Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Preparing to Launch 27-Inch LED Cinema Display, Mac Pro Update by June?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Did you even read any of this? It says "by June".
I have to admit this is getting very ridiculous. It's been more than a year since the Mac Pro's have been updated and they usually get updated every 10-12 months. The MacBook Pro's are almost 10 months old. Both of those cycles are WAY above average. While I see WWDC 2010 (which is in June for the few who might not know) as the latest possible date these machines, I doubt it's going to hold out that long. I'd say they get updated at or around March 30th (March 30th is a Tuesday, april 3rd is a Saturday and the day the wifi iPad is available). Maybe April 5th, the Tuesday after.
Not sure if its mentioned, however does this really make any logical sense. Lets look at some of the facts:
1) 21" iMac will allow the monitor to accept an external video source.
2) 24" ACD LED IPS is not a true 16x9 ratio, though display only.
3) 27" iMac will allow the monitor to accept an external video source.
would the next display option not be a...
4) 30" ACD LED IPS is not a true 16x9 ratio, though display only.
Why would
release and carry 2x27" display/AIO option when it would clearly be advantageous to buy the 27" iMac and use the display with an external video source when need be. It makes more sense to release a 30" to match the present offering or exceeding the specs. Take this for simple math for thought:
21+3 = 24
24+3 = 27
27+3 = 30
My hunch is that this rumour should state 30" vice 27" LED ACD IPS displays.
1) 21" iMac will allow the monitor to accept an external video source.
2) 24" ACD LED IPS is not a true 16x9 ratio, though display only.
3) 27" iMac will allow the monitor to accept an external video source.
would the next display option not be a...
4) 30" ACD LED IPS is not a true 16x9 ratio, though display only.
Why would
release and carry 2x27" display/AIO option when it would clearly be advantageous to buy the 27" iMac and use the display with an external video source when need be. It makes more sense to release a 30" to match the present offering or exceeding the specs. Take this for simple math for thought:21+3 = 24
24+3 = 27
27+3 = 30
My hunch is that this rumour should state 30" vice 27" LED ACD IPS displays.
A slower than many consumer towers processor (i7), with an outdated gpu, 3 gb ram and a 640 gb hd with 1 year warranty is good value today? I'll just leave it at that.
And the hardware is available - since a week for the general public. You think that the technical department of a major computer manufacturer waits for an official release and doesn't get pre release samples for testing and designing?
The only thing stopping Apple from updating their lineup is that oversized iPod Touch that is oh so magical.
They are going to use the same panel that is in the 27" iMac?! As someone who returned a 27" iMac because of yellow tinting this is not good news.
They had better get their act together before releasing something based on the same technology or they are in for a flood of bad press and returns.
They had better get their act together before releasing something based on the same technology or they are in for a flood of bad press and returns.
Firewire 800 ports and better speakers would make it ALMOST worth the glossy screen.
Now I'm going to have to buy another 30" ACD to save my eyes for another three years.
Now I'm going to have to buy another 30" ACD to save my eyes for another three years.
Instead of worrying about apple product A cannibalizing apple product B it would make more sense to worry about any apple product cannibalizing any competitors product by having competitive offerings.
This would have to be 1000-1200 $ or less to make sense to many users; since the 27 inch iMac can also take mini DisplayPort input.
It doesn't work like that with Xeon based systems from all the product releases I have seen since the transition to Core based architecture. Also Apple are in a unique position in that they are the only company that sell Xeon systems at a retail level which may change things for them.
Why would
...
My hunch is that this rumour should state 30" vice 27" LED ACD IPS displays.
IT would also make sense to sell a 27" though so you can connect one to your 27" iMac and have 2x 27" screens! You could buy a fake steering wheel, play videos of hippies and pretend your in a '60s split-screen camper!
But it would still make sense to have a 30" regardless...
It did exist and was available. Intel announced when the chips would be available in volume quantities. Anyone who builds servers and agrees to sign an NDA has likely had samples for a long while now. Server vendors typically to long QA cycles on new hardware. If HP and Dell are dropping new servers with these in them ... then they have been available to vendors for a while.
Intel openly talks about new CPU packages far in advance of when they ship in volume. Likewise they ship samples far in advance of when that date is.
Similarly, it is the exact SAME socket as last year. So could do new boards with the "old" processors to hammer out new features ( e.g., USB 3.0 , slot adjustments, new RAID cards , PowerSupply design changes , DIMM adjustments , etc.). Sure you'd have to go back and do a system QA verification with the new processor to make sure there is no glitches but that isn't a show stopper. The new Mac Pros should have stuff that includes other things than just a new CPU package chip.
