What's the holdup on a new Thunderbolt Display?

[theluggage]

The new iMac 27" panel has a similar color gamut to that of the Retina MBP, i.e. ~70% Adobe RGB. Now that's a big drop in gamut from 95% Adobe RGB of the current panel.

Are you sure about that? Not mixing up Adobe RGB with sRGB? I didn't think the current ATD was a wide gamut display. This review puts it at 76% Adobe RGB.

...anyway, the problem with wide gamut is that it is only suitable for people using well-calibrated pro graphics software that supports it properly. For anybody else using general purpose software, it is a recipe for horrible over-saturated neon colours.

The ATD is very nice, but I don't think it was necessarily aimed at anybody who needs to worry about gamut.

Plus, how higher can you go from 2560x1440, when the ATD already outresolves the eye from the average desktop viewing distance (i.e. ~2 feet)?

Hence my theory that a much smaller external 'retina' panel would make more sense as a rMBP accessory.

 

[PatriotInvasion]

The new iMac 27" panel has a similar color gamut to that of the Retina MBP, i.e. ~70% Adobe RGB. Now that's a big drop in gamut from 95% Adobe RGB of the current panel, and a big boon to all who need that extra gamut. And quite frankly that's one of the biggest reasons why anyone would plunk down a grand for a professional display, and Apple has the sense to keep that selling point there.

Unless Apple wants to move away from the professional sector, and at that price point the Thunderbolt Display is there to stay, it's not putting a cost-ineffective component in an already great display.

Plus, how higher can you go from 2560x1440, when the ATD already outresolves the eye from the average desktop viewing distance (i.e. ~2 feet)? Apple didn't boost the resolution on the iMacs for a reason: it's a useless waste of graphic prowess.

If you take a look at the Thunderbolt Display's product page on Apple's site, it is certainly marketed much more as a docking station and MacBook companion to turn a small notebook screen into an awesome desktop computer. It really is a consumer product despite it's price --- which is simply a function of it being a 2560x1440 IPS LED backlit display as well as a Thunderbolt docking station with built in iSight HD camera, speakers, and a MagSafe charger. For all of that, $999 is about right.

They don't really go out of there way to mention anything about color gamut or accuracy.

----------

Also, if they can pack a Retina display with a resolution of 2048x1536 into a $499 9.7" iPad, why is it so hard for them to get to 3840x2160 on a 24" or 27" screen that is always connected to a power source? Side note: Even with the 4K resolution of 3840x2160, the PPI on either screen size is still under 200.

Seems like Thunderbolt should be able to handle that resolution as well. Someone explain to me the technical barriers to such a display.

 

[mm201]

Plus, how higher can you go from 2560x1440, when the ATD already outresolves the eye from the average desktop viewing distance (i.e. ~2 feet)? Apple didn't boost the resolution on the iMacs for a reason: it's a useless waste of graphic prowess.

This is factually wrong, or else the text would be way too small for comfortable reading. Given 108.8dpi on the 27" iMac, I'm getting 1.32 arcminutes per pixel, which falls short of the 1 arcminute or less requirement to be called "retina." Also, 2 feet is pretty far away. I'd call 1 to 1.5 feet more reasonable.

Even without doing the math, there's a simple test you can do to decide if your screen is "retina" for your viewing conditions: Set a HiDPI mode. If stuff is too big, it's not retina. If LoDPI isn't too small and you can read comfortably, it's definitely not retina.

 

[Prodo123]

Are you sure about that? Not mixing up Adobe RGB with sRGB? I didn't think the current ATD was a wide gamut display. This review puts it at 76% Adobe RGB.

The same review also states that there probably was an error with the reading as the display panel unit has not changed from the ACD, which had 85-95% coverage of Adobe RGB:

Apple indicates that color gamut shouldn't have changed, so it's quite possible that the differences here are due to our colorimeter and not the panel.

...anyway, the problem with wide gamut is that it is only suitable for people using well-calibrated pro graphics software that supports it properly. For anybody else using general purpose software, it is a recipe for horrible over-saturated neon colours.

The ATD is very nice, but I don't think it was necessarily aimed at anybody who needs to worry about gamut.

That's what factory calibration does; it makes the display look good enough for the layman. Plus the consumer isn't one to pick at oversaturated colors (OLED being the prime example) anyway.

Hence my theory that a much smaller external 'retina' panel would make more sense as a rMBP accessory.

