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 Thunderbolt Display Supplies Again Running Low at Third-Party Resellers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
An internal design that doesn't look like it's made of scavenged parts would also be nice 
(referring to the weird thunderbolt cable that is in there). And FANLESS please!
I am also somewhat hoping that this will be the first desktop retina screen, 4K? But perhaps it's too early for that.
(referring to the weird thunderbolt cable that is in there). And FANLESS please!I am also somewhat hoping that this will be the first desktop retina screen, 4K? But perhaps it's too early for that.
Apple must be waiting for Thunderbolt 2. Otherwise I don't see any technical reason.
4K (retina or not) in a 27" screen or smaller
USB 3
TB2
Thin, like the iMac
No bezel
We can hope. I hope they make a smaller model as well.
USB 3
TB2
Thin, like the iMac
No bezel
We can hope. I hope they make a smaller model as well.
I am really curious as to how Apple will update Thunderbolt Display.
In the short term, I think new 27-inch display will largely resemble updated iMac (minus the chin), with reduced reflection, elimination of the cover glass, and USB 3.0 ports.
Apple will eventually follow up with Thunderbolt 4K Display, possibly accompanying Mac Pro launch. The key question is how big.
Seiki is launching 39" 4K (3840x2160) 30Hz for only $700 this month. While Apple will undoubtably use much higher quality display with higher refresh rate, larger 4K panel is probably cheaper than smaller retina quality 4K panel.
In order to archive 200-ish PPI retina resolution, however, Apple would have to shrink the size to 21.5-inch (205 PPI). At 27-inch, 4K is only 163 PPI. So it is entirely possible that 27-inch would stay at 109 PPI (2560x1440) with premium Thunderbolt 2 4K display at 21.5-inch.
In the short term, I think new 27-inch display will largely resemble updated iMac (minus the chin), with reduced reflection, elimination of the cover glass, and USB 3.0 ports.
Apple will eventually follow up with Thunderbolt 4K Display, possibly accompanying Mac Pro launch. The key question is how big.
Seiki is launching 39" 4K (3840x2160) 30Hz for only $700 this month. While Apple will undoubtably use much higher quality display with higher refresh rate, larger 4K panel is probably cheaper than smaller retina quality 4K panel.
In order to archive 200-ish PPI retina resolution, however, Apple would have to shrink the size to 21.5-inch (205 PPI). At 27-inch, 4K is only 163 PPI. So it is entirely possible that 27-inch would stay at 109 PPI (2560x1440) with premium Thunderbolt 2 4K display at 21.5-inch.
Thunderbolt 2 isn't a strict requirement for 4K at 60 Hz, everything depends on whether the Thunderbolt controller supports DisplayPort 1.2 which is what makes 4K at 60Hz possible. Thunderbolt 2 just also happens to support DisplayPort 2.0 as well.
I wonder if Apple really is waiting for Thunderbolt 2 in the MacBook Pros, since Intel has already said that volume product won't happen until 2014 for their new Falcon Ridge controller. The Mac Pro might sell a few hundred thousand, but the MacBook Pro will no doubt to a few million.
----------
Retina is not defined strictly by a PPI. Don't fall into that trap. I expect both the 21.5" and 27" models to both be 4K, because no GPU has ever been tested to run a single display at higher resolution. There's certainly no single cable standard for it, which immediately rules out a 5120x2880 external display (and likely even an internal one, its just too many pixels).
I think that Apple will present two displays during the fall:
1. A 27" 2560x1440 with Thunderbolt and USB 3 connectivity.
2. A 27" 3840x2160 with Thunderbolt 2 and USB 3 connectivity.
I imagine Apple wants to present 4K displays together with the new Mac Pro, but given the numbers of Mac Minis, iMacs and other non Thunderbolt 2 capable devices, it would be rather weird if they did not present a less demanding display.
1. A 27" 2560x1440 with Thunderbolt and USB 3 connectivity.
2. A 27" 3840x2160 with Thunderbolt 2 and USB 3 connectivity.
I imagine Apple wants to present 4K displays together with the new Mac Pro, but given the numbers of Mac Minis, iMacs and other non Thunderbolt 2 capable devices, it would be rather weird if they did not present a less demanding display.
Just picked up a 15" retina Macbook a little over a month ago, pretty worried I'll be stuck with buying the current gen Thunderbolt display...
Assuming this monitor is finally being refreshed... it's about freakin' time!!!!!!!
As for thin, I hope it's NOT thin because that will mean horrible sound quality. And who cares anyway? Unless a monitor is on a reception desk or something you'd typically never see the sides/back.
