Oh please, don't even try it. Both the iMac and eMac are tech piles of ____. They are not an alternative to someone who want that bit more power, and would like an afforable matching display.jxyama said:
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.
expensive monitors
- Thread starter tamara6
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i think the 17" was left behind for sale for the similar (but not the biggest*) reason apple sold G4 PMs after G5s came out. (*the biggest reason, of course, was OS9 bootability, i know.)
just a bit mismatched, old style stuff for cheap. apple is famous for maintaining the low end prices rather high. why rant about it now? i feel like this is something to be expected.
if apple didn't mind "commoditizing" their products with cheap low end products, then we would still have 5 GB iPods for sale at $150 and 500 MHz headless PowerMac at $500, etc.
just a bit mismatched, old style stuff for cheap. apple is famous for maintaining the low end prices rather high. why rant about it now? i feel like this is something to be expected.
if apple didn't mind "commoditizing" their products with cheap low end products, then we would still have 5 GB iPods for sale at $150 and 500 MHz headless PowerMac at $500, etc.
edesignuk said:
geez, please read. i said that's what apple thinks. and apple decided not to cater to people "who want that bit more power, and would like an afforable (sic) matching display" because they don't see the profit in catering to them.
no, iMacs and eMacs aren't lower end alternatives to PowerMacs. i never said that. i said that's what apple thinks.
Since you appeard to think like/understand Apple, I aimed my reply at you. If this is not the case then that's fair enough. The point still stands no matter who it is targeted at.jxyama said:
jxyama said:
A 17" monitor compared to a 500 MHz headless powermac and a 5 GB iPod is hardly fair. A 10" monitor would be what those items should compare with. A 17" monitor is the standard size these days. It's what comes with most computers, and I think Apple should offer an aluminum version. Nuff said.
tamara6 said:
Is it stupid to use an HP monitor with an Apple computer? Do the carpet and drapes always have to match? If you've got the G5 because you need its power I don't see why you'd be so concerned with looks.
The thing I've love about Apple is that I always know I can trust their stuff. It's always nop notch and you don't even have the option of buying a piece of crap from them. They just don't sell anything that's not "the best" and to me that's worth the price.
Why not use the 17" Wide screen...
that is found in the iMac repurposed as the entry level aluminum monitor. Maybe at $499.
that is found in the iMac repurposed as the entry level aluminum monitor. Maybe at $499.
edesignuk said:
no, i don't know what apple's thinking. but i wanted to go a bit more than just ranting about lack of products.
my point also stands that apple market research seem to disagree with the "tech savy" crowd's assessment that there's profit to be made from people who can barely afford the G5, claims to "need" the power of G5 and also need an affordable matching monitor. (just greedy, cheap people?
)
Exactly. So if you have to have the best there is, and you're into looks, you can now get a PowerMac G5 and a matching display. If you don't have to have the best, or don't care about looks, you have other options.tamara6 said:
I remember not too long ago when all computer components matched. They were all beige.
Horrortaxi said:
And what if you don't have to have the best, but do care about looks?
It's not just about matching aluminium with aluminium either. Very few 3rd party displays (that I know of) use the same aspect ratio as Apple's widescreen displays. So the images is going to be squashed/stretched, or you can go for non-widescreen options. None of the above are particularly appealing.
Please, don't just find and state the most expensive 1920X1200 LCD.Mr. Anderson said:
Samsung 243T, $2000-2400
http://www.streetprices.com/Electronics/Computer_Hardware_PC/Monitors/LCD_24in/SP1587596.html
HP L2335, $1700-1800
http://www.mysimon.com/HP_L2335_fla...8-30788118.html?tag=ob_-5&orderby=-5&sort=asc
whooleytoo said:And what if you don't have to have the best, but do care about looks?
Don't buy from Apple. There isn't much of a compromise.
Arael, if it makes you happy, substitue "highest quality" for "the best." I realize there is a similar semantic problem there too but that's as much change as you'll get out of me. You know what I mean.
I never offered an explanation. Apple doesn't want to do it--that's the only explanation I have. Maybe you should ask them why they don't.tamara6 said:
tamara6 said:
They could, but it's a waste of time and talent. They're interested in LCDs with the highest profit margin. These days 15" and 17" LCDs have been "commoditized" (i.e. everyone makes them cheaply). So, Apple focuses on the higher-end where there's still room for them to make a few bucks by out-designing (i.e. making cooler stuff than) their competitors (of which there are fewer).