full HD is not the issue. The issue is how much more screen real estate is offered by an additional monitor. Unfortunately, most people also only look at screen size. They do not understand resolution. Personally, I think anything less than a 24" is a hard sell as an additional monitor to a consumer. They want something BIGGER, noticeably BIGGER. They look at a 15" or 17" laptop and then at a 21.5" monitor and say, why do I need the monitor? It is not that much bigger. But when they see a 27" monitor, their eyes open wide and they lust for the beautiful big picture before their eyes. Monitor sold.

Personally, I use a 24" HP LP2475W 1920x1200. I don't watch movies on it, but it adds a great deal of screen real estate on a matte screen. My preference.

Since most pro apps have bitmap UI's, then the 'real estate' argument is somewhat weak. While some consumers want the biggest and the baddest, I think there is also a market for displays without a behemoth footprint. Our school recently made a purchase of Dell monitors, but they got the 22 inch 1080 versions because it was replacing the 19 inch 5:4 Dell screens from four years ago. Surly many are in the same situation, where adding a huge 27 inch screen makes no sense given their current desk.

 

[xbjllb]

And all because my Dell 30" MATTE SCREEN arrives tomorrow

Gee Steve-o... talk about being a bad sport.

Just watch how fast this new 27" gets yanked when only a handful of ignorant brats living in windowless garrets want a glossy screen.

 

[MacAddict2000]

Let's remember that Mini DisplayPort is not backwards compatible with other video inputs, such as DVI is to VGA. There is no adapter to make a 24" or 27" LED Cinema work on an older Mac Pro with two DVI outputs for example. In fact, on the Apple Online Store, if you go to custom build a Mac Pro, it tells you that you'll need two graphics cards to use more than one LED Cinema Display. But if you were to opt for two 30" Cinema HD Displays, all you need is the Mini DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI Adapter for one of them.

 

[xbjllb]

Didn't Steve Jobs say that the monitor market was "a bag of hurt" or something like that? Maybe he was talking about computers I forget.

Shhhh..... Apple is getting out of the computer business and going whole hog into fad toys.

Don't tell anyone, and don't tell anyone I told you.

 

[xbjllb]

Is there any doubt that Apple Consumer Electronics just don't care about the pro users.

Are you STILL here?

That Steve Jobs, he's a real bag of hurt bones you know. But one we'll have no trouble kicking all the way to the landfill with all his iFrisbees and iHula Hoops and iSlinkys.

 

[xbjllb]

Sadly, this is THE reason why we have so many CRAPPY sounding albums out there so I'll have to disagree about using crap studio monitors. If you mix on CRAP, you get CRAP out. Garbage In = Garbage Out and it's NEVER been more true than in the music industry. A properly mixed album on a great system will sound as good as possibly can on any decent system. Bass and treble knobs were invented for crap speaker systems. If you mix for crap, your album sounds like crap. PERIOD. I used to review rock albums for sound quality and the one album that REALLY stands out in that regard in my mind was Firehouse's first album of the same name. I really liked a lot of the songs on it at the time, but it sounded AWFUL on my high-end rig and merely acceptable on a low-end rig (you cannot predict low-end sound; it varies far too much). Albums like the Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication add insult to injury and compress the sound so much that it literally clips like mad the entire album. How they could not hear that before they released it is beyond me. I guess they were using those crap speakers you guys were praising so much for mixing down albums with (I did notice the music videos sounded "ok" on a cheap tv speaker so I'm guessing that's EXACTLY how they missed such a travesty hack mixing job).

On Urei 809's, Yamaha NS-10's, original auratones, and Sony 7506's

Download button. Or the audio page.

 

[awmazz]

Where are they going with this 4:3 > 16:10 > 16:9 crap? Will they stop now, or are screens going to become a long thin strips with resolution 8000x20?

16:9 is good for watching movies. Everything else.... web pages, PDFs, word documents etc is screaming for more space vertically. For that stuff, 16:9 makes about as much sense as a doorway that's 8 feet wide and 4 feet high.

+100

This is why the iPad is 4:3. I look at all the supposed iPad killers so far and they're 16:9. Functional only in landscape for movies/videos, maybe games. Otherwise just the top half of web or PDF pages. 16:9 portrait real estate is just as useless, who reads a tall thin book or PDF?

 

[Anuba]

+100

This is why the iPad is 4:3. I look at all the supposed iPad killers so far and they're 16:9. Functional only in landscape for movies/videos, maybe games. Otherwise just the top half of web or PDF pages. 16:9 portrait real estate is just as useless, who reads a tall thin book or PDF?

