Apple Thunderbolt Display Supplies Begin Running Short at Third-Party Resellers

[Aluminum213]

However, even as an owner of one, I do sometimes scratch my head as to why people pay so much for them when they aren't creative professionals. They are nice looking I guess. But there are lots of nice 27" displays running under $300 all day long everywhere! They'll be just fine for gaming, word processing, etc. For me, I use it for photography post processing and, unfortunately, those cheaper displays just won't cut it anymore. But aside from that, there's nothing an Apple Cinema Display (or equivalent) does for me that the other, cheaper displays wouldn't do. It really is a pro-level product. Not to say there aren't consumer level advantages, but, I think that they are probably less realized in the consumer market AND, I think people who complain about the price point of these displays (not just Apple, but Dell, HP, Viewsonic, etc.) don't realize that it's really NOT a consumer class product...

because of the logo, people are brand obsessed

 

[mchoffa]

I'd love one with the same screen as the new iMac. I've got the current TBD and iMac side by side, and the glare is very noticeably better on the iMac, as is the overall quality due to the laminated screen. not to mention, the TBD looks fat in comparison, especially since it's just the display. It SHOULD come in as thin as the iMac without the big bump in the back.

 

[ybz90]

Yeah but the new one's not out yet, and it seems unlikely it'll come out in the next few days.

I could return my display now and hope the new one comes out in the next few weeks, but what if this is like the iMac all over again and stock shortages start showing up months before there's an actual refresh?

Yeah, I misunderstood your post, my mistake. If you don't care for the new features, then don't bother returning. In my opinion, the skinny form factor is another example of just flash, and no substance as far as being relevant or useful to the computing experience. After all, when you use it, you sit in front of the screen, not to the side, and it looks identical to the old one from the front.

The two big features are gonna be USB3 and the anti-reflective coating on the glass. USB3 is a non-issue for me, but if I didn't already have my ATD for nearly a year now, I'd wait for the non-glossy. If you're not bothered by the glossy screen though, then just keep it, the benefit being that you can use it in the meantime.

 

[McCrab]

----------

[/COLOR]What? $1000 for a Thunderbolt Display and $600 for a Mac Mini? That's $1600! When you're spending that much, you may as well just lob on an extra $200 to get yourself a 27" iMac which will come with a lot more power, a lot less clutter, and a lot more portability.

----------

I bought 2 23" Apple Cinema displays soon after they were released in 2002, together with a Mac Pro. I have upgraded the Mac Pro twice since, and the ACD's are still performing well after 10 years. The flexibility of having separation between the screen and the CPU/HDD etc is quite nice - having had 10 years of useful life out of the display is quite satisfying. I just think it's a shame, and a bit wasteful not being able to get use out of the great display that the iMac has beyond it's real limiting factor, which is the useful life of the CPU/HDD/memory etc. So if you can stomach some inferior performance in the Mini (and the cable clutter), it's not a bad bet - the TB Display with give you at least 2 subsequent lives in future Mini updates.

 

[Spungoflex]

Because that's exactly what they are -- low margin. Just look at the market value for such screens. It's easier to stomach a 27" 2560x1440 display being $1000 since competitors are in that price range and a Thunderbolt dock is included.

The average selling price of 21.5" 1080p displays is between $100-200 for a nice IPS panel. If Apple prices it at $500 or $600 for the Thunderbolt dock, virtually no one will buy it since it is just too high for its contemporaries. Even though it'd have a built-in dock, it's primarily a display and thus it would have to compete with the insanely low priced options out there. Plus, Apple would have similar fixed costs as they do with the large one in building, manufacturing, etc due to the precision build process. Every time you add another product/configuration, you increase your fixed costs and don't get to leverage the economies of scale for variable costs. To top it off, displays are such a low volume sector for Apple. They have a limited number of engineers and the comparative advantage in terms of economic utility for their company is to devote them elsewhere when possible.

There is no profit to be had here, at least not up to Apple's standards. They will never commit any engineering teams to this product when they are better purposed to higher volume, high profit items.