I have no idea why folks are surprised with the late arrival of MacBook Pros. Apple updated the MBPs last June. The arrival time for Arrandale was going to be too close to that date to get a full run of that design shipped out and costs recovered. The intel processor announcement was not aligned with the Apple product release. So going to get cycles of where the gap is much longer than folks will like.
In contrast, the MacPro was updated about a year and was aligned with Intel CPU announcement. The XServe came out around April ( again within a month of Intel announcement.) In fact last year the MacPro was a bit early. Shipped announced a couple of weeks before Intel Announcement. This year they appear that will be a couple of weeks behind. However, that in no way puts it at June.
Guess what, most likely next March/April Intel is going to announce the next major Xeon tweak. Year after that likely ... March/April again. Folks who buy expensive "enterprise" equipment like predictable regular schedules. So do folks who build the equipment.
Apple is strange. Can do predictable yearly updates on consumer product stuff. But Mac stuff slip slides around all over the calendar. I understand Mac OS X doing that.... it is complicated software. The hardware (and relatively minor device driver updates for Mac OS X ) not so much.
June would mean either doing something that "revolutionary" ( something other than CPU or current standard interfaces ) that didn't quite work right or some other major change. If Apple is throwing the MacPro announcement under the bus to align with LightPeak that is kind of whacked (from the consumer perspective). I could see them trying to do that though. It isn't necessary since could just sell some sort of LightPeak PCI-e card. Doesn't have to be built onto the motherboard if having birthing pains.
Not sure if its mentioned, however does this really make any logical sense. Lets look at some of the facts:
1) 21" iMac WILL NOT allow the monitor to accept an external video source.
2) 24" ACD LED IPS is not a true 16x9 ratio, though display only.
3) 27" iMac will allow the monitor to accept an external video source.
would the next display option not be a...
4) 30" ACD LED IPS is not a true 16x9 ratio, though display only.
Why would
21+3 = 24
24+3 = 27
27+3 = 30
My hunch is that this rumour should state 30" vice 27" LED ACD IPS displays.
Fixed. I think you just had a slip of the fingers there.
Exactly what Apple wants you to do. Buy last years computer, so they can get rid of them. Hard to believe some ***** tipped this site about March 16th release, as if it were a fact.
We'll be lucky to see a Mac Pro update before July.
I'm not sure you guys realize that Apple can't upgrade without suitable chips.
This is the number one point that I see people fail to address. Apple can't update a machine without the hardware to do so. To expect them to force new chips from Intel for every release is unreasonable.
In any event even if we focus on only the high performance computing market needs vary widely. For many a LightPeak connector might be just as useful. It could be used for disk array access or clustering if it lives up to performance claims.
This doesn't even address the issue of people that have moved past relying on the CPUs and have gone to GPU computing.
The fact remains that Apple can't directly address everyones specific needs. As much of a niche machine that the Mac Pro is it is still a general purpose computer. A computer that unfortunately has volumes that can't support rapid updates.
If your ability to make money is really tied so closely to the speed of you computer you are on the wrong platform. Either that or you need multiple machines. Because honestly within a few weeks of getting a faster machine it will be to slow again. Let's not fool ourselves here, it isn't going to make a difference for you when a faster Mac Pro comes out. Especially if your competition uses the same hardware.
As to the graphics card issue (a personal pet peve with Apple) it is and has been a real issue. It is pretty sad that I can often get better cards and drives for my Linux based machines. For many this is a bigger issue than the CPUs, but we don't see people demanding the latest graphics card in the Mac Pro three days after the chips are released.
actually simply running UNIX could be a good enough reason. I have to otherwise dismiss your statements because the value in a Mac Pro for business depends upon what you measure it against and how well Apple specific technologies work against the alternatives. In many cases the Mac Pro is a very good value, even todays model.
Dave
This is the number one point that I see people fail to address. Apple can't update a machine without the hardware to do so. To expect them to force new chips from Intel for every release is unreasonable.
Yes there is a subset of Mac Pro users that use every CPU cycle. But what does that have to do with the noise we gear on this forum? Nothing because such users will ALWAYS max out their machines.
I don't know about small it is just that Apple has a very small portion of the high performance computing market. In any event the Mac Pro serves a wider audience than that segment.
In any event even if we focus on only the high performance computing market needs vary widely. For many a LightPeak connector might be just as useful. It could be used for disk array access or clustering if it lives up to performance claims.
This doesn't even address the issue of people that have moved past relying on the CPUs and have gone to GPU computing.
