Apple Preps for Thunderbolt Display Release with MacBook Air EFI Firmware Update

[Mr. Retrofire]

I cannot understand the obsession with the strong desire for USB 3.0.

In 2012 (just a few months) every Mac will have USB 3.0 because it is the new, backwards-compatible USB-standard on the Ivy Bridge platform, and USB 3.0 hardware exists today. Cheap, reliable, fast. So it is not an obsession. It is the reality.

The only obsession i can see, is the obsession regarding (non-existing) Thunderbolt hardware.

 

[Icaras]

These displays are definitely a rip off but Apple built this as a luxury machine intended for the rich. Sure it may be 1000$ but people will flock to but it just because its apple. The thunderbolt port is useless as my Windows computer only has USB and many others only have USB.

You're in the wrong thread, sir.

 

[jsolares]

The Apple Displays look so nice, but it's hard to justify purchasing a monitor for $1000 when there's Samsung monitors for $300. I have other Apple hardware, but a display seems just like any other display. Can somebody tell me what the big draw is? (besides obvious design aesthetics!)

Well when the 300$ samsung is quite inferior to the apple one it's not that hard, specially considering resolution, colors.

I was looking elsewhere for a high-quality monitor like the 27" display, but all I found were these around $400 monitors that were certainly 27" displays, but were limited to the 1080P resolution of 1920 x 1080 and none at the Apple monitor's 2560 x 1440.

I looked over at Dell and they have 27" IPS monitors that can do 2560 x 1440 but they're like fricken $1200. Again, Dell has lower cost monitors but they're only 1080P ones. What happened to other manufacturers having lower cost hardware yet the same quality as Apple?

Are there any high end 27" monitors with 2560 x 1440 that are under the $999 of Apple? Or is this thing truly a bargain?

I wouldn't call it a bargain, there are dells that go for around 800$ with rebates, but almost everything else is 999 as well or higher. with similar specs that is.

Well, that would mean people are paying the extra $700 for a Thunderbolt port.

Nope, look closely at the specs of that 300$ display.

No, it's over priced. Thunderbolt ports bring no real added functionality except... an extra port. Sure, I guess you could daisy chain from both ports, but how many peripherals does one have? Wait, not, it doesn't because you use the port on your portable to dock. So you still have to daisy chain out of 1 single port.

It serves no real use. If I'm not mistaken, the thunderbolt port is now your video out as well? So they kind of had to have a port there. A port not the full component that is in the computer. It's like an extension cord.

Defend it all you want, but Apple monitors have always been priced for design and not specs. If someone else made one of these it would be $300 cheaper. It's how Apple rolls

Only dells makes a similar model that's sometimes cheaper than the apple 27".

The thunderbolt displays is also a dock, it's not just a thunderbolt port, you get gigabit ethernet, firewire and several usb ports on the display from connecting just one thunderbolt port.

Wait what? I seriously thought these displays came out about a month ago, I guess I got confused

They were announced and available for sale then, they

Can't agree on the price. It's a $750 hub with no USB 3 or eSATA.

why 750$?? what display are you comparing it to? look at the specs closely again.

I cannot understand the obsession with the strong desire for USB 3.0. Don't get me wrong, it would be great but I feel as if even if apple added it, then someone would complain something doesn't have thunderbolt support and so on.

On another note I pray to God that the new displays don't have issues with color. I had gone through an iMac and a display with yellow color tinge about 6 months ago

I cannot understand the strong sentiment against USB 3.0, i also wonder the same about display quality.

Granted not everyone needs a 27" 2560x1440 display, but if you want one there aren't much options nor much cheaper

 

[gugy]

Come on Apple a 30"+ ACD with matte screen option.!!!!

 

[JMB1911]

don't know why apple shows the ACD with an air, my new 13 inch air couldn't drive the ACD all that well.....did decent on most things but when I upgraded to a 15 inch pro i noticed a major difference

 

[hefeglass]

^thats just a lie....


or your system is running like crap




there are plenty of videos showing the air running the ACD and its own display with absolutely no problems..

in fact..there are several of the previous model airs doing the same

i currently have a new air and it runs fine at that resolution..

 

[Mobster1983]

I bought a MacBook Air on Friday and ordered a Thunderbolt display with it. I received an email telling me the thunderbolt display will be shipped September 30th.

