Apple Preparing to Launch 27-Inch LED Cinema Display, Mac Pro Update by June?

[Digital Skunk]

No way it's going to be close to that. I'd suspect $999. Possibly $899.

Nope more like $1599 - $1799. Remember everyone, we are talking about Apple, whose coming out with an updated display with Mini-Display port. Demand will be high.

What are the chances that the 27" LED Cinema Display will have the dreaded YELLOW TINT?

I would hope none, and since there hasn't been too many cases with that I would put my money on none.

The new matching Mac pro!

An old mock up of mine ;-)

Nice, a little sloppy at the bottom. What are the internal specs? That's the ONLY reason Apple needs a redesign. Redesign it for 5 HDD bays, 2 double wide PCI slots, more USB, FW800, eSATA ports, etc. Otherwise I hope they leave it alone.

 

[Winni]

Yes please answer, because it will likely be a good laugh for many of us. The only rational CPU chips for a Mac Pro upgrade only came out earlier this week, so what would you have expected Apple to upgrade a Mac Pro with otherwise. On top of that the processors are only one check box that needs to be ticked off be for a new Mac ships.

I suspect that Apple cares a great deal about their computer business which is doing very well right now. However I suspect that it is growing tired of the immature whining and complaints about Mac Pros from people like you. You see the Mac Pro is in fact very much a business computer and is marketed to businesses as such. Most businesses do not want a platform that is constantly in flux. Instead they want a platform that supports professional usage and is built to last. The Mac Pro is not the platform for the secrataries desk.
The reality is this if you want an Apple product that responds consummer cycles and modest ineffectual upgrades then buy an iMac. If you want a Pro machine that can run at 100% capacity for days on end buy a Mac Pro. If you don't understand Apples upgrade cycles for the Mac Pro or can't read Intels road maps then the Mac Pro isn't for you.


Dave

Something tells me that you actually do not understand businesses that purchase workstation class computers at all. Yes, workstations are meant for durability, but they are also purchased because you need every bit of computing power that they offer, and high end users who need that power switch their work horses very frequently to always be on the bleeding edge -- because every CPU cycle directly translates to money for them. Every second that you do not have to wait for the machine counts, because it increases their productivity. That also explains why the workstation market is so small: Only few businesses need that sort of machine.

Also, those computers are normally purchased with support options that you cannot even get from Apple. Apple simply is not a business or enterprise oriented company. They just cater to consumers nowadays.

The businesses that do not want platforms that are always in flux do not purchase workstations at all. They buy low-end business desktops from Dell who offers them five year roadmaps and guaranteed support over the lifetime of their purchases. Dell understands business customers and sells them the support options that they need.

Oh yes, and Dell also sells high-end workstations with better specs than Mac Pros and better support options. And with professional graphics cards.

It actually is very hard to make a business case for a Mac Pro, because there is only a fistful of applications where one might need a Mac Pro. I actually can only think of three areas, and those only count when your workflow relies on Apple's own software: Aperture, Logic Studio, Final Cut Studio.

 

[harveypooka]

I suspect that Apple cares a great deal about their computer business which is doing very well right now. However I suspect that it is growing tired of the immature whining and complaints about Mac Pros from people like you. You see the Mac Pro is in fact very much a business computer and is marketed to businesses as such. Most businesses do not want a platform that is constantly in flux. Instead they want a platform that supports professional usage and is built to last. The Mac Pro is not the platform for the secrataries desk.
The reality is this if you want an Apple product that responds consummer cycles and modest ineffectual upgrades then buy an iMac. If you want a Pro machine that can run at 100% capacity for days on end buy a Mac Pro. If you don't understand Apples upgrade cycles for the Mac Pro or can't read Intels road maps then the Mac Pro isn't for you.

You can't handle the Mac Pro! It's just too much woman!

Sorry, but that post is a load of *****.

 

[Anuba]

I got a 30" Dell Ultrasharp LCD that is fantastic - and it cost less than $1,000. And yes, it IS just as color accurate as Apple's.

No surprise, since they use panels from the same manufacturer... LG if I'm not mistaken. I have a Dell WFP3007 30" which is a couple of years old, and when I researched alternatives back then I remember reading that the WFP3007 used a newer and better generation of the panel that's used in Apple's 30" screen.

I'm personally OK with glossy, but I'm not a big fan of 16:9 (I like to think of it as screens getting shorter, not wider), and what really bugs me is that Apple's table stands aren't height adjustable. You can tilt them, but that's it. Not everyone has a single-level desk... mine has two levels so that I can have a MIDI keyboard (and computer keyboard) on the main desk, below the monitors which sit on a shelf of sorts. Not a problem with the WFP3007 since you can push it so far down the bottom of the screen touches the table... but I tried putting my iMac on the monitor shelf and found myself looking up at it like a plane in the sky... and I'm 6' 4" so it's not like I'm sitting on the floor.