As for thin, I hope it's NOT thin because that will mean horrible sound quality. And who cares anyway? Unless a monitor is on a reception desk or something you'd typically never see the sides/back.
I'm also curious as to how this TB display update is going to happen. Are they going to release a 4K version AND a redesigned 2650x1440 version? MacBook Airs were just updated and would not be able to push a 4k display without Thunderbolt 2. It's hard to believe they'd leave MacBook Air users hanging like that.
It would make more sense to keep producing the current TB displays and just introduce a new 4k version which would probably be slimmer & eventually phase out the TB display in a year.
Gonna have to wait and see I guess.
It would make more sense to keep producing the current TB displays and just introduce a new 4k version which would probably be slimmer & eventually phase out the TB display in a year.
Gonna have to wait and see I guess.
That's exactly my thinking.
I'm surprised #1 hasn't already been released, basically the new iMac design (thinner, reduced glare, etc), and like you said USB3/TB. [And] Like someone +else+ said, _if_ it's the current resolution, there shouldn't be any technical holdup (and assuming the supply chain for the panel/chassis isn't an issue).
I've been wanting to add some USB3 to my MBP, and have been holding off on a hub.
It doesn't though. There's plenty of electronics that goes into the TB display.
As for costing almost as much as the iMac. The display is the single most expensive part of the iMac. And the casing is not cheap either. Add to that the TB-hub that's inside.
Sure, a replaceable hub would be cool, but I think it would add to the costs even more.
uggg
I had just assumed these displays would work fine with a macbook retina but it sounds like I will need a new computer as well to run one of these new displays if they up the resolution.
Either way I will do it as the difference is night and day between my mbp retina display and the 2 24" monitors I have hooked up to it. If nothing else for eye strain.
I was planning on waiting for the first refresh to buy the new apple trash can but it sounds like I will have to go ahead and get one. A few minor teething pains in the new mac is worth year less of eye strain.
I had just assumed these displays would work fine with a macbook retina but it sounds like I will need a new computer as well to run one of these new displays if they up the resolution.
Either way I will do it as the difference is night and day between my mbp retina display and the 2 24" monitors I have hooked up to it. If nothing else for eye strain.
I was planning on waiting for the first refresh to buy the new apple trash can but it sounds like I will have to go ahead and get one. A few minor teething pains in the new mac is worth year less of eye strain.
No bezel, 4K or retina, thinner, and cheaper would be ideal. Removing the bezel is more important than making it thin, but when they make these things like the iMac, it'll look so nice.
Sure, that would be for 4K, but I don't think Apple is really aiming for a 4K 27" monitor, but rather for HiDPI 1440p (2880p).
5120*2880*24 bit*60Hz = 19.78 Gbps. DisplayPort 1.2 only supports 17.28 Gbps.
You need to listen a little closer. They made a point of saying that you could connect any "3RD PARTY DISPLAY" that you want to connect. To me they are admitting that their 27" display is not meant for the Ma Pro User. That has been my opinion when they went to a glossy only 16:9 display over the previous 30" 16:10 display. Dell has a good deal on a couple of them.
Yes you're right it would be the same screen real estate as a 1080p screen, which many, but not all, enjoy. A quick res switch to "true" 4K would be in order for better eyeballing of "4K" content.
It happens to be the case that's how they've implemented it, yes, but Retina was also "defined" as a specific PPI so that you could not discern individual pixels at a specific distance (if you have average eyesight.)
The way they've accomplished it has been to implement pixel quadrupling along with higher intensity backlighting and glass glued to the LCD, but that doesn't mean the only way to implement it is pixel quadrupling, etc.
The 27" display at 2560x1440 pixels is already at 89% "Retina" resolution based on the average viewing distance of 28". So, a doubling of resolution isn't actually necessary in order to achieve "Retina" branding, if they so choose.
They could implement a 27" 3840x2160 resolution display and it would be 133% of "Retina" and match the industry standard 4K UHD resolution aimed at consumer televisions. Also, it would be far less taxing on your GPU.
Will they? Who knows. More interesting (to me) is how do they handle content creation for "Cinema" 4K, which is a different resolution? Perhaps they switch to ultra wide screen format.
Last edited:
They should have a system that lets you attach the display to the new Mac Pro ... make it a successor of the G4 iMac instead . Still my favourite design. They can certainly make it thin enough, just have to invert the curve on the back lol.
. Still my favourite design. They can certainly make it thin enough, just have to invert the curve on the back lol.