Display Price Drop

[dontmatter]

Three things:

1. It's been said before, but this is AWESOME news, along with the xserve/xsan news. Not because the price drops/spec increases are that incredible (actually seem a little small to me), but because of the timing. We know about how much will be announced next week, but we also know that this, by being announced this week, cannot be announced next week... good sign for next week, very good sign. A bit dissapointed in the rumor mill, though, because it's way more fun to be surprised by what apple has done, than simply finding out that this rumor was true, and this wasn't. oh well.

2. Currency drops: this makes very little sense. I'm not an economics major or anything, but I think that if the US dollar is declining against world currencies, that makes goods made in the US cheaper elsewhere, and goods made elsewhere more expensive in the US. But apple doesn't make stuff in the US. The US dollar doesn't matter-what matters is asian currencies versus european currencies, which, to my knowledge, haven't been particularly different lately than before this price drop. The weak US dollar should mean price increases in the US, and hold steady everywhere else.

3. Monitor quality-it's a well known fact that stats are not the whole picture, and are manipulated to the highest numbers possible, even if it doesn't increase actual quality, because it will sell something. That said, I don't know that apple displays are particularly any better or worse, for their statistics, than others, except that I can say that they have historically been the highest quality displays around. I remember a big article in the NY times a while back, talking about how for pro's, CRT's are still the most color accurate, and therefore the best, but LCD's were catching up. The LCD they said was pretty much the undisputed best among the LCD's was the apple one, and it was equal quality to CRT, but not as cheap. Other than that, they said, LCD's weren't really comparable to CRT's.

So, I don't know what the story is, but i'd like a source talking about the more complex stuff than pixels and contrast ratios, before I call dell or apple superior. In the mean time, I can say that I am highly, highly satisfied with the screen on my 17 inch powerbook, but for one factor-I just can't get white to be white enough. Also, the thing chews through battery power, but that is to be expected.

 

[dontmatter]

Apple should take a bold move and allow iMac, iBook and eMac users to use dual-display setups by means of a firmware upgrade. For a very simple reason: If this iMac-mini-think comes into existence, it will be a much more flexible machine than any other consumer Mac. Besides, Apple will likely introduce cheaper displays, and it would be very important that they get to sell them in quantity. They could tap into their user base and sell displays to consumer AIO/laptop users, while providing a nice display for the new headless Mac. Since a huge chunk of those new Mac users will be using their old CRTs (or maybe TFTs), Apple should have a hard time selling those displays to those users, and also to PM users (who are more likely to buy Cinema Displays).

If they sold a lot of those displays, they would become cheap for Apple to "produce" them (I know that Apple-branded displays aren't even made by Apple, but the bigger the orders they place, the better, just like with all iPod and Mac models).

I wouldn't be buying an extra display for my iMac, partly because I don't have the money, but especially because I don't want to install firmware hacks to make dual-displays work. Display mirroring is preety much useless for regular tasks, so I think Apple is being stupidly stubborn on this one...

But think about it... They could do that, and they could also offer a multi-button mouse. Those would sell millions

brilliant.

You know what i'd most like to see at the keynote? "once upon a time, we gave up the floppy, because it's time was done. Now, we give up the single button mouse-because face it, that thing is useless.

 

[dongmin]

Apple monitors are ALWAYS bad deals spec wise. They're superior in terms of the design and ergonomics, but otherwise, there's really no argument: Apple displays are overpriced (except in the high-end).


While I agree with Steve/Apple that we use TVs differently than we use computer screens, Apple should offer more flexibility. They're really missing a market segment (the urban, style-conscious minimalists) who'd prefer to have just one monitor double as a TV and computer screen. Anyone who's lived in a cramped Manhattan apartment would appreciate the potential of this flexibility.

There's really no excuse why Apple doesn't offer TV-in capabilities with their monitors. If not, they should at least offer an TiVo-like option. Come on Apple, help us CONSOLIDATE and simplify our lives, not complicate.

 

[Bendit]

A 17" monitor must be in the works if a cheap headless mac is to be released next week. No one would buy a $500 computer and then pay $999 for a monitor.