That would upset the hierarchy of the Thunderbolt Display lineup, especially if the smaller display has 1440p or above. Almost as if the Mac Mini outspecs the Mac Pro.

If you take a look at the Thunderbolt Display's product page on Apple's site, it is certainly marketed much more as a docking station and MacBook companion to turn a small notebook screen into an awesome desktop computer. It really is a consumer product despite it's price --- which is simply a function of it being a 2560x1440 IPS LED backlit display as well as a Thunderbolt docking station with built in iSight HD camera, speakers, and a MagSafe charger. For all of that, $999 is about right.

They don't really go out of there way to mention anything about color gamut or accuracy.

Of course no one wants to talk about the gritty details of everything. Apple's design and market philosophy is the antithesis of fine print. All they need to mention is that the display can do millions and millions of colors with IPS. Of course when we want the details we have AnandTech to turn to

As for the price, with 1440p displays going for as low as $500 around the webs and the upcoming docking station solutions at $200, the rest of the world thinks the Apple Thunderbolt Display (or its equivalent) should be worth $300 less.

Also, if they can pack a Retina display with a resolution of 2048x1536 into a $499 9.7" iPad, why is it so hard for them to get to 3840x2160 on a 24" or 27" screen that is always connected to a power source? Side note: Even with the 4K resolution of 3840x2160, the PPI on either screen size is still under 200.

Seems like Thunderbolt should be able to handle that resolution as well. Someone explain to me the technical barriers to such a display.

People commonly make the assumption that if it's done small scale, it can be replicated full scale. Unfortunately, the world isn't as convenient as we wish.
The iPad has a 9.7" LCD display. Whereas in an OLED panel it's as simple as turning on light bulbs in a specific order, to make an LCD display work the liquid crystals must physically move into position. This physical movement, although triggered by electricity, is still physical nonetheless. Therefore to make a 27" display work, which is roughly 2.8x bigger diagonally, the panel must move (2.8x)^2 or 7.75x more crystals. In other words, the difficulty needed to make a larger display grows exponentially.
If the ATD was OLED (and I am very glad it is not), all Apple needs to do to make it Retina is literally shrink and cram in more photodiodes. With LCDs, it's much more complicated.

This is factually wrong, or else the text would be way too small for comfortable reading. Given 108.8dpi on the 27" iMac, I'm getting 1.32 arcminutes per pixel, which falls short of the 1 arcminute or less requirement to be called "retina." Also, 2 feet is pretty far away. I'd call 1 to 1.5 feet more reasonable.

Even without doing the math, there's a simple test you can do to decide if your screen is "retina" for your viewing conditions: Set a HiDPI mode. If stuff is too big, it's not retina. If LoDPI isn't too small and you can read comfortably, it's definitely not retina.

Ach, I must have confused the hi-res 15" display for the ATD. Sorry about that.
(in which case the 128ppi resolution of the hi-res display does in fact outdo the 1 arcminute requirement at 68cm according to this handy dandy calculator)
Point still stands that the trade-off between resolution and graphic prowess of a computer on a 27" Retina display is not good enough for the update.

 

[LuxoJunior]

Unless Apple wants to move away from the professional sector

You haven't been paying much attention to Apple lately have you. Just look at the Mac "Pro" and Final Cut "Pro".

 

[theluggage]

The same review also states that there probably was an error with the reading as the display panel unit has not changed from the ACD, which had 85-95% coverage of Adobe RGB

In the review, they put the ACD at 83.16%, and the ATD at 76.1% - yes they pointed out the discrepancy and lack of visible difference, but there's no reason to think the error was to the ATDs disadvantage. Methinks review sites should investigate the accuracy of their test equipment before quoting results to two decimal places.


They also say:
Color gamut is about the only blemish, a side effect of Apple's LED backlight. If you're coming from a notebook panel however, you won't notice the difference.

Is there any data elsewhere that suggests the ATD is any great shakes in the colour gamut department?

 

[Prodo123]

You haven't been paying much attention to Apple lately have you. Just look at the Mac "Pro" and Final Cut "Pro".

Both are "Pro" enough for my professional work, especially with the Mac Pro awaiting an eminent update.

In the review, they put the ACD at 83.16%, and the ATD at 76.1% - yes they pointed out the discrepancy and lack of visible difference, but there's no reason to think the error was to the ATDs disadvantage. Methinks review sites should investigate the accuracy of their test equipment before quoting results to two decimal places.