 

[toxic]

for those complaining about the price who can't be bothered to do basic research:

all the "cheap" (<$500) 27" displays use a cheap panel technology (TN). no one has made a TN panel with a resolution greater than 1920x1200. Apple, since the aluminum ACDs, has been using IPS, which is currently the most expensive widely-used panel technology. IPS panels can display colors more accurately, have a wider color gamut, hold color calibrations better, and have significantly wider viewing angles, though typically at the cost of lower max contrast. Apple has been getting around the contrast issue using glossy displays, which are inherently more contrasty than matte displays.

as of now, the only 27" competitors to the 27" ACD are the DoubleSight DS-275 ($840) and DS-277 ($1000), and the Hazro HZ27 (~£450) in the UK. they are all 27", sRGB/72% NTSC monitors. the ACD is LED backlit and has speakers and a webcam, the DS's are CCFL backlit, lack a webcam, and only the DS-277 has speakers. the DS-277 can be raised, lowered, and pivoted, which the ACD can't. the Hazros resemble the DS-277.

so the $999 for a 27" ACD gets you the 27" IPS monitor, a webcam, speakers, magsafe, and extra inputs (FW800/USB), plus the Apple aluminum aesthetics. the TB Display replaces the extra inputs and serves as a dock instead through the TB cable. it's not a better or worse deal because only current, TB-enabled Macs can connect through it to use the dock feature. everyone else has to buy the ACD.

also, the Dell U2711 is not a competitor to the ACD. it is a wide-gamut/102% NTSC display and is aimed at certain creative professionals. it competes with displays like the NEC PA271 and Eizo SX2762.

 

[RobertMartens]

Now if I had money falling out of my bum, I'd buy 3.

Try putting a lot of hundreds in a zip lock bag and swallowing it. Then wait.

----------

I bought a MacBook Air on Friday and ordered a Thunderbolt display with it. I received an email telling me the thunderbolt display will be shipped September 30th.

Did you join MacRumors JUST to tell us this?

 

[hanswalk]

re

Who is Kyle Massey? The young Disney Channel star is perhaps the most surprising contestant to join the 'Dancing With the Stars' season 11 cast.

 

[md11]

+100

I hope this update is adding an option to turn glossy off.

 

[THX1139]

Thunderbolt? Yeah... okay, but there aren't any affordable peripherals to go with it. I'd rather they stayed with MiniDisplay port and added USB 3.0 instead.

 

[SeaFox]

So, TBolt means upgrading your BIOS just to attach a display?

I thought that we'd eliminated that kind of crap in the early 1990's.

Honestly I think Apple has their software made to be *exclusionary* in it's support. In other words, I think it's made to only work on stuff they've specifically released, and I believe this is done because of how behind the times Apple hardware is verses the rest of the PC world quite often. You ever notice how Apple has to release a new version of iTunes to support it's new lineup of iPods, even when they make little to no changes in the hardware itself?

When I built my last PC (Core i7, 6 GB RAM) I was able to install Windows XP 64-bit, original release, not SP2 or even SP1, and it worked fine. Contrast that to people who were building Hackintoshes at the time. They all had to use Core and Core2 chips. The reason was because OSX didn't support the Core i7 processors. This support did not appear until just before Apple shipped the Mac Pros that featured these processors.

Why is it Apple has to release a special build of OSX to support the new processors, and this build only appears after they come out with their own i7 machines, when a nine year old version of Windows "just works" with hardware that wasn't even conceived at the time of it's release? Seems to me OSX is written specifically not to run on processors Apple hasn't blessed.

For the reason, we should all look back at the PowerPC clone eras, where for quite a bit of the time the fastest Macintosh systems (Apple or otherwise) were built by Power Computing. How much egg would be on Apple's face if Hackintosh builders were able to get a Mac system going using off-the-shelf Core i7 chips, while Apple fanbois were still asking Apple when they were even going to announce a Ci7 system?

When I finished building that system the total hardware cost was $900, and before you Apple-markup apologists make the statement, no, it wasn't "cheap" hardware. It was high quality stuff. A case that has become legendary among DIYers, 850W over 80% effic. power supply, name brand RAM, nicer hard drive than you get in an Apple Time Capsule. When Apple released their Mac Pro with an i7, starting costs were more than twice what I paid, and it was a whole year later that Apple released that system. That's a long time in computer hardware price-point time.