99% of people don't need a 20" or larger monitor.

I have a 12" PowerBook with a resolution of 1024x768 and that works well for me. Although I would like the option of a 17" WideScreen monitor for my desk and my PC.

 

[Bendit]

Apple monitors are ALWAYS bad deals spec wise. They're superior in terms of the design and ergonomics, but otherwise, there's really no argument: Apple displays are overpriced (except in the high-end).


While I agree with Steve/Apple that we use TVs differently than we use computer screens, Apple should offer more flexibility. They're really missing a market segment (the urban, style-conscious minimalists) who'd prefer to have just one monitor double as a TV and computer screen. Anyone who's lived in a cramped Manhattan apartment would appreciate the potential of this flexibility.

There's really no excuse why Apple doesn't offer TV-in capabilities with their monitors. If not, they should at least offer an TiVo-like option. Come on Apple, help us CONSOLIDATE and simplify our lives, not complicate.

But are they? Try to find a WIDESCREEN monitor for the same price. The only other widescreen monitors I know of are insanely expensive. Apple can sell them for alot of money because if you want that size of a monitor with those resolutions, it's your only option.

 

[xsnightclub]

brilliant.

You know what i'd most like to see at the keynote? "once upon a time, we gave up the floppy, because it's time was done. Now, we give up the single button mouse-because face it, that thing is useless.

The single button mouse is useless, to those who are to lazy to use their other hand.

Other than that, the news of the monitor price reductions is great, because it will bring more interest to them even if they are higher priced than the competition, now they are closer priced.
And the best part is this info and Xserve will take up minimal amount of the upcoming keynote.
Leaving 1/2 hour of time for other topics, after the first 1 hour of iPod.

 

[JGowan]

IF the news at MacWorld had been skimpy these items would have been announced by Jobs next week and not a week early. This lends credence to much better news coming out at macWorld on Tuesday Jan 11.

I hadn't thought about it like that... you are SPOT ON!

 

[JGowan]

...Personally after doing the research I'm sticking with a boring 20" CRT for another year. Even $675 is too spendy for a monitor.

God, I remember spending $850 on a 17" Sony CRT with only 800x600 resolution back in 1996. Times, they are a'changin.

 

[B_Gates]

A 17" monitor must be in the works if a cheap headless mac is to be released next week. No one would buy a $500 computer and then pay $999 for a monitor.

99% of people don't need a 20" or larger monitor.

I have a 12" PowerBook with a resolution of 1024x768 and that works well for me. Although I would like the option of a 17" WideScreen monitor for my desk and my PC.

One could only hope!!!! 17 inch monitor would be great, Widescreen or regular.

 

[aussie_geek]

Good stuff Apple



Excellent prices here in Australia - 20 inch from $2299 to $1599 !!

They have dropped the prices of the iMac G5's as well - $200 off the base model 1.6 Ghz


aussie_geek

 

[Chomolungma]

Your argument may make more sense in the future

While I agree with Steve/Apple that we use TVs differently than we use computer screens, Apple should offer more flexibility. They're really missing a market segment (the urban, style-conscious minimalists) who'd prefer to have just one monitor double as a TV and computer screen. Anyone who's lived in a cramped Manhattan apartment would appreciate the potential of this flexibility.

I think your argument may make sense if we have working 42" computer monitor. I think all of us in here at one time or another have thought of this idea, and no doubt Apple's designer had discussed this issue before. I don't really see the furniture arrangement that would allow for this. Unless you are a single male who cares little of decor. I mean, I like siting on the couch while watching TV, and the 23" and even the 30" wide may not be big enough for me. Plus, you have to watch TV while that happens to be on your desk-workspace.

I don't know if the computer and TV will ever be one. But it seems to be the fantasy of many guys (the straight variety?). Personally, I don't think it will ever work (for most people). I mean, come on, the TV is meant to be a relaxing furniture and the computer is meant for work.
What do I know.

-Chomo

 

[nickgoldman]

When I got my powermac a month ago I defiantley thought the apple displays were far to exspensive I ended up getting a formac gallery 1900(I got it from a guy that works for formac) it has the raven specs but is in the oxygen colour for only £310

 

[Mord]

now if i were considering a 23" display it would only be a couple of hundred bucks more for two 20" displays which i would go for if i had the money.