They also say:
Color gamut is about the only blemish, a side effect of Apple's LED backlight. If you're coming from a notebook panel however, you won't notice the difference.

Is there any data elsewhere that suggests the ATD is any great shakes in the colour gamut department?

It is a blemish, I won't deny that. I wish Apple had used RGB LEDs instead of white ones, but then again I would happily go with 85% Adobe RGB over 65%. The remaining 15% or so won't affect the color hue much, and from personal experience it hasn't.
(I quote 65% because that is the average color gamut of the Retina displays calibrated to sRGB)

 

[LuxoJunior]

Both are "Pro" enough for my professional work, especially with the Mac Pro awaiting an eminent update.


It is a blemish, I won't deny that. I wish Apple had used RGB LEDs instead of white ones, but then again I would happily go with 85% Adobe RGB over 65%. The remaining 15% or so won't affect the color hue much, and from personal experience it hasn't.
(I quote 65% because that is the average color gamut of the Retina displays calibrated to sRGB)

"Eminent" update? I think you mean "imminent" update. FCPX is a joke in the professional world and I have serious doubts about the Mac Pro's future. I'd call time of death if we don't see an update in the next 60 days.

 

[Prodo123]

"Eminent" update? I think you mean "imminent" update. FCPX is a joke in the professional world and I have serious doubts about the Mac Pro's future. I'd call time of death if we don't see an update in the next 60 days.

And my spelling goes awry when I kinda type fast xD
All issues regarding professional use of FCPX has been resolved. Other than the simplification of the interface, it's just as professional as Vegas Pro. In fact it's much more featured and powerful than Vegas, but it still has that negative connotation from when Apple first nerfed it.

The Mac Pro has a concrete future. It's actually quite indispensable. If you think about it, without it Apple won't have the in-house workstation for their developers. Imagine the embarrassment if people found out Apple wrote the next version of Mac OS X on a Hackintosh.
(Of course that's a humorous way to look at it but it's there to stay nonetheless)

 

[theluggage]

The Mac Pro has a concrete future. It's actually quite indispensable. If you think about it, without it Apple won't have the in-house workstation for their developers.

What is it that a developer can't do on an iMac with 3.4GHz quad-core i7, with 3TB of hard drive, 32GB of RAM, a second 27" display and a couple of easily swappable Thunderbolt hard drives?

Heck, for most development jobs a MacBook Air with a Thunderbolt Display would get the job done.

The only thing a developer needs a Mac Pro for is to test that their software runs on a Mac Pro.

Even if they're creating graphics and animation, they're creating graphics and animation that will be displayed on a consumer Mac - they're not designing billboards or editing movies for the theatre.

Yes there are people who need something like a Mac Pro - but it is a rapidly shrinking pool. The "I'm a developer, I need a machine the size of a refrigerator" line doesn't work any more.

Imagine the embarrassment if people found out Apple wrote the next version of Mac OS X on a Hackintosh.

You don't think Apple's Cloud data centres are running on racks of Mac Minis, or a room full of free-standing Pros, do you?

Also, if you recall the time of the great PPC-to-x85 switch, it wouldn't be the first time that Apple has given hackintoshes to developers.

 

[paulrbeers]

[/COLOR]Also, if they can pack a Retina display with a resolution of 2048x1536 into a $499 9.7" iPad, why is it so hard for them to get to 3840x2160 on a 24" or 27" screen that is always connected to a power source? Side note: Even with the 4K resolution of 3840x2160, the PPI on either screen size is still under 200.

Seems like Thunderbolt should be able to handle that resolution as well. Someone explain to me the technical barriers to such a display.

You are missing one major fact. Thunderbolt is currently limited to 2560 x 1600 because it muxes Displayport 1.1a in with the data streams. Displayport 1.1a is only capable of 2560 x 1600.

This alone means 4K is NOT possible on ANY external monitor for Macs at this time with the exception of Mac Pros that have an upgraded video card (and even then I don't know if any one has tried it).

With the next version of Thunderbolt, displayport 1.2 will finally be included, but anyone with less than a brand new 2013 Mac would not be able to use the new Thunderbolt Display if it is running anything over the above mentioned resolution.

Retina is not going to happen folks at least not for a couple of years on any external monitors. My guess is that the next TBD will be nothing more than a thinner version of today's with USB 3.0.

 

[PatriotInvasion]

You are missing one major fact. Thunderbolt is currently limited to 2560 x 1600 because it muxes Displayport 1.1a in with the data streams. Displayport 1.1a is only capable of 2560 x 1600.