So to answer the question, why does one have to update the [EFI] just to attach the display? I betcha Apple had the Thunderbolt support written specifically to keep it from working with displays until they had time to release one of their own. Can't have someone beating Apple to the market after all.

 

[Torrijos]

Still waiting for a different brand suggestion for a cheaper 27" inch LED backlit display with at least a 2560x1440 resolution (important!!).

Matte and no shiny frame would be a plus, Samsung tend to put shiny black plastic around their screens reflecting overhead lights (I've had to put masking tape on the top of mine just to avoid the annoyance).

 

[Mike Oxard]

Is the panel in the TB display exactly the same as the one in the 27" iMac ?

 

[twilson]

Well, as I mentioned in my post above, Samsung 27" monitors are limited to 1080p resolution and aren't IPS while the Apple 27" is 2560 x 1440 IPS monitors. Dell also sells a lower end 27" monitor for 300-400 bucks, but it's only 1080p also. It's 2560 x 1440 monitor is more expensive than Apple's...for the same size.

----------



Cool...who? Who makes a 27" 2560 x 1440 IPS monitor for less? I honestly want to know because I'd like to get one. Granted, all I looked at so far was Dell, and they may be overpriced now. But in the past, they were the ones offering the lower cost yet high end alternative to Apple monitors.

That's the thing most people don't get. The $300-400 1080p monitors are just glorified HDTVs with VGA/DVI connectors, and their tolerances and display specs reflect that. True MONITORS have much higher scan rates than the 50/60Hz of the 1080p TVs, and generally have smaller response times.

 

[Lennyvalentin]

Still waiting for a different brand suggestion for a cheaper 27" inch LED backlit display with at least a 2560x1440 resolution (important!!).

You're still waiting because THERE ISN'T ANY! Sorry for shouting at you, but several people have already posted this fact several times on each page of the thread. This is a high-end display type, with high-end specs, and all currently available models unsurprisingly also carry high-end price tags.

All the cheap 27" displays have inferior LCD panels (VA or TN tech), and typically also lower resolution.

The Samsung S27A850 or whatsitscalled, carrying a PLS LCD display which is comparable to high-end IPS, is a bit cheaper than Apple's offerings and has a USB3 hub built-in, but it is made of plastic instead of metal and glass, and also lacks (HD) camera, microphone, 50W speakers, magsafe connector (no biggie if you don't own a macbook), and in the case of the thunderbolt display, gigabit networking, firewire 800 and daisy-chain connections.

So you can't both have cake and eat it I'm afraid. If you want the good stuff when it comes to computer displays you must pay for the privilege.

 

[johnnyturbouk]

i really, really, want one of these, 2 would be better

However, i have a sneaky suspicion that apple will refresh these in 2012 when they ship out ivy bridge hardware + native support for USB3

This would definitely make the ATD the ultimate display!

 

[PlipPlop]

That is completely false. The Thunderbolt port is not just an extra port. It's an extra port that is compatible with every other kind of port.

Without this display, my Macbook Air has no ability to connect to my gigabit ethernet. With the Thunderbolt display, it does.

Without this display, my Macbook Air has no ability to connect to my firewire 800 drive. With the Thunderbolt display, it does.

It's not just an extension cord. It's allowing me to use devices/networking that I'm not otherwise able to.

What ridiculous is that those ports are not on an expensive Mac laptop.

 

[dr Dunkel]

the apple thunderbolt display costs 8954 SEK in Sweden, the DELL ultrasharp 27" goes for roughly 6000 (no thunderbolt, no firewire, no webcam) and the Samsung 27" is roughly 6500. The HP equivalent costs 7000. I'd say that the pro's of buying the apple one clearly outweighs the price increase from the DELL variant, but if I didn't have thunderbolt on the computer I'd might think otherwise. The other screens have roughly the same panels and both DELL and HP usually have very nice footstands (all have VESA so that should be interchangeable).

Yeah, that 50% up on the Dell U27 sure makes one wonder if the design is worth it.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I cannot understand the obsession with the strong desire for USB 3.0.

Pay no mind to it. The "USB 3.0 is more desirable than TB" is coming from the same place as the one for Netbooks when the iPad was announced.

I'm not equating USB 3.0 w/ Netbooks, just that some people see new connectivity or device competition as zero sum, rather than just another option from which to choose. But there doesn't always have to be just one winner. USB 3.0 and TB can and will live together. Intel supports both of them, and Apple will too once Ivy Bridge ships next year.