 

[JGowan]

Win the Lottery. It will solve all those pesky money problems.

I'm in the same predicament... I'm having a really hard time to decide what to get.

Any opinions?

 

[SiliconAddict]

Knowing Apple though that could have a flipside. Apple could just as easily cripple the new headless Macs to, say, VGA and a max res. It would be a travesty, but it could happen.

If so Jobs will make little children and at least one grown man, me, cry.

More accurately if he does that I will walk out into the parking lot of my building and scream until I'm horse. Better to have no headless Mac then one that is stuck at 640x480 or even 1024x768.

 

[BB1985]

30 inch screen return

I just got a 30 inch on thurday of last week, do you think i can get a refund???

I'm pretty sure that you can return any Apple item within 14 days, simply return and repurchase.

The difference will get you an iPod or 2...!!

Good Luck

 

[oingoboingo]

Excellent prices here in Australia - 20 inch from $2299 to $1599 !!

They have dropped the prices of the iMac G5's as well - $200 off the base model 1.6 Ghz


aussie_geek

Yeah, these price drops are pretty good (especially on the iMac G5...there's going to be more general interest in that than the 20" display I think). Makes you wonder where they've come from though. The AUD has been reasonably steady against the USD for a while now (fluctuates between about 74 cents up to 78 cents). If there were equivalent price drops in the US though I suppose it could just be falling component costs and/or slipping sales that are the reason.

 

[SLCentral]

But are they? Try to find a WIDESCREEN monitor for the same price. The only other widescreen monitors I know of are insanely expensive. Apple can sell them for alot of money because if you want that size of a monitor with those resolutions, it's your only option.

Dell 2005 model, Widescreen 20", better specs then Apple's, and can be had for $600 with deals that come up at least once a month.

 

[iGary]

The only thingh stopping me from hocking my clear ACD is hogging up all my I/O ports with those USB/Firewire/Power things coming off the back. I love the ADC connector, personally.

Oh well.

Glad to see the price drops though. Appears as if Apple is trying to get a bit more competitive in the market, which is nice.

 

[JGowan]

... compared to the Samsung the Apple montors look washed out. ... picture quality is not what you would expect ... 23" monitor is particularly bad ...

It never fails. When someone starts really kicking Apple's @$$, you can almost always guarantee they're a "MACRUMORS NEWBIE" -- a PC troll trying to take some wind out of Apple's sail.

I have had the 22" Cinema Display, the 23" HD Display (old school style) and the current 23" HD Display and I must say that as a pro graphic artist, Apple's displays are the best. The color is about as rich as you can get.

Be gone, Troll -- Troll, be gone.

 

[Sir_Giggles]

Actually, I own a Samsung 173p LCD monitor and I have been numerous times to the Apple store to have a look at the displays. I'm sorry but compared to the Samsung the Apple montors look washed out.

Too funny.

link

 

[JGowan]

Maybe so but sometimes you simply are paying more for a product that has standard hardware.

Sorry... the new lineup of Apple displays are not standard. Have you ever even seen or used one?

Which isn't getting what you paid for its getting fleeced on a product that should be cheaper.

Simply one addict's opinion.

They are counting on people to not comparison shop and simply purchase it because it looks slick with my G5 tower.

I don't own a G5 tower but have an AI 23" display. I didn't get for its looks (though it is the belle of the display ball),... I got it for it's quality. Worth every penny.

LOL. I love the reasoning on the thread so far. It almost sounds a bit like circular logic.

I love how superior you trying to sound. Get over yourself.

No one seems to bother to look at the actual specs of the hardware they are comparing. Contrast ratio, dot pitch, viewing angle, etc.

Oh... and I looked around ... and not just at specs ... I LOOKED at the monitors themselves. I had to come back to Apple. They were just superior. Period.

In almost every case there is a better solution on the market other then Apple which wouldn’t be that big of a deal if it wasn’t for the fact that they are also cheaper.

