For the love of god, please make these matte, not glossy.
Could not have said it any better my friend.
I love my ACDs and every time I see an iMac and

For the love of god, please make these matte, not glossy.
The trick is will they only run at 30 hz? I haven't seen any indication of a 4K display thats able to run an 60-120 hz like current 2560x1600 monitors. Your eyes will not enjoy staring at 30 hz, unless apple has shares in lense crafters![]()
If you can't imaging the usefulness, leave it to the professionals to appreciate this new breed of displays.
Not everybody will watch TV on these.
I understand your concerns about Apple dragging its feet but in this case I think it is a bit misplaced. Why? Well everybody knows that the professional industry is going to 4K displays, as such it doesn't make sense to focus on old technology. Transition periods are always tough because investment in engineering and R&D has been refocused on products in the pipeline.Had my $1,000 to throw down months ago for a Thunderbolt Display if they just updated the form factor to match the benefits of the new (now 1 year old) 27" iMac display.
Since Apple has chosen to continue selling 3 year old tech for full price (USB 2.0, really?) I have had enough time to think and decided that I no longer have an interest in the display period. Apple's loss for not keeping up with the times across their product line. They would have had an extra $1,000 from me and likely many others.
For the love of god, please make these matte, not glossy.
You all realize that you'd have to stick your nose less than 6 inches from a 30" 4K display to even start to see the pixels. Using multiple 4K displays on your desktop would be overkill and a total waste of money. The market for these will be very small, used only by the "look at how big and fine mine is" crowd.
4k is worthless. All cable/tv providers at most broadcast at 1080i and the average is 720p. Waste of money. You will need a super fast internet connection to view these type of video's. Also the DVD's will be huge. Not gonna happen until the average person has a 1gig connection.
If only.
If I was, then I'd be getting excited at the prospect of 3840 x 2160 'raw' on a 32" screen, and to hell with pixel-doubling.
As it is, the 1920x1200 on my 17" MBP can get a bit much - but I'm fine with 1440p at 27".
As I said, it would be nice if Apple could fix their otherwise very nice OS so that you could re-scale the UI. Windows can do it - how hard can it be?
(Ans: very hard if all your 3rd party software is hard-coded in pixels).
Right. Windows can do it. With lots of screwed up GUIs and text running off their areas. And blurry icons.
Windows can technically accomplish lots of things if you don't want it elegant and consistent. Microsoft doesn't tend to test these modes. Not do most other software developers.
Free scaling has never worked as elegantly and consistently as pre-determined-scale designs.
For the love of god, please make these matte, not glossy.
Spoken like a true consumer. Now let the creators and creatives have their Pro tools please.![]()
For the love of god, please make these matte, not glossy.
For the love of god, please make these matte, not glossy.
Oh I don't know, probably a couple billion people?
You do realize that some 55" LEDs go for up to $4,000, right? Some with different technologies even double that?
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/55-class-54-5-8-diag--led-4k-ultra-hd-tv-2160p-240hz-smart-3d-hdtv/1775101.p?id=1219063710165&skuId=1775101&st=55%20led&cp=1&lp=2
Not everyone buys the cheapest product. There are reasons for buying more expensive things.
Better question is: With tablets, and loads of streaming services, how many people actually sit down to watch TV regularly anymore?
Yeah but those couple billion people won't be willing to fork over the apple tax. The world is moving away from the living room model of entertainment.
You all realize that you'd have to stick your nose less than 6 inches from a 30" 4K display to even start to see the pixels. Using multiple 4K displays on your desktop would be overkill and a total waste of money. The market for these will be very small, used only by the "look at how big and fine mine is" crowd.
I was surprised at how much of a difference there was between 720p and 1080p on a 4.7" screen. I won't be surprised to see a huge difference between 1080p and 4k on a 32" screen, because I'm not blind.
As for the "look at how big and fine mine is" - it's a computer monitor, a tool for my home office that no one's going to see! Unless this is you...
Image
4k is worthless. All cable/tv providers at most broadcast at 1080i and the average is 720p. Waste of money. You will need a super fast internet connection to view these type of video's. Also the DVD's will be huge. Not gonna happen until the average person has a 1gig connection.
You do realize that some 55" LEDs go for up to $4,000, right? Some with different technologies even double that?