I don't know what else to tell you to make you feel better. This is just the fact behind Apple's business decisions and resource allocation -- build the items that will sell a lot and make a lot of money. You may not want a 27" screen, but Apple doesn't give a damn what you want. You're in the minority and they care about what the majority want. Also, just because you find it to be "ridiculous", that doesn't mean it's ridiculous for everyone. Some of us need it for work given the nature of our jobs. Besides, it's not like you don't have other options. You dont *need* a Thunderbolt display nor is anyone forcing you to buy one. If 27" is too big, get a smaller one; 21.5" screens come a dime a dozen from virtually every manufacturer.

You sure used a lot of words, unfortunately most of what you wrote is utter nonsense. I think you need to start by examining what the term "margin" actually means. You have no earthly clue what kind of margin apple would have on a 21.5" TB display. The price they are charging for their 27" isn't even in the same stratosphere as competing 27" monitors, so you can throw that argument of yours in the trash. It didn't make any sense whatsoever.

Secondly, where do you get the idea that apple competes on cost? It doesn't. Never has, and likely never will. A 21.5" TB display would still be outrageously expensive, just not as cartoonishly expensive as the 27".

Lastly, apple DID sell a 20 inch cinema display (the predecessor to the TB display). They also sold a 23" and a 30". Forgot that little nugget of information, did we? So much for "apple would never do this or that... blah, blah, blah." Newsflash... they already did do it and nothing is stopping them from doing it again.

 

[KnightWRX]

The price they are charging for their 27" isn't even in the same stratosphere as competing 27" monitors, so you can throw that argument of yours in the trash. It didn't make any sense whatsoever.

Uh ?

Are you sure you're comparing actual competing 27" monitors and not the crap TN panel "Full HD" (1080p) 27" monitors ?

Because the latter aren't competing with the ATD at all. Price out the Dell Ultrasharp line or the HP ZR line-up. The ATD compares pretty well to those considering the added value it has (extra ports/speakers).

 

[iSayuSay]

$1000 isn't outlandish for an IPS display running at 2560x1400. Competitors are in the $7-800s, without ports and docking ability.

Dell 27" Ultrasharp series have USB ports, and more inputs. So it can dock your machine just fine. And it has 3 years warranty by default. And all can be had for under $700

Boom...

 

[AppliedMicro]

You sure used a lot of words, unfortunately most of what you wrote is utter nonsense.
You have no earthly clue what kind of margin apple would have on a 21.5" TB display. The price they are charging for their 27" isn't even in the same stratosphere as competing 27" monitors, so you can throw that argument of yours in the trash. It didn't make any sense whatsoever..

Disparaging others' (having "no earthly clue") comments as "utter nonsense", which doesn't "make any sense" and should be thrown "in the trash" isn't only rude - it makes your statement about the Thunderbolt Display not being priced competitively to comparable display all the more... "remarkable" (to say it nicely).

Apple Thunderbolt Display is $999.
The Dell U2713HM is the least expensive comparable display at $650 (Amazon).
NEC PA271W is more than $1000 the Apple Display.

And with its speakers, mic, cam, FireWire, Ethernet, USB hub and additional Thunderbolt port, the ATD is certainly a much better docking-station type of solution for current Macs than any of the competition. Of course, not everyone needs this and the display itself might not be to everyone's liking. But for what it is - a glossy 27" QHD (2560×1440) display - it's very good in terms of built quality, design and as a docking station. And not unreasonably priced.

 

[everything-i]

Nope. It's a Thunderbolt display, not a Cinema display only TB macs and no non macs. There are currently no DVI to Thunderbolt adapters. Thunderbolt to DVI yes, but not the other way around.

There are now a couple of 3rd parties making DVI and DL-DVI to TB adapters but they are pretty expensive.

 

[ybz90]

You sure used a lot of words, unfortunately most of what you wrote is utter nonsense. I think you need to start by examining what the term "margin" actually means. You have no earthly clue what kind of margin apple would have on a 21.5" TB display. The price they are charging for their 27" isn't even in the same stratosphere as competing 27" monitors, so you can throw that argument of yours in the trash. It didn't make any sense whatsoever.

Secondly, where do you get the idea that apple competes on cost? It doesn't. Never has, and likely never will. A 21.5" TB display would still be outrageously expensive, just not as cartoonishly expensive as the 27".