Exactly. 4:3 is actually the most useful aspect ratio for portrait mode.

I used to have a setup with two 20" Dell screens w/ 1600x1200. Having a workspace splice in the middle bothered the hell out of me so I ordered a 30", figuring I'll live with having 2560x instead of 3200x. But then as I put the 20" on the floor I remember that they rotate. Hmm... 1600 high... same as the 30"... so I ended up putting the 20" screens in portrait mode on each side of the 30", like this (not my picture but many others have apparently figured out the same thing):

It's one of the more ergonomic multi-monitor setups around. You don't get the annoying 50/50 split in the middle, and the ability to put the screens on the sides at an angle gives you an optimal perspective from one point in the middle, you won't get that with dual monitors.

Of course with 16:10 or 16:9 screens on the sides, this setup wouldn't work. So I hope they keep 4:3 format around.

Speaking of old displays, I'm actually going to go out and snatch an Apple LED 24" before they disappear. 1920x1200 is the same res as on my MBP 17". I've used it with the Mini DisplayPort-to-DVI-DL adapter hooked up to a 30" screen, and the poor thing can barely drive 2560x1600 pixels without choking (it's either the 9400m which almost grinds to a halt, or the 9600m with the added "bonus" of a screaming fan noise).

I also don't like the idea of having a monitor with a different aspect ratio than the laptop screen. Matching resolution means not having to resize windows every time I switch between MBP+display and MBP standalone.

 

[Max(IT)]

A whole 13? Wow...

Could you understand English ? It not my language, but I'm sure that saying "13 MPs" I didn't say "13 computers" ...

As they say elsewhere on the internet, "You're doing it wrong."

Get back to me when you are managing 500+ in addition to a number of mixed OS servers.

Stop playing the "cool guy part" with me, dude.
Last time I checked, our network was composed of 462 computers plus 30/40 notebook, various brand and different os ( windows xp, windows vista, windows 7, windows server and Snow Leopard).
It is possible that I am in this field since you was in your primary school, "cool guy"

 

[awmazz]

Speaking of old displays, I'm actually going to go out and snatch an Apple LED 24" before they disappear. 1920x1200 is the same res as on my MBP 17".

This 27" display is basically the same move as the 1920x1200 screens going to 1920x1080 widescreen** to remove that 'letterbox' for fullscreen movie viewing. Fine for an external monitor on a MBP to view movies, but seriously who would choose otherwise to go down in size from 1200 to 1080 for general work if they had the option? Why would any people who use 30" displays now want to do that?

**seeing as 'widescreen' is the same width as a normal screen, it should properly be called shallowscreen instead. See how many people buy that, would want *less* if it was actually correctly called *less*...

i don't want some consumer crap with speakers and a built in isight.

That's probably the biggest clue these are for the consumer market. Who would need a camera and speakers and microphone in each display in a multiple monitor setup?

 

[toke lahti]

Turns out Apple was right but now people are complaining there aren't any Firewire 1600 or 3500 connectors, of course this is because USB3.0 is competing and maybe Apple wants to see which really is BETTER?!

They don't need any waiting and seeing. They have enough talents working for them, that can tell immediately how good are certain technologies.
There's no technical reason why all Macs couldn't have bd, usb3, eSata, ec, free pci-e, option for matte in every screen or second fw.
Many cheaper computers have these.
It's all about controlling the ecosystem and maximising the profits.
If only there were a 3rd os that CS would support...

 

[toke lahti]

I am a graphics professional. Frankly I'm sick and tired of people who haven't used one of the dreaded glossy displays criticising them.

Good for you.
I am a video professional.
I watch glossy laptop display every day and hate it.
Frankly I'm sick and tired of people who don't understand that this is a hard fact
and evidence to that people are different and because of that,
there should be options for them.

I don't care about ACD's, never bought one and looks like never will.
Fortunately almost every display on the planet works with OsX.
What I care is that when I want to use computer with OsX, Apple is taking away options all the time.
How much was cheapest MP with 8 memory banks (or at least 6 in this age of triple channel) 4 years ago? And how much is it now?
How much was cheapest MBP with any expandability (=ec slot) 4 years ago and how much is it now?

 

[pooryou]

Stupid to release new Mac Pros but not a decent monitor to use with them.
Glossy is fine for "consumers", but they won't be buying Mac Pros anyway.