Phasing out 27" ACD and Thunderbolt Displays?

MUBiomed

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 24, 2010
358
32
Is anyone else concerned that the rumored new "ultra high resolution" machines in the early part of this year may render our 27" ACDs and TBDs out of date. It makes since that Apple would need to release an updated version with higher resolution to accommodate this change. Why would you want a 27" display with lower resolution that your laptop? I am not sure if panels exist for this change at a reasonable price (reasonable being relative). Any thoughts or insight?
 

CWallace

macrumors 604
Aug 17, 2007
6,779
2,695
Seattle, WA
Why would you want a 27" display with lower resolution that your laptop?
Usability?

I've used a Dell 15" laptop with a 1920x1200 display connected to a 24" 1920x1200 display and it was far easier to use the 24" display because I could see the icons. :p
 

seepel

macrumors 6502
Dec 22, 2009
471
0
Don't forget that a high ppi display, while looking cleaner, will not really give the same "space" as a larger screen. In other words, the effective resolution won't really change.
 

Lennyvalentin

macrumors 65816
Apr 25, 2011
1,429
740
Is anyone else concerned that the rumored new "ultra high resolution" machines in the early part of this year may render our 27" ACDs and TBDs out of date.
No, not at all. These new high-res panels will be extremely expensive initially. It will take quite a while for prices to come down, not just to thunderbolt display levels, but also to anything resembling today's 1080P monitors.

High-DPI displays are a very exciting development, but unfortunately for us all, it will take time for the tech to mature.
 

george-brooks

macrumors 6502a
Oct 31, 2011
732
16
Brooklyn, NY
These displays were "out of date" the moment they were released.
here, here! Apple really needs to improve their external displays, especially for what they're charging for them. They don't meet pro specs. I think they should really expand their display lineup into 2 categories with multiple sizes:
A cheap, good looking display that comes in 20", 24" and 27" for mac mini users, etc. and a really nice display with professional specs in 24" and 30"
 

Eddyisgreat

macrumors 601
Oct 24, 2007
4,851
1
here, here! Apple really needs to improve their external displays, especially for what they're charging for them. They don't meet pro specs. I think they should really expand their display lineup into 2 categories with multiple sizes:
A cheap, good looking display that comes in 20", 24" and 27" for mac mini users, etc. and a really nice display with professional specs in 24" and 30"
Apple is not a display company. They can stick to the high end and stay their. The Cinema Displays from 2005 onward were available in multiple sizes but those were phased out. Why? Who knows, but it obviously wasn't a money maker for them.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,721
1,820
here, here! Apple really needs to improve their external displays, especially for what they're charging for them. They don't meet pro specs. I think they should really expand their display lineup into 2 categories with multiple sizes:
A cheap, good looking display that comes in 20", 24" and 27" for mac mini users, etc. and a really nice display with professional specs in 24" and 30"
You know that would help mac mini users. I agree with you there, but Apple's display designs have been terrible. The bezel/chin designs have been well thought out, but the displays themselves drift horribly. Plenty of manufacturers do a lot with the internal design to improve long term stability, uniformity, and color reproduction. Apple just basically plops a panel into a pretty box and sends it off. Independent displays are one of the worst things they make. I've seen so many of these after a year or so. They're just not built for heavy use.
 

george-brooks

macrumors 6502a
Oct 31, 2011
732
16
Brooklyn, NY
Apple is not a display company. They can stick to the high end and stay their. The Cinema Displays from 2005 onward were available in multiple sizes but those were phased out. Why? Who knows, but it obviously wasn't a money maker for them.
But they are a computer company, one who really likes the things they make and wants their users to use them. They also have very high standards so obviously the fact that they're making a display at all means that they want people to buy it and use it. No one has design down like Apple does when it comes to displays, and quite frankly as a creative professional, I want nice looking displays on my desk to compliment my nice looking computer, but I also want something functional. I haven't found that yet, and I would pay a premium for it if Apple designed it and built it to the specs I need.
 

calderone

macrumors 68040
Aug 28, 2009
3,679
86
Seattle
I haven't found that yet, and I would pay a premium for it if Apple designed it and built it to the specs I need.
Not doing this is why Apple has a boatload of cash.

The goal is to produce a product that solves the needs of many while maintaining profitability.