This alone means 4K is NOT possible on ANY external monitor for Macs at this time with the exception of Mac Pros that have an upgraded video card (and even then I don't know if any one has tried it).

With the next version of Thunderbolt, displayport 1.2 will finally be included, but anyone with less than a brand new 2013 Mac would not be able to use the new Thunderbolt Display if it is running anything over the above mentioned resolution.

Retina is not going to happen folks at least not for a couple of years on any external monitors. My guess is that the next TBD will be nothing more than a thinner version of today's with USB 3.0.

Thanks for the info. As for your final comment, I'll be perfectly fine with an updated USB 3.0/thin model with 2560x1440. Hope it is coming any day now.

 

[Prodo123]

What is it that a developer can't do on an iMac with 3.4GHz quad-core i7, with 3TB of hard drive, 32GB of RAM, a second 27" display and a couple of easily swappable Thunderbolt hard drives?

Heck, for most development jobs a MacBook Air with a Thunderbolt Display would get the job done.

The only thing a developer needs a Mac Pro for is to test that their software runs on a Mac Pro.

Even if they're creating graphics and animation, they're creating graphics and animation that will be displayed on a consumer Mac - they're not designing billboards or editing movies for the theatre.

Yes there are people who need something like a Mac Pro - but it is a rapidly shrinking pool. The "I'm a developer, I need a machine the size of a refrigerator" line doesn't work any more.

You don't think Apple's Cloud data centres are running on racks of Mac Minis, or a room full of free-standing Pros, do you?

Also, if you recall the time of the great PPC-to-x85 switch, it wouldn't be the first time that Apple has given hackintoshes to developers.

You would be very, very surprised at how limited the iMac can be, especially with its mobile GPU. Mac Pros have the ability to do multiple workstation-class graphics cards. And even if you consider the possibility of external GPUs, by the way one of which would use up pretty much all of the Thunderbolt bandwidth and disable daisy chaining, the Mac Pro still has that edge of raw CPU cores.

And as for your comment about servers, you're missing the point again. The Mac Pro is a workstation, and there is no doubt that Apple is using them as their workstations. Servers, of course they're custom built, but the Pro remains Apple's choice of workstation.

I don't think the average consumer will be viewing real-time Maya renders of complex 3D designs, or multi-layer Photoshop files that are 4GB each, etc.

And if you take a look at System G, VT's supercomputer cluster of 324 Mac Pros, you'll quickly find that educational institutions will find creative ways to use Mac Pros, whether it be in a cluster or by itself.

(Also if the Mac Pro forum heard that what they do on their towers is work for a measly ultrabook they would have a LOT of beef with you)

Also I'm curious why people want a thinner ATD. It wouldn't be much lighter since most of the bulk is in the rear metal casing and display unit, so wouldn't thinning out the display make it harder (or more painful) to carry?

 

[PatriotInvasion]

Also I'm curious why people want a thinner ATD. It wouldn't be much lighter since most of the bulk is in the rear metal casing and display unit, so wouldn't thinning out the display make it harder (or more painful) to carry?

I think a thinner design is desired just for aesthetics in comparison with the new iMacs. Not many people were clamoriny for thinner iMacs last year, but when they were released, people liked the sleekness of the design. So, now that people see where the iMac is headed form a design standpoint, they desire something similar from the closely related Thunderbolt Display.

Functionally, I'm more looking forward to the screen manufacturing enhancements that reduce glare and remove that tiny gap between the glass and LCD along with the benefits of USB 3.0 of course. The thinness factor is just icing on the cake.

 

[thekev]

Rumors on the Mac Pro coming soon, so who knows, the new display would almost have to release along with it.

I don't envy your waiting game.

This seems unlikely to me. If they were going to implement Sandy Bridge E, it would have happened at least by the first quarter. Waiting for Ivy seems weird, but I can't think of any other explanation at this point. That would mean Q3 at the earliest. Q4 seems more likely.

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

They updated some of the screen treatments with the imac to reduce reflectivity. For those that want a second display with their imac, one that matches would be ideal. For everyone else, less reflective is still better.

The new iMac 27" panel has a similar color gamut to that of the Retina MBP, i.e. ~70% Adobe RGB. Now that's a big drop in gamut from 95% Adobe RGB of the current panel, and a big boon to all who need that extra gamut. And quite frankly that's one of the biggest reasons why anyone would plunk down a grand for a professional display, and Apple has the sense to keep that selling point there.

