Looks like bye-bye 15" Studio Display

Discussion in 'Hardware Rumors' started by Nipsy, Jul 8, 2002.

  1. Nipsy macrumors 65816


    Jan 19, 2002
  2. billiam0878 macrumors 6502

    Mar 15, 2002
    Winter Park, FL
    Sounds like it, though why aren't they dropping the 22 as well, I would have though that the 23 was going to be the replacement.

  3. me hate windows macrumors 6502

    me hate windows

    Jan 18, 2002
    It might be because the 23" is $1000 dollars more than the 22". Some people probably would rather have a little bit smaller screen for $1000 less.
  4. Ensign Paris macrumors 68000

    Ensign Paris

    Nov 4, 2001
    As long as we get the 19" I will be happy to see the 15 go.

    Although by the datin it looks like we will see the 19" come and the 15" go at paris.

  5. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Nov 1, 2001
    I've said it a few times before, it only speculation, but it just *feels* right for a lot of reasons, besides its a little 'outside the box', something to expect from Apple . They're going to go with a wideformat across the board - the 17" will actually be a stretched 15", the 19" will be a stretched 17", so the lineup will be a 17", 19" and 23" - all wideformat.

    Whether or not we see this at MWNY, is anybody's guess, it would be cool though.

  6. mymemory macrumors 68020


    May 9, 2001
    Nice, I want a 17"

    BTW, I was looking at the iMac againg this week end and the 15" really seems samll. The iMac can have a 17" with no problem.
  7. blackpeter macrumors 6502a

    Aug 14, 2001
    Yeah, I love the widescrean formatt. It'd be nice to see Apple make a move like that.
  8. Nipsy thread starter macrumors 65816


    Jan 19, 2002
    The feeling I get from this is that the 15" will disappear from the Pro/Studio line, and the iMac will get a 17" later...G5 Tower later.
  9. menoinjun macrumors 6502a


    Jul 7, 2001
    The 15" LCD is discontinued at CompUSA. Look for widescreens displays to complete the lineup coming up this macworld. My source is not from inside apple, but is very close to the company lets say.

  10. wsteineker macrumors 6502a


    Jul 17, 2001
    Montgomery, AL
    Ok, the text of the MacMinute link is as follows:

    "Apple has announced a new "Crystal Clear Savings" (PDF) promotion that offers US$300-$500 back when a Power Mac G4 is purchased along with a 17-inch Studio Display, 22-inch Cinema Display, or 23-inch Cinema HD display. The savings are $300 for an 800MHz Power Mac G4, $400 for a 933MHz Power Mac G4, and $500 for a dual-1GHz Power Mac G4. The promotion runs from July 9 through August 12."

    While it's interesting that Apple didn't include the 15" Studio Display in the promo, it doesn't necessarily mean that the 15" model is going the way of the dodo. The 15" display is the lowest margin, lowest cost display Apple offers, and it's reasonable to assume that they can't offer a minimum $300 (much less a $500 maximum) discount on a $600 display and expect to even break even. The reasons for not including the display don't have to be related to the EOLing of the product. They could simply be economic.

    Now assuming that these discount brackets are for generic low, mid, and high range PowerMac combinations and not limited solely to the current lineup, then MAYBE you have something. Still, it's uncharacteristic (though not unheard of) for Apple to push brand new Macs right out the Macworld door with discounts. This could only happen if no new displays were being introduced. A new display line, especially an all widescreen one, would have enough of a wow factor to sell on their own without the use of a really pricey discount.

    I'm not saying that the 15" LCD isn't being put out to pasture, I'm just saying that this article doesn't give us any reasonable proof to believe that. That's all. I think we probably need to hear about an order being placed by Apple with a manufacturer for 19" LCDs before we all go throwing kerosene on this fire.

    As for the widescreen issue, who knows? I for one honestly prefer a standard aspect ratio 17" display to a widescreen one. They're easier for me to design on. That said, Steve & Co. rarely ask me for my personal input, so I don't think it'll slow them down. Widescreens would be "cool", but let's wait on some sort of aforementioned manufacturing order, as 17" widescreens would require a new manufacturer as well. Just trying to be the vioce of reason here, that's all. :D
  11. 4409723 Suspended


    Jun 22, 2001
    Call me retarded but, I don't see the lure of widescreen, could somebody please explain this to me ;)
  12. edesignuk Moderator emeritus


    Mar 25, 2002
    London, England
    Easy! More space (higher res, without going dual screen)! Great for watchin DVD's, DTP, word processing and photoshop.
  13. wsteineker macrumors 6502a