Lastly, apple DID sell a 20 inch cinema display (the predecessor to the TB display). They also sold a 23" and a 30". Forgot that little nugget of information, did we? So much for "apple would never do this or that... blah, blah, blah." Newsflash... they already did do it and nothing is stopping them from doing it again.

When you also get your business management double major from MIT Sloan, then you can tell me my words are nonsense.

Just do a quick search for the prices for 27" professional monitors and you'll quickly see the cheapest (aside from the off-brand Korean imports, which I highly recommend) is the Dell budget variety at around $600. I think you may be conflating all 27" monitors together -- there is a huge difference between the market for relatively low resolution 1080p 27-inchers and the 2560x1440 variety. Since you are so certain Apple's pricing is "stratospheric", show me an example of a competing 27" monitor sub-$600 (hell, even sub-$750 aside from that Dell).

And I didn't say Apple competes on cost. However, they have historically been and continue to be a high-margin hardware manufacturer whose primary interest is in maximizing profits by efficiently allocating internal resources. Just take a look at the Mac Pro -- it is an extremely low volume product (which offsets its high margins, resulting in overall low profit in absolute terms), and Apple has simply not relegating substantial engineering resources to it. The Xserve was similarly shuttered completely for this reason. It takes a "base" amount of engineering man-hours and dollars to build a product, resources that could be committed elsewhere. It doesn't mean the product in question wouldn't be profitable, just that compared to other products, it isn't worth Apple's time. So the 21.5" probably would be profitable, but again, it wouldn't be up to Apple's standards as far as margin goes.

Why don't you check the last time Apple sold any of those monitors. I never said Apple hasn't sold them in the past, just that they are not going in the future if the current market persists, which it should (it will actually accelerate further away from the direction you hope for in fact). If I recall correctly, the 24" was phased out in 2010, the others well before then. What's stopping Apple from doing these products again is that the market has changed and Apple dropped them because they simply aren't worth developing. Your argument is a logical fallacy -- are you going to point out that Apple used to sell 15" and 17" Studio Displays? 10" monochrome CRTs?

 

[everything-i]

Yeah, but those monitors can also be paired with more than just Thunderbolt Macs... It's a high premium for a device with very restricted utility, despite how well it may perform its intended role.

Real shame the mini display port monitor worked with more or less any display port output but the TB version doesn't even work with Apples own mini display port laptops.

 

[Spungoflex]

When you also get your business management double major from MIT Sloan, then you can tell me my words are nonsense.

I happen to have a degree in management. Graduated with honors, no less.

Your words are utter nonsense. Absolutely nothing you said was based in fact and every point you made was easily refuted.

P.S. I read no further than the first 2 lines of your latest post. If you are expounding on your debunked points, there's no point in reading another word of drivel.

 

[everything-i]

How awesome would it be if Apple started putting in graphics cards in these displays? Obviously it would have to be a build option when ordering online. The idea of being able to get iMac graphics capabilities in MacBooks seems like a great idea. Hell, even iMac owners could benefit from it, assuming Apple could get SLI/Cross-fire functionality.

This would be a real boost for Thunderbolt showing more of what its truly capable of. Driving USB and ethernet ports only shows a small fraction of what is actually possible. A high end graphics card built into the monitor could be a market changer for laptop users giving low power consumption when your mobile and true high end performance when your at your desk.

 

[Spungoflex]

Uh ?

Are you sure you're comparing actual competing 27" monitors and not the crap TN panel "Full HD" (1080p) 27" monitors ?

Uh, yes. Another poster summed it up quite nicely in the post directly below yours.

Anything else?

 

[ybz90]

Uh, yes. Another poster summed it up quite nicely in the post directly below yours.

Anything else?

I also asked you this. If Apple's prices are so outrageous as you claim, then show me a competitor that is substantially cheaper. You can't hide from facts, friend. I know it sucks to be wrong, but you could at least do me the courtesy of reading what I wrote to see how wrong you are. Be courteous, I took some time to do that!