So to answer the question, why does one have to update the [EFI] just to attach the display? I betcha Apple had the Thunderbolt support written specifically to keep it from working with displays until they had time to release one of their own. Can't have someone beating Apple to the market after all.

Geez. See Black Helicopters much? Apple doesn't care what monitor you use and companies beat Apple to market all the time. Steve Jobs even acknowledged as much saying other companies come out first, but Apple releases product when it's refined and ready.

 

[mijail]

When I built my last PC (Core i7, 6 GB RAM) I was able to install Windows XP 64-bit, original release, not SP2 or even SP1, and it worked fine. Contrast that to people who were building Hackintoshes at the time. They all had to use Core and Core2 chips. The reason was because OSX didn't support the Core i7 processors. This support did not appear until just before Apple shipped the Mac Pros that featured these processors.

So: you're saying that Windows is prepared to work in a wider range of hardware than OS X, and Hackintosh users were hacking the mostly hardware-specific OS X to work on non-approved hardware.
Gasp! Picture me shocked.

Meanwhile, it would be maybe interesting to see how "fine" that Windows worked. Mind you, I'm sure it worked; I am not so sure I'd want to work with it.

Seems to me OSX is written specifically not to run on processors Apple hasn't blessed.

Yep, I think people tend to call that "integration", and is usually regarded as one thing Apple does right.

How much egg would be on Apple's face if Hackintosh builders were able to get a Mac system going using off-the-shelf Core i7 chips, while Apple fanbois were still asking Apple when they were even going to announce a Ci7 system?

Ok, let's indulge on guessing. How much egg would be on Hackintosh builders' faces if even after their efforts people still preferred Apple's machines?

So to answer the question, why does one have to update the [EFI] just to attach the display? I betcha Apple had the Thunderbolt support written specifically to keep it from working with displays until they had time to release one of their own. Can't have someone beating Apple to the market after all.

A-ha, I get it. So they were trying to fend off all the rest of Thunderbolt display builders!
Oh wait...

 

[FuNGi]

Where the hell is the 2011 MacBook Pro Thunderbolt update that fixes all of the flickering display issues!?

And where is the fix for the Mac mini incompatibility with the 24" ACD through the thunderbolt port. Apple is really losing quality and polish IMO.

+1. I laughed at how these comments were "down-voted" because they suggest a bit of frustration with a line backwards compatability. Truth be told many people are having issues with the old 24" displays flickering on new Thunderbolt equipped machines. Don't want to hear about it? Well I wish I didn't have to live with it. For several months AppleCare has been slow to acknowledge the problem and now takes to promising an eminent software fix. Still waiting.

 

[Buteo]

Eizo

EIZO is a great monitor for what I do for photography. Eizo is one of the standards for photography. The new Eizo coloredge specs are equal to or better than the thunderbolt display. For what I do, photography, the Eizo's are better than the ATD, in terms of color gamut. I have used a Coloredge 241w (which is not as good as the ATD based on the specs but better for gamut) for many years. This is the brand of monitors that people should be using for comparison to the ATD. I am purchasing the ATD for the following reasons:

Equal specs to the Eizo for half the cost before taking inot account that you get ports and speakers with the ATD

The ability to use multiple monitors with my MBP. The inability to use multiple monitors with my MBP has been a major failing of Apple's

In other words, i get my multiple monitors for the price of one Eizo monitor and give up some gamut. While I would like the gamut, when I am doing work that is that critical, I can hook my Eizo up

 

[gnasher729]

Honestly I think Apple has their software made to be *exclusionary* in it's support. In other words, I think it's made to only work on stuff they've specifically released, and I believe this is done because of how behind the times Apple hardware is verses the rest of the PC world quite often. You ever notice how Apple has to release a new version of iTunes to support it's new lineup of iPods, even when they make little to no changes in the hardware itself?

When I built my last PC (Core i7, 6 GB RAM) I was able to install Windows XP 64-bit, original release, not SP2 or even SP1, and it worked fine. Contrast that to people who were building Hackintoshes at the time. They all had to use Core and Core2 chips. The reason was because OSX didn't support the Core i7 processors. This support did not appear until just before Apple shipped the Mac Pros that featured these processors.

So it seems that Windows XP worked on machines where you were legally allowed to install it, and MacOS X worked on machines where you were legally allowed to install it. So what's the difference?