 

[HLdan]

Yet it's not an IPS panel, nor LED, so it's not on the same level as the LED LCD IPS panels utilized in the 24" LED LCD or the rumored 27".

@Macgizmo, you got PWND!

 

[Icaras]

Surely it would be more cost efficient for Apple to use the same 21.5" panel they use in the iMacs here as well.

Perhaps 21.5" at $799 and 27" at $999 (looking at the $200 difference between iMacs) would be killer. It would be nice if Apple did a 23" 1920x1080 too/ instead though

$799 fo a 21.5" ACD? $100 less than the 24"? I surely hope not.

And it's a $500 difference between BASE iMacs. I believe a sub $500 target for a 21.5" would be the best mass market price for such a display, but knowing Apple, a more realistic price would probably be $599.

 

[Piplodocus]

Lightpeak would be cool. Dunno if it would be ready on time though.

If they put it on my new MBP but remove the firewire as a result, meaning I can't use my £600 relatively new firewire MOTU soundcard I'm gonna go ape though and poke Mr Jobs, Mr Ive, Mr Cook and Mr Mansfield in the eye! Might poke Phil Schiller and Scott Forstall in the eye too, just so I can get the whole set!

 

[Icaras]

Nope more like $1599 - $1799. Remember everyone, we are talking about Apple, whose coming out with an updated display with Mini-Display port. Demand will be high.

Exactly. Add to that the 6+ year time span since the release of the 30" ACD + pent up customers that have been waiting for the update, and I'd say your pricing guesses sound practical in this case.

 

[HyperX13]

Mac Pro lives another year!! Woo hoo!

 

[3282868]

Talking about LED:
White LED [LCD's] do not offer better quality than CCFL [LCD's]. Apple is using white LED [LCD's} (and no RGB LED [LCD's]).

Ah, I did not know that. Hmmmm, thanks for the heads up .

 

[wizard]

You can't expect specials from Intel for every Mac Pro release.

Since you know Apples upgrade cycles from the past, you also know that Apple got pre release Xeons in the past, and even anounced a new Mac Pro line before Intels announcement in the past.

Something they may have problems with in the future as demand for Apple hardware ramps up. Especially when PC vendors are starting to see Apple as serious competition.

On the flip side there are a lot of professional customers that would object to a pro machine like the Mac Pro running on a custom processor release from intel. Obviously this depends upon the business but some times it is important to know the details of the hardware.

And since you know so much about businesses, you might also know that some businesses might care for VALUE for their MONEY. Something that the Mac Pro right now doesn't offer.

The Mac Pro is a server class machine and is still a good value even today. It isn't the excellent value that many Apple products are at release but no where near as bad as the consummer models months after release. Businesses normally buy on need and if you need Mac Pro like performance you are still getting a very good deal.

Still I have to ask how can Apple ship updates when the hardware isn't available? This is the key question and no using pre release hardware is not the answer. The communities expectations with respect to the Mac Pro are just unreasonable. I'm not even sure most users grasp what they are buying with a Mac Pro.


Dave

Besides if Apple and Intel where to be working on custom hardware right now it would be for the MBPs in my mind. A custom Arrandale that gets rid of the integrated GPU would do more for Apple than an early release Mac Pro CPU.

 

[Repo]

Lightpeak would be cool. Dunno if it would be ready on time though.

If they put it on my new MBP but remove the firewire as a result, meaning I can't use my £600 relatively new firewire MOTU soundcard I'm gonna go ape though and poke Mr Jobs, Mr Ive, Mr Cook and Mr Mansfield in the eye! Might poke Phil Schiller and Scott Forstall in the eye too, just so I can get the whole set!

There are rumors that Light Peak will be introduced (at least in Apple's hardware) in Q4 of 2010.

 

[Padriac]

Nope more like $1599 - $1799. Remember everyone, we are talking about Apple, whose coming out with an updated display with Mini-Display port. Demand will be high.

Except if this were true everybody who isn't a moron would just buy a 27" iMac for the exact same price since it can be used as an external display, and they'd get a pretty nice computer for "free". So no way the 27" ACD costs this much.

 

[MisterK]

At least there are rumours

I was excited for a new Mac Pro last week... and then this past tuesday. If they come out next month, will that be later than expected or earlier?!

I'm at least glad there are rumours of an update.

What I need is a desktop computer that's as fast as possible, lots of RAM, and an SSD so I'm ready for Creative Suite 5 in 64-bit. I need to run Photoshop files that are a few Gigs in size and do some After Effects work.

Does anyone have ideas for a perfect configuration, by the way? Where would my money be best spent? RAM? Graphics card? Fastest CPU possible?

I'm a pretty experienced designer, but the Mac has afforded me the luxury of not being a techy kinda guy. My Macbook Pro is feeling a little sluggish and I'd love to keep my next desktop workstation for 5-6 years.

 

[digiguy23]

When? 2nd week of March and still nothing new from Apple.

 

[3282868]

Except if this were true everybody who isn't a moron would just buy a 27" iMac for the exact same price since it can be used as an external display, and they'd get a pretty nice computer for "free". So no way the 27" ACD costs this much.