But seriously, if you won't listen to basic microeconomics, how's this for an explanation of why Apple won't make a 21.5". Their product history indicates otherwise. Their models have over the years consistently trended up in size and resolution. Never once have they introduced lower screen size models, and after phasing out anything less than 24" around 07/08, they phased that out in 10 and only have the 27 now. The monitor market is like the PC industry in many ways -- totally saturated and low margin in the entry levels. 21.5" and similar are commoditized and so manufacturers in that segment are price takers.

 

[53x12]

Virtually any monitor you buy today from any vendor will have an HDMI, VGA, and/or DVI port in the back so you can use any combination of adapters to plug in any number of game consoles, blu-ray players, laptops, or desktops into. It's not a matter of quality or elegance, it's a simple matter of accessibility.

Apple could have just added an HDMI port onto the back of their display and solved a lot of problems and boosted their sales, but instead they restricted consumers: 1 video input type, 1 screen size, 1 thousand dollars.

So why not just go out and buy one of those fancy monitors with HDMI or DVI ports? Doesn't sound like the TBD is the monitor for you. Sorry.

A 21.5" thunderbolt display would not be a low-margin product. Why on earth would you possible think it would be?

Sure a 21.5" TBD would be low margin. Just look at who they would be competing against.

Because that's exactly what they are -- low margin. Just look at the market value for such screens. It's easier to stomach a 27" 2560x1440 display being $1000 since competitors are in that price range and a Thunderbolt dock is included.

The average selling price of 21.5" 1080p displays is between $100-200 for a nice IPS panel. If Apple prices it at $500 or $600 for the Thunderbolt dock, virtually no one will buy it since it is just too high for its contemporaries. Even though it'd have a built-in dock, it's primarily a display and thus it would have to compete with the insanely low priced options out there. Plus, Apple would have similar fixed costs as they do with the large one in building, manufacturing, etc due to the precision build process. Every time you add another product/configuration, you increase your fixed costs and don't get to leverage the economies of scale for variable costs. To top it off, displays are such a low volume sector for Apple. They have a limited number of engineers and the comparative advantage in terms of economic utility for their company is to devote them elsewhere when possible.

There is no profit to be had here, at least not up to Apple's standards. They will never commit any engineering teams to this product when they are better purposed to higher volume, high profit items.

I don't know what else to tell you to make you feel better. This is just the fact behind Apple's business decisions and resource allocation -- build the items that will sell a lot and make a lot of money. You may not want a 27" screen, but Apple doesn't give a damn what you want. You're in the minority and they care about what the majority want. Also, just because you find it to be "ridiculous", that doesn't mean it's ridiculous for everyone. Some of us need it for work given the nature of our jobs. Besides, it's not like you don't have other options. You dont *need* a Thunderbolt display nor is anyone forcing you to buy one. If 27" is too big, get a smaller one; 21.5" screens come a dime a dozen from virtually every manufacturer.

Well said ybz90!

----------

I could return my display now and hope the new one comes out in the next few weeks, but what if this is like the iMac all over again and stock shortages start showing up months before there's an actual refresh?

No one has the answer for you as no one knows when it will be announced much less go on sale. You have two options:

1) Need monitor now will stick with current ATD

2) Don't need monitor now, so will return ATD within 14 day period and wait for release of new ATD.

So do you need a monitor now? If yes, follow #1. If no, follow #2.

----------

Yeah, I misunderstood your post, my mistake. If you don't care for the new features, then don't bother returning. In my opinion, the skinny form factor is another example of just flash, and no substance as far as being relevant or useful to the computing experience. After all, when you use it, you sit in front of the screen, not to the side, and it looks identical to the old one from the front.

Maybe the shell looks the same, but the anti-glare is makes for a noticeable difference that is worth it.

 

[bungiefan89]

Real shame the mini display port monitor worked with more or less any display port output but the TB version doesn't even work with Apples own mini display port laptops.

Exactly. And I want to clarify that I don't have any particularly huge problems with the Thunderbolt Display itself, just the accessibility of Thunderbolt: it ONLY accepts Thunderbolt inputs and no combinations of adapters will persuade it otherwise.

 

[53x12]

Dell 27" Ultrasharp series have USB ports, and more inputs. So it can dock your machine just fine. And it has 3 years warranty by default. And all can be had for under $700

Boom...

Does the Dell 27" Ultrasharp come with built-in Thunderbolt cable and built-in MagSafe cable for the MBP/MBA? What about a built in webcam?