It's an sRGB display, so roughly 70-75% Adobe RGB. Really gamut past sRGB isn't as big of a deal as people want to make it. Performance at the required brightness levels, shadow detail, uniformity, stability, warmup time, and color temperature (as well as consistency of color temp from light to dark) make a much greater difference. People just make the mistake of thinking wider gamut = more accurate, which isn't true at all.

Unless Apple wants to move away from the professional sector, and at that price point the Thunderbolt Display is there to stay, it's not putting a cost-ineffective component in an already great display.

The thunderbolt display isn't aimed at the professional sector as far as displays are concerned. It lacks the hardware calibration features available in some displays aimed at such markets (video, graphic design, medical use, etc). The design is really that way to extend the functionality of a notebook with the extra ports and short cord. If you were looking for something for graphic design or color grading or anything of that sort, there are better alternatives depending on your requirements. Reflective displays are really bad for a lot of that stuff simply because of how it works. Displays have a non-linear gamma. Reflections off the surface of the screen do not follow the same rules. They are relatively additive in terms of brightness. Even with anti-glare displays, consistent brightness levels are highly preferable.

Plus, how higher can you go from 2560x1440, when the ATD already outresolves the eye from the average desktop viewing distance (i.e. ~2 feet)? Apple didn't boost the resolution on the iMacs for a reason: it's a useless waste of graphic prowess.

That isn't true. I'm not going to debate vision, but did you notice the early problems with the 15" rmbp displays? A 27" display is much more complicated. Bad units become a much more costly problem, and seeing as they used a non-generic design there, it's likely that they would need time to learn from that prior to trying it in a 27" display. Cost was probably another problem. As far as what they would change, it would be the same things in the thunderbolt display that changed in the imac.

The same review also states that there probably was an error with the reading as the display panel unit has not changed from the ACD, which had 85-95% coverage of Adobe RGB:

Your statements are incorrect. I've used them and measured them. They're pretty close to sRGB, albeit not quite D65. Apple never went to Adobe RGB displays. People just misinterpret things when they look up panel numbers. There are some implementations using similar panels that are roughly Adobe RGB. I own one. Until recently those were only CCFL backlit implementations and a couple very very expensive RGB-LED units. Apple didn't do either. The cinema display was also an sRGB display, although if you're really concerned about color reproduction, buy an NEC instead. The PA displays are better designed and tend to be more stable, even though they make better use of a similar panel. IPS panels are all just oemed from LG these days anyway, but some models incorporate features to aid performance. For example NEC and Eizo sacrifice a small amount of contrast to even out uniformity. Both have internal LUT systems.

 

[Prodo123]

They updated some of the screen treatments with the imac to reduce reflectivity. For those that want a second display with their imac, one that matches would be ideal. For everyone else, less reflective is still better.

When I said that, it was more aimed at big changes like form factor, screen resolution and aspect ratio. The antiglare finish would be evolutionary, and a welcome change.

The thunderbolt display isn't aimed at the professional sector as far as displays are concerned. It lacks the hardware calibration features available in some displays aimed at such markets (video, graphic design, medical use, etc). The design is really that way to extend the functionality of a notebook with the extra ports and short cord. If you were looking for something for graphic design or color grading or anything of that sort, there are better alternatives depending on your requirements. Reflective displays are really bad for a lot of that stuff simply because of how it works. Displays have a non-linear gamma. Reflections off the surface of the screen do not follow the same rules. They are relatively additive in terms of brightness. Even with anti-glare displays, consistent brightness levels are highly preferable.

The docking station design is Apple's way of extending professional products to consumers, i.e. prosumer products. And quite frankly I like the docking station idea; as a photographer with a laptop it works wonders. But it only builds on the part that already exists, which is the display panel that Apple has been using for a while.

As for glossy vs. matte, that's a whole another topic. With proper lighting, glossy displays have no glare. My setup right now knocks out all glare starting at 120 nits, and that's pretty dim.

That isn't true. I'm not going to debate vision, but did you notice the early problems with the 15" rmbp displays? A 27" display is much more complicated. Bad units become a much more costly problem, and seeing as they used a non-generic design there, it's likely that they would need time to learn from that prior to trying it in a 27" display. Cost was probably another problem. As far as what they would change, it would be the same things in the thunderbolt display that changed in the imac.