Producing 5 different display models to meet the needs to the fringe groups: People on a tight budget (20") and "Professionals" is not profitable when the majority are going to land somewhere in the middle. This model simply does not make business sense.

We ALL want to buy the product that is made specifically for US, it simply isn't a reality as the costs are too high.
 

george-brooks

macrumors 6502a
Oct 31, 2011
732
16
Brooklyn, NY
Not doing this is why Apple has a boatload of cash.

The goal is to produce a product that solves the needs of many while maintaining profitability.

Producing 5 different display models to meet the needs to the fringe groups: People on a tight budget (20") and "Professionals" is not profitable when the majority are going to land somewhere in the middle. This model simply does not make business sense.

We ALL want to buy the product that is made specifically for US, it simply isn't a reality as the costs are too high.
I guess you're right. But I think they should at least offer a size choice. 2 27" cinema displays wont fit on my desk along with my studio monitors. I wish they still offered the 24" model. I would probably settle with the inferior quality for the style and convenience of the interface.
 

calderone

macrumors 68040
Aug 28, 2009
3,679
86
Seattle
I guess you're right. But I think they should at least offer a size choice. 2 27" cinema displays wont fit on my desk along with my studio monitors. I wish they still offered the 24" model. I would probably settle with the inferior quality for the style and convenience of the interface.
They probably should, but here again my guess is Apple thinks it is more profitable to produce a single size.

If they were right, things will stay the same. If they were wrong, they will likely offer more sizes.
 

MUBiomed

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 24, 2010
358
32
Several of the decisions they have made in the past few months have made me question their motives (obviously it is to make money, but you can be somewhat generous to the consumer).

First the Thunderbolt displays are incompatible with display port equipped PCs?! Now perhaps I do not understand the tech but I am pretty sure that this is a firmware issue rather than a true technological hurdle.

Also, you cannot tether a cinema display to a thunderbolt one. I realize that this has been hashed out in numerous threads, but it has been shown that this is entirely feasible (and actually works if a device is put in between the two displays). This is clearly a firmware issue to force the consumer into making another $1000 purchase.
 

katorga

macrumors regular
Oct 28, 2006
200
0
Good in theory

I'm looking at a Thunderbolt display when I upgrade my old 2008 MBP this quarter...in theory they look fantastic. But...

I'd really the ability to connect multiple devices to the display and switch between them: mac, roku, game system. The display simply doesn't work for that. It really needs two extra video inputs.

In the future, Thunderbolt PCIe chassis could allow me to attach a monster gaming video card (or cards for CUDA co-processing) to my MBP...sadly, the Thunderbolt display won't connect to that...and once I use the single TB port to connect to the chassis, I have no more video out options on the MBP. In this scenario, I have to have a DVI or HDMI display.

If I get a PC display or a small LCD HDTV, I have to use the TB->HDMI adapter which takes up my only TB port for connecting storage or other goodies (can you put the TB->HDMI adapter at the end of the daisy chain?).
 

calderone

macrumors 68040
Aug 28, 2009
3,679
86
Seattle
^

The preferred methods seems to be putting the display at end of the chain, so if you were to do external graphics the display would hang off that (most likely assuming a daisy chain port was added).

You can do a non TB display via adapter, but it will depend on the manufacturers implementation.
 

CWallace

macrumors 604
Aug 17, 2007
6,779
2,695
Seattle, WA
To build on what caldron stated, it truly is an embarrassment of riches when it comes to monitor choices today. Yes, almost all of them don't match the aesthetic style of Apple products, but that is the criteria Apple sells on (with decent specs).

For those who have different criteria than a good monitor that matches your Apple hardware, you literally can have it all.

I bought my ATD because it:
  • Matches my iMac 27"
  • I like the panel and the glass covering
  • I liked the features it did have (TB, FW800, Ethernet)
  • I didn't miss the features it didn't have
  • I liked that I could use it as a hub with my MacBook Pro 13"
  • I liked that I could use it as a hub with my MacBook Air (when I buy one)

But when my main machine was a MacBook 15", I had a Dell 24" Ultrasharp and not an Apple Cinema Display because I didn't need to match the MacBook's style and the ACD didn't offer me anything more than the Dell did.