Boom....

 

[Carouser]

Your words are utter nonsense. Absolutely nothing you said was based in fact and every point you made was easily refuted.

I thought it was a pretty good analysis and I haven't seen those posts where anything that poster typed was refuted. I went through your posts and they amounted to "You are wrong, because I said so".

Uh, yes. Another poster summed it up quite nicely in the post directly below yours.

The presence of one cheaper monitor doesn't mean that the Apple display is priced disproportionately to comparable displays.

 

[ybz90]

Maybe the shell looks the same, but the anti-glare is makes for a noticeable difference that is worth it.

This is a good point. If I hadn't had mine for several months already, I would hold off for this.

 

[53x12]

I happen to have a degree in management. Graduated with honors, no less.

Your words are utter nonsense. Absolutely nothing you said was based in fact and every point you made was easily refuted.

P.S. I read no further than the first 2 lines of your latest post. If you are expounding on your debunked points, there's no point in reading another word of drivel.

ybz90 has made many valid observations and yet all you keep doing is writing rubbish. Just stop it.

 

[bungiefan89]

So why not just go out and buy one of those fancy monitors with HDMI or DVI ports? Doesn't sound like the TBD is the monitor for you. Sorry.

Yeah, the TBD display isn't for me. But I'll still be critical Apple for their use of Thunderbolt because I'm still sour over the fact that my 2011 27" iMac's glorious screen can never be used for a game console or a blu-ray player or my 2009 Macbook or anything other than Macs made after 2011.

When I purchased my iMac, I knew it was a big investment but part of my rationalization was I'd be able to use it as a monitor long after it was useful as a computer. But Thunderbolt kind of crippled that hope and now I'm just scratching my head wondering why Apple shipped these devices with such beautiful displays but couldn't be bothered to slap even an HDMI port on the back.

 

[53x12]

This is a good point. If I hadn't had mine for several months already, I would hold off for this.

Agreed. If you have the current ATD and it does everything you need it to do, then be happy as it is a fantastic monitor. If you need a new monitor now and can hold off and wait to see what happens with the ATD, then it might be worth waiting a little while. I know some will sell their current ATD for the new one, and for some it might make sense if they need the new screen with less glare or the extra USB 3 ports. But for most people, the current ATD is still a great option.

 

[53x12]

Yeah, the TBD display isn't for me. But I'll still be critical Apple for their use of Thunderbolt because I'm still sour over the fact that my 2011 27" iMac's glorious screen can never be used for a game console or a blu-ray player or my 2009 Macbook or anything other than Macs made after 2011.

When I purchased my iMac, I knew it was a big investment but part of my rationalization was I'd be able to use it as a monitor long after it was useful as a computer. But Thunderbolt kind of crippled that hope and now I'm just scratching my head wondering why Apple shipped these devices with such beautiful displays but couldn't be bothered to slap even an HDMI port on the back.

That is part of the reason I decided to sell my '10 iMac and get the new i7 Mini. The realization that every time I wanted to upgrade, I would have a screen that was still great, but have the internal guts/computer that was outdated. Once I get my new ATD + mini, I can upgrade the mini every 12-18 months and still be caught up with the latest technology but not have to fork over the cost of a new iMac each time but instead just the cost of the Mini. Plus when I am going to resell my computer to fund the new one, I would rather lose 40-50% of the cost of the Mac mini rather than lose 40-50% of the iMac when selling it. Also for me, I don't need the discrete GPU the iMac offers but realize that isn't the case for everyone. So for me, the Mini + ATD makes more sense than the iMac.

And that is why this post of yours makes me laugh:

What? $1000 for a Thunderbolt Display and $600 for a Mac Mini? That's $1600! When you're spending that much, you may as well just lob on an extra $200 to get yourself a 27" iMac which will come with a lot more power, a lot less clutter, and a lot more portability.

 

[Spungoflex]

I also asked you this.

You can reply to as many posts as you'd like. It won't change the fact that your contention is utter nonsense. With all due respect, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Everything you said is completely false. A 21.5" TB display would not be a low margin product. Period. And apple competes in several "low margin", "saturated" markets. Do your homework before you spout off.