Sidebar Sidebar
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

Serban said:
don't forget that even the macbook air with HD4000 can do that for 27" thunderbolt display...so i don't think there are problems with the technologies.
Like apple said with GPU+thunderbolt 2 of MAC PRO you can have 3x4K.So i guess with actual thunderbolt we can deliver 4K or retina 27" displays. Probably just 1 display but it is enough for now.
Click to expand...

the processing power of the GPU is more than enough to drive 4K. It just depends on whether they built the proper graphics IO into the chips. When Apple is pushing it, Intel/AMD/NVIDIA surely will deliver
 
yes 3000$ a 31.5" but an 27" current imac how much is it?
i think they come up to a 21.5" from arount 1600$ base model and for 27" some where like 2100-2200$ base model
 
I hope they add a cheaper 21" version to go with the Mac mini as £900 is way too much for a monitor.
 
thedeske said:
A Thunderbolt2 version down the road. Way down the road.
Click to expand...

Thunderbolt 2 is backwards compatible with Thunderbolt 1 - there is absolutely NO reason (other than greed) not to include it in any new Thunderbolt enabled hardware.

About large retina screens - yeah, we'll probably have to wait a bit. Although I hope there will be something with 4K soon (especially with the new Mac Pro coming out).
 
Macboy Pro said:
OMG, could you image the "Apple" price for that? Probably close to 4K
Click to expand...

Yeah, the 22" Apple Cinema Display that was introduced in 1999 sold for $3,999. And in 2002, the new 23" HD ACD sold for $3,499. I bought both and I am still amazed at how cheap LCDs and HDTVs are today.
 
A much thinner version will ship with the new Mac Pro. No need to make it that thick when the iMac is so much thinner.
 
Doc69 said:
Yeah, the 22" Apple Cinema Display that was introduced in 1999 sold for $3,999. And in 2002, the new 23" HD ACD sold for $3,499. I bought both and I am still amazed at how cheap LCDs and HDTVs are today.
Click to expand...

I remembered in 2002, a 15 inch LCD (1024*768) was priced at around $400.
 
And please don't remove the FireWire from the back. It is very useful.

----------
Doc69 said:
Yeah, the 22" Apple Cinema Display that was introduced in 1999 sold for $3,999. And in 2002, the new 23" HD ACD sold for $3,499. I bought both and I am still amazed at how cheap LCDs and HDTVs are today.
Click to expand...

That's the reason why I let "hi-res" sell for a while then I buy it. Like 1080p when it came out, I left that for quite some time. The then new flat panel LCDs instead of the old CRTs.

And with any tech, not just displays.
 
cmanderson said:
It depends how far you are sitting away from the monitor. As "Retina" is simply marketing speak based on a bit of proven science.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's more than that. You can't actually define resolution strictly on the basis of the pixels on the screen. It's meaningless, in the real world, unless you take into account the viewer: how close does he get to this screen, and finally, how good his eyesight is. A 4K screen is no good if your vision is getting poor, or if you can only sit a couple of inches from it.

And there's another consideration, too: Joe Kane, the video guru, says that the single most important factor is the size of the screen, in seeing the real effect of 4K, for instance. You don't really see 4K until it's about 10 ft wide. But then, you have the artifacts from the video codec to deal with. H.265, anyone?

Is 4K amazing? Yeah, but. To see it in the best way possible, a lot of factors have to work out. It can be, like so many of our tech jargon items, what tech nerds go crazy about but not as significant as our nerd brains think. Still, it's better than 3D.
 
A friend who work at a famous retailer stock told me this is the less sold Apple product.

Not surprised
 
blabliblu said:
A friend who work at a famous retailer stock told me this is the less sold Apple product.

Not surprised
Click to expand...

As well it should be.

As far as future prospects, if they don't make it thinner and add USB 3.0, at minimum, I'm not interested.
 
Acd 30"

Sometimes I wonder if I am still the only one who would still try to find and buy one more Apple Cinema Display 30" instead of those new glossy thunderbolt displays. if I had to choose between these two models I would still go for the matte 30 inches Apple Cinema Display. The screen has set a standard and I cannot still understand why don't they make a refreshed version of this screen.
 
Sandstorm said:
Thunderbolt 2 is backwards compatible with Thunderbolt 1 - there is absolutely NO reason (other than greed) not to include it in any new Thunderbolt enabled hardware.
Click to expand...

Well other than the fact that Thunderbolt v1 ( with Redwood Ridge DisplayPort 1.2 capable host system sockets ) is shipping today and Thunderbolt 2 is tentatively scheduled to highly limited quantities late 2013. Volume shipments are not expected till 2014.

I Apple wants to release a 2013 product it isn't the best idea to hold it up just for TB v2. A Mac with a properly provisioned and configured Redwood Ridge controller ( 4510/4410 ) allows any 4K display to be hooked up with a normal DisplayPort cable and get full 4K output.

That doesn't do the TB display any good but frankly neither does having a) super glossy screen , b) limited USB 2.0 ( as opposed USB 3.0) . Even when capable of putting a 4K display "downstream" on a TB daisy chain it will be kind of dubious. Necessary for one TB port host systems but dubious on 2 or more port hosts. It is far more effective not bog down the TB backbone with 4K traffic if you don't have to.
 
ctdonath said:
Why not? Build in pixel doubling for "standard resolution" input and it looks fine. And considering they need something to match the new Mac Pro, of course Thunderbolt 2 will be a given. Manufacturers are turning out 4K panels now, Mac Pro needs a screen to match its GPUs, T2 is available on MP, it's all lining up.

Your position is like introducing a new high performance sports car, and offering only standard touring sedan tires for it while scoffing at the notion anyone would be wanting or able to turn tighter corners at higher speeds.
Click to expand...

All those laptops with weak GPUs would be out of the loop. It wouldn't make sense to cut off the larger market of users. The original design was for laptops.

That said, an iMac modeled version with the existing panel and 3.0 out soon & a Pro Model late 2013 launching with the MacPro?

I'm taking the hint from the keynote when Schiller said 3rd party monitor. I just don't see Apple jumping into a 4k panel so soon. I could be wrong, but they tend to buy in large numbers and demand something more mature than what's available now.

We'll see ;)
 
I did some research on the 2012 iMac and I have to take back what I said about sound. Despite the thin design the new "thin" iMac apparently has BETTER sound quality than the old iMac and the current Thunderbolt Display. Good to know. Still don't quite understand why people care about it looking thin from one particular angle most people will probably never see. But as long as they're not compromising function for looks... go for it! I can't wait. Been waiting on an updated Thunderbolt Display since last year.
 
lets all hope in late 2013 we will se thunderbolt display along with imac displays goes to "retina"
 
ARTHUR: Go and tell your master that we have been charged by God with a sacred quest. If he will give us food and shelter for the night he can join us in our quest for the Holy Grail...a Thunderbolt display with less glare.
GUARD: Well, I’ll ask him, but I don’t think he’ll be very keen… Uh, he’s already got one, you see?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back