Regardless of the numbers game you seemed to be playing/falling for, the real test is seeing and using the monitor.

You want to go with an all Apple solution that costs more that is fine but please don't try pissing in my face and call it rain.

I'd call it hilarious.

Are ACD good? Yes. Are they the best on the market? Close. Are they more expensive then they should be? Damn straight.

Again, you get what you pay for.

 

[uberman42]

Actually, I own a Samsung 173p LCD monitor and I have been numerous times to the Apple store to have a look at the displays. I'm sorry but compared to the Samsung the Apple montors look washed out. The actual picture quality is not what you would expect. (The 23" monitor is particularly bad)

I've had an itch to buy one of the new Apple displays since they came out but I just could not justify the cost. Although the price decrease is a good thing, It will only be a few months until Samsung comes out with a wide screen monitor with twice the contrast and half the price. I understand that Apple is a premium brand but they still need to have the hardware to back up the wonderful design and maintain that stellar reputation.

By the way for those discussing the Dell 2005FPW. These monitors although cheap, have severe backlight issues. There are very detailed threads at Neowin.com and Hardocp.com that clearly demonstrate very poor QC with this monitor.

sorry if this was already mentioned but... I think it has to do with the apple store environment...the problem with the store is that it is too light, too bright. This washes the displays out, which is a bummer.

Funny to compare Apple and Samsung- the LCD panels for Apple are from Samsung. Apple, in a smart move sometime in the late 90's early '00s invested a lot in samsung's LCD plant and development. you are seeing the fruits of that effort.

so I am assuming a $600 G5 cube (1.6Ghz- all those unused 1.6 chips from the earlier PMacs); single 2.0, dual 2.5, and dual 2.8 Power macs; an apple HD phone using 1 gb flash that interfaced with the ipod or imac to upload a favorite playlist (IEEE-1394 on a phone?); and a Dual processor Powerbook 15" and 17". No G5 powerbooks till fall 2005 [it's the batteries people ]

 

[Thresher]

Apple monitors are ALWAYS bad deals spec wise. They're superior in terms of the design and ergonomics, but otherwise, there's really no argument: Apple displays are overpriced (except in the high-end).


While I agree with Steve/Apple that we use TVs differently than we use computer screens, Apple should offer more flexibility. They're really missing a market segment (the urban, style-conscious minimalists) who'd prefer to have just one monitor double as a TV and computer screen. Anyone who's lived in a cramped Manhattan apartment would appreciate the potential of this flexibility.

There's really no excuse why Apple doesn't offer TV-in capabilities with their monitors. If not, they should at least offer an TiVo-like option. Come on Apple, help us CONSOLIDATE and simplify our lives, not complicate.

I'd argue that Apple monitors aren't even that much better ergonomically. My Dell 2005FPW raises, lowers, rotates, pivots, and can be turned to portrait mode. Additionally, it's VESA mountable. The Apple 20" pivots. That's about it.

 

[Thresher]

There was mention about quality issues on this monitor. I agree. I had a first month production monitor and it was horrible. It had all sorts of light bleeding at the corners and along the top edge. I went through the usual Dell nightmare, but got it replaced rapidly with a new monitor.

The new monitor is spotless. It's beautiful, sharp, and bright. No dead pixels, no bright spots.

Both panels have the same dimensions, both have the same resolutions. I'm not sure if they are the same panel or not, but their pixel size and density should be exactly the same.

The thing it lacks is the Apple attention to detail and design. I would LOVE to have an Apple Cinema Display to match my Powermac (and Powerbook for that matter), but feature wise and performance wise, I just can't justify it at a third more money.

If there is a discernable difference in image quality, it's lost on me. I can't see it and I have excellent vision. Sticking the word Pro on something doesn't make it so. Likewise, charging more for your product doesn't make it better.

If you want to talk OS quality or the merits of buying an Apple box versus a PC, I'm with you, but I'd just have to disagree when it comes to the monitor. I think Apple can charge a bit more because of the design and Apple's reputation for quality, but when you stack it against the Dell, it comes up feature poor and cost prohibitive for anyone who needs a good monitor at a decent price.