I, for one, do not care to see ACDs doubling as televisions. I have two 23" ACDs and they're great for what I do (visual effects for film and photography on the side). The color, the contrast, the brightness, the resolution; they're all just right.
ACDs don't have an extraordinarily high refresh rate. Spec-for-spec, they don't offer as much bang for the buck as some other displays that offer similar sizes and resolutions with 2ms refresh rates. But those specs don't matter when I'm looking at some other brand of screen and it straight-up doesn't look as good as my ACDs (in terms of color recreation, true contrast, even backlighting, etc).
But Apple displays do have lower than average refresh rates (among high-end monitors). So if you used it as a TV, the action would be blurry. I'd worry that overall image quality would go down if they sacrificed the current screens for higher-refresh rate ones. The simple truth is, when you're using an ACD in a professional setting (as is their purpose), and working on 24fps film or still photography, refresh rate doesn't matter too much once you get to a reasonable level (where they are now). Perhaps a few milliseconds would be nice, but having a 2ms refreshing display is of no concern unless you're playing video games or watching high-framerate sports (which are often broadcast at 60i or - now - 60p even).
Also, ACDs are 16x10 aspect ratio; HDTVs are 16x9. A lot of HD sources would have trouble scaling their image to this aspect ratio. Most HD sources (cable boxes, satellite receivers, Xbox, etc) are only configured to display letterboxed 4x3 or native 16x9. So if you forced it into a 16x10 ACD (that aspect ratio is not likely to change), it might automatically stretch the image vertically or put black bars at the top and bottom and give the user no choice between the two (because the source doesn't understand 16x10 and therefore can't correct the problem). When you hook up a computer to an ACD and play a game, usually the game software has an option for 16x10 display mode because so many computer monitors use this aspect ratio.
So, updates I'd want:
iSight option would be nice. I use my Mac Pro in a professional setting, yet I'd still like to be able to use my Mac Pro for video conferencing (right now, I switch over to my MacBook Pro). If it were an option, those buying two could order it in their primary display and not bother with it in their secondary. I don't know if Apple would ever off such an option, though. It's so unobtrusive in iMacs and MBPs, though, and it has to be a pretty cheap device for them to manufacture, so I don't see the harm in having it.
Perhaps a new ultra-high-res 40" model. It'd be nice for 4k visual effects work and 12mp photographs, I know that! Apple pushed the industry forward once by offering a 2560x1600 30" before anyone else. Perhaps they can up the ante again.
Also, it's time to lower prices. Apple displays are worth more than all of the cheap alternatives because they look better, but I think that their prices should drop because the technology has become cheaper to produce, regardless of their continual superiority. Follow the market, but maintain and scale the price gap.
I don't care if they change the design; I'm happy with the current design but Ive and the boys (and girls) turn out nothing but solid gold, so if they redesign it, I'm sure it'll be beautiful.
tv and various other devices, ultimately getting ACDs into homes as well as studios...