The fact remains that Apple can't directly address everyones specific needs. As much of a niche machine that the Mac Pro is it is still a general purpose computer. A computer that unfortunately has volumes that can't support rapid updates.
If your ability to make money is really tied so closely to the speed of you computer you are on the wrong platform. Either that or you need multiple machines. Because honestly within a few weeks of getting a faster machine it will be to slow again. Let's not fool ourselves here, it isn't going to make a difference for you when a faster Mac Pro comes out. Especially if your competition uses the same hardware.
Then why all the whining here from the collected professionals demanding that Apple pull faster machines out of it ass.
You are talking about companies buying computers for secrataries and managers. The place I work for follows that model. It does nit however apply that model to engineers and designers that actually need the power of a workstation like computer. They may still look towards Dell for support but it is a different class of hardware.
So do a lot of other companies. That is not to say that the iMac is poorly spec'ed or engineered just that server grade hardware comes in a wide range of capabilities. Even so the market is pretty much the same with longer upgrade cycles to what ever platform we are talking about.
As to the graphics card issue (a personal pet peve with Apple) it is and has been a real issue. It is pretty sad that I can often get better cards and drives for my Linux based machines. For many this is a bigger issue than the CPUs, but we don't see people demanding the latest graphics card in the Mac Pro three days after the chips are released.
actually simply running UNIX could be a good enough reason. I have to otherwise dismiss your statements because the value in a Mac Pro for business depends upon what you measure it against and how well Apple specific technologies work against the alternatives. In many cases the Mac Pro is a very good value, even todays model.
Dave
Somehow I don't see anyone editing hi def video or running other Pro Apps on their iPad. The needs and the audience are entirely different. One isn't going to bite into the sales of the other. And face it, while some of us are passionate about our need for new Mac Pros, they're not gonna make the covers of any major magazines unlike the magical tablets. Apple should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time with these 2 completely different classes of products, and get the Mac Pros out when they're ready regardless of the marketing of their latest consumer gizmo.
A number of posts have addressed exactly that, not sure if you missed them or ignored them.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.0.1; en-us; Droid Build/ESD56) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17)
I was half beliving Apple would drop the Mac Pro and their desktop display line other than the laptop-centric 24".
June? Really? They've devoted so much to the soemwhat overhyped iPad that they've lost sight of everything else!
Looks like Apple cares more for iPod users than for the Pro users that kept them afloat during the lean years.
Remember, Apple - trust is hard to earn and easy to lose.
I was half beliving Apple would drop the Mac Pro and their desktop display line other than the laptop-centric 24".
June? Really? They've devoted so much to the soemwhat overhyped iPad that they've lost sight of everything else!
Looks like Apple cares more for iPod users than for the Pro users that kept them afloat during the lean years.
Remember, Apple - trust is hard to earn and easy to lose.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
As long as it isn't glossy.
As long as it isn't glossy.
Doesn't make sense.
1. Unless Apple radically enhances the internals of a separate display ( better lightr , gamut , control , etc. ) that costs as much as the internals of an iMac 27" they could bring in a "display only" 27 at a much lower cost ( and/or higher profit margin; in the case of charging approximately the same).
Apple's 27" monitor has to compete with other 27" monitors. If those other ones aren't saddled with computer components (and associated costs), it will be trivial to beat the crap out of Apple's price point.
2. Likewise going with a panel do not buy in bulk ( 30" ) is also going to either drive up the price of the display to the point it isn't as competitive or relatively nuke the profit margins. Neither one of those is a smart move on Apple's part.
In contrast, but using the same panels 24" and 27" that are already buying in bulk for iMac, Apple can get similar economy of scale that their competitors who sell into the overall personal computer/workstation also enjoy. The IPS panels are a high cost component. The lower they can make those, the more money they will make ( either by charging higher prices and taking above average margins or by coming to market in a price competitive point and incrementally improving margins on both iMacs and displays.).
Very similar motivations in previous generation Mac with the Nvidia 9400 eventually showing up on practically all of the Macs produced. A uniform component in higher volume typically leads to better margins.
The iMac 27 as a monitor is a "nice to have" feature. Not a major competing factor. It is "nice" for those who may have a laptop and want to plug in to get big screen from time to time. Or a way to eek out a bit more utility out of an 'too old' iMac when upgrade to better computer. (e.g., buy next gen iMac and just use old one to get "2 screen set up" and still have an emergency fall back computer. )
Would be surprised if Apple makes enough on a 27" derivative to make it worth while ( must have 29-35 % margins ). A 30" version would be doom. (e.g, the completely non value price competitive pricing on the current 30" ... it is just in the store because it already existed and the R&D is already paid for. )