    Jul 17, 2001
    Montgomery, AL
    I'm with w-_-w on this one. Widescreen makes sense on larger displays, especialy the 22" and 23" varieties. You can fit 2 standard pages on them, and they're large enough that watching DVDs isn't a total nightmare. As for 17" (and maybe even 19") widescreens, what's the big deal? It's a gimmick! There's negligibly more workspace on a 17" widescreen monitor than on a standard aspect ratio 17" display. It's not large enough to begin with to justify the sacrifice of the vertical pixel space just to gain on the horizontal. I NEED that extra vertical space for page layout work, and there's not enough real estate gain on the horizontal axis on a 17" widescreen display to be of any real (non gaming or DVD) use. Keep prices down, Apple, and keep the standard aspect ratio 17" LCD!
  14. drastik macrumors 6502a


    Apr 10, 2002
    For most people, yes, the 17 widescreen would be sort of useless, but this is Apple we're talking about. its no secret that the TV industry is pushing widescreen, I would guess it won't be a decade before almost all TVs are wide screen. The new iMac design and theTiBook/iBook design also strongly hint at a rising tide of minimalist modern industrial design, which is a fancy way of sying future-stuff. Apple has a good angle on looking the most current and ahead of the curve in Industrial design. I could see a push for wide screen just because it seems like the future. Plus, Video people will like them.

    One last point is that the MAc is supposed to be a digital Hub, and by Hub, they mean everything. This could be a push o equalize Mac and Television. We've already got DVD, and one HD monitor that is around the size of your average television. Its smaller than my TV, but I might go back to that size if it were an option. So cheaper is the way. Consider this: my TV: 32 in flat CRT (Sony, $800.00 {the HD is about $1600}, Fujitsu 43 in widescreen Plasma Flat panel TV: $6999, Apple 23 in HD display: around $3500? Apple has to come down on the price to make it doable for the masses.
  15. CountZero macrumors member

    May 5, 2002
    I am afraid you are comparing apple with orange here. The HD TV and plasma widescreen panel are great for the home but the new 23" LCD monitor is aimed at video profession where the high resolution enable them to edit HD video. The resolutions on either the HD TV or plasma panel are not high enough for that. The alternative will be professional grade HD TV monitor which is not the same as the kind you buy from the shop.

    As for the advantage of 16:9 widescreen over 4:3, many people had already mentioned them. As a aside, it is sad for an European like myself living in the US to see the most technologically advanced nation so backward in TV format!

    Most new TV sets sold in Europe are in widescreen format and in fact one of the Japaness TV manufacturer (Sharp I think) had ceased production of 4:3 TV tube more than 3 years ago.

    For me it is like traveled back in time. People opinion of widescreen here in the US now is just like the European 3-4 years ago. The first reaction is always 'Why? You lost the top and the bottom of the image!' WRONG! You GAIN the left and right. Widescreen is the future and so get on with the program! Anyway, my rant is over... :D
  16. pgwalsh macrumors 68000


    Jun 21, 2002
    New Zealand
    I agree, but it's hard to sell to the regular consumer. It's the same with 3G wireless. I think US companies don't commit because there's no immediate results and this doesn't fair well with CO-US. You need immediate results or you may not be around long enough to get that bonus.
  17. spacepower macrumors member

    Jul 8, 2002
    Think abt it, every movie you see in the theaters are widescreen. Thing abt why they are widescreen, at varying ratios, rather than standard tv or cpu monitor 4:3. Simple. Open your eyes, your range of vision is greater side to side, than up and down, in the simplest terms.

    I would love a 19in lcd. Can't afford the 22inch

    I think the reason that the new iMac sales are slowing down is because the limited 1024x768 resolution. If Apple put the 15.2, semi-widescreen, highest pixel density lcds from the newest TiBook, i thing it would change alot.

  18. drastik macrumors 6502a


    Apr 10, 2002
    god yes, the Us is so behind the curve in TV tech that its not even funny anymore. I wish this weren't the case, but most american consumers are unaware of what wide screen is, or worse, perfer pan and scan (bleh!). I won't buy another 4:3 TV ever, but I'm not buying a lot of Tvs right now.

    You're right about the 23 HD LCD, it is for video pros, but one we get down to a seventeen inch widescreen, its more for consumers. I don't have a problem with a little less res on the consumer models, hell, a lot of windows users run 800x600 (these are not pros, mind you, just average folks). They like that size and the higher res make things "too small" for your low end crowd. All this to say, Apple needs the low end crowd, that's where the market share is.
  19. coolocity macrumors regular

    Jun 24, 2002
    Central New York
    Their only doing this because they don't want you to be able to buy a $599 monitor for $99, it would be too good of a deal. I think it's just an insentive to go for the bigger ones. Just a thought.

    - John
  20. Anon macrumors member

    May 23, 2002
  21. G5orbust macrumors 65816


    Jun 14, 2002
    Price man. They need to have the 22 so they can have a large screen that people can turn to if tehy dont want to shell out more than $3000 for a screen that, from the physical stand point, is only 1 inch bigger. But, us mac people know of the resolution difference and resoution quality. Inorder to have the 23 replace the 22, tehy'd need to lower the price to match the 22's current price or make it maybe $100 to $200 more because of the high definition ability and larger screen/ more screen real estate.

Share This Page