Exactly. Any business would be shooting themselves in their foot if they offered a product that was the same component as another product in their line but with less components (i.e. a display versus a display+computer). As the 27" iMac has the same display, the 27" ACD should be less than $1699 and more than the 24" LED LCD at $899. My guess, $1299-$1399, assuming Apple revamps the display with improvements in sound/connections.

 

[HiVolt]

Yet it's not an IPS panel, nor LED, so it's not on the same level as the LED LCD IPS panels utilized in the 24" LED LCD or the rumored 27".

The Dell 30" has always been an IPS panel. I had the original 3007WFP for 3 years, and now have the 3007WFP-HC (High Color).

 

[Icaras]

Except if this were true everybody who isn't a moron would just buy a 27" iMac for the exact same price since it can be used as an external display, and they'd get a pretty nice computer for "free". So no way the 27" ACD costs this much.

Yes, you're right. I forgot to factor in the base 27" iMac (even when I just mentioned it in a previous post ).

Since Apple's already set the bar then, perhaps a $1299 starting price might be the safest bet?

 

[deconstruct60]

Talking about LED:
White LED do not offer better quality than CCFL. Apple is using white LED (and no RGB LED).

Depends if look at how do adjustments ( or more likely do not make any in the average consumer case). If the R, G, B LEDs wear in a different rate over time the color will shift. A single LED (or more accurately lots of copies of the same LED) will likely wear the same way.

It is a trade-off. The color gamut can be wider with mixing the three primarily colors. The "white" isn't exactly white so range is more limited, but is cheaper to implement.

For screens which are typically going to be color corrected and/or gamut shifted then the white LEDs are better trade off.

Going with RGB LEDs on a 27" panel could be another value justification for why the seperate panel costs as much as an iMac. The issue for Apple though would be whether the additional engineering/development was worth it for the volume of displays they are going to sell. The problem that Apple may shot themselves in the foot with is that the display will be targeted only high value use with Macs. At that point are they really going to do enough business to make it worthwhile ??

Even if they did one... would it be another 5-6 years before a significant update.

 

[Anuba]

Still I have to ask how can Apple ship updates when the hardware isn't available?

They obviously can't upgrade the computers with non-existing processors, but during the loooooong stretch between the old and the upcoming Mac Pro they could've tried sweetening the deal a little to accomodate for the outdated specs. They could've lowered the price, they could've bumped the baseline spec up from the puny 3 GB RAM and the one hundred year old NVidia GT120 (rebranded 8600) to something a little less pitiful.

 

[l0nd0n]

Sick of waiting

Been waiting for way too long for the update on the pro line. Just going to have to buy a used system from last year and have that for the next 3-4 years.

Sorry Apple but I was waiting to update my Macbook pro and Mac Pro at the same time. Since I've been waiting for so long I figure now that I can do without a new Macbook pro and get by for awhile with a used system at a reduced cost.

I'm sure I won't be the cause of Apple not having a Christmas party this year but I'd sure be sad if I found out that someone wanted to give me $7,000 but didn't in the end.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

The Mac Pro is a server class machine and is still a good value even today.

In terms of performance per dollar, Apple's quad core is crappy no matter how you slice it. Only the dual quad core machines are competitive on price.

Still I have to ask how can Apple ship updates when the hardware isn't available? This is the key question and no using pre release hardware is not the answer. The communities expectations with respect to the Mac Pro are just unreasonable. I'm not even sure most users grasp what they are buying with a Mac Pro.

Most of the other vendors who announced core i9 systems have a ship date near the end of march ( I priced one out yesterday with a ship date of March 25th), so you might be right that it's just around the corner and Apple will only announce it when they can ship it. June seems like a long ways off, though.

 

[NT1440]

They obviously can't upgrade the computers with non-existing processors, but during the loooooong stretch between the old and the upcoming Mac Pro they could've tried sweetening the deal a little to accomodate for the outdated specs. They could've lowered the price, they could've bumped the baseline spec up from the puny 3 GB RAM and the one hundred year old NVidia GT120 (rebranded 8600) to something a little less pitiful.

Could have and have to are very different things in the business world.

 

[brendon2020]

cannot wait, hopefully we'll see the 30'' acd as well

 

[milo]

They obviously can't upgrade the computers with non-existing processors, but during the loooooong stretch between the old and the upcoming Mac Pro they could've tried sweetening the deal a little to accomodate for the outdated specs. They could've lowered the price, they could've bumped the baseline spec up from the puny 3 GB RAM and the one hundred year old NVidia GT120 (rebranded 8600) to something a little less pitiful.

Exactly. Obviously they can't bump the cpu in the top model, but they can shift the respective CPUs down into lower price points. Or keep the same configs but drop prices as the months pass and the chips themselves get cheaper.

Not to mention the biggie, once chips are cheap enough, they could bump the base quad to an 8 core and make the quad a cheaper BTO only.