I suppose you didn't read the other portion: It's absurdly harder and more complicated to make a larger display high resolution than a small display. Which is what you're saying also. xD

It's an sRGB display, so roughly 70-75% Adobe RGB. Really gamut past sRGB isn't as big of a deal as people want to make it. Performance at the required brightness levels, shadow detail, uniformity, stability, warmup time, and color temperature (as well as consistency of color temp from light to dark) make a much greater difference. People just make the mistake of thinking wider gamut = more accurate, which isn't true at all.

Your statements are incorrect. I've used them and measured them. They're pretty close to sRGB, albeit not quite D65. Apple never went to Adobe RGB displays. People just misinterpret things when they look up panel numbers. There are some implementations using similar panels that are roughly Adobe RGB. I own one. Until recently those were only CCFL backlit implementations and a couple very very expensive RGB-LED units. Apple didn't do either. The cinema display was also an sRGB display, although if you're really concerned about color reproduction, buy an NEC instead. The PA displays are better designed and tend to be more stable, even though they make better use of a similar panel. IPS panels are all just oemed from LG these days anyway, but some models incorporate features to aid performance. For example NEC and Eizo sacrifice a small amount of contrast to even out uniformity. Both have internal LUT systems.

I don't confuse panel numbers, and I have measured mine too. It gives a 84.3% Adobe RGB coverage when calibrated accordingly. And you've seen AnandTech's ACD measurements. The ATD is a high-gamut sRGB display, over sRGB but shy of full Adobe RGB.
I would have gone with the U2711 but like you said the docking station idea really bought me over. A little less gamut is a good compromise for such a great feature.
As for hardware vs. software calibration, I find nothing wrong with software calibration.

 

[theluggage]

You would be very, very surprised at how limited the iMac can be, especially with its mobile GPU.

And what does a developer need multiple workstation-class GPUs for, exactly? Your argument was that Apple must continue the Mac Pro because it needs an in-house workstation for its developers.

As I said, there are applications that need a workstation-class machine, but software development isn't one of them. The only exception I can think of is game development where you might want to develop your assets at an insanely high quality for future-proofing, cut-scenes or the "not actual game footage" trailers. Not a lot of game development going on inside Apple, AFAIK - and most of the third parties are targeting multi-platform these days so they're not going to worry about what platform their graphics designers use.

And as for your comment about servers, you're missing the point again. The Mac Pro is a workstation, and there is no doubt that Apple is using them as their workstations. Servers, of course they're custom built, but the Pro remains Apple's choice of workstation.

No - you're missing the point. Apple sell "server versions" of the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini (for a given definition of the word "server"). They sell a Server version of OS X. They used to sell a "proper" rackmount server and companion storage device... In your words, "imagine the embarrassment" if they dropped the XServe, re-invented OS X Server as little more than a set of wizards for setting up workgroups and had their shiny new data center full of non-Apple servers.

...except that is exactly what they did. So why should they have a problem with using custom workstations to the handful of their developers who need high-end graphics cards?

(Also if the Mac Pro forum heard that what they do on their towers is work for a measly ultrabook they would have a LOT of beef with you)

Straw man. I'll give the folks on a Mac Pro forum the benefit of the doubt that they're running something a bit more demanding than XCode.

Also I'm curious why people want a thinner ATD. It wouldn't be much lighter since most of the bulk is in the rear metal casing and display unit, so wouldn't thinning out the display make it harder (or more painful) to carry?

I have a 27" Cinema display at work, and can assure you that portability is not one of its unique selling points.

I think the only people who "want" a thinner ATD are people who want a second display that matches the design of their 2012 iMac and have the screens line up when they're placed side-by-side. Otherwise, its just a reasonable assumption that any new ATD will take its design cues from the 2012 iMac.

 

[paulrbeers]

Also I'm curious why people want a thinner ATD. It wouldn't be much lighter since most of the bulk is in the rear metal casing and display unit, so wouldn't thinning out the display make it harder (or more painful) to carry?

Truthfully, I don't think anyone really cares if the new ATD is thinner or not. I know I certainly don't. However, it will be just because that is Apple's way of thinking. Thinner = better (no matter what!). My point above simply was, the next version will be Thinner and have USB 3.0 (also forgot about the "matte" finish that will also probably arrive with the updated model).

All I care about is the "matte" finish and the USB3.0.

 

[mm201]

According to its factory profile, my rMBP has about 1.5% more saturation than sRGB. Its colour capabilities seem almost identical to my iPad3, which in turn seems nearly identical to the iMacs, ACDs, and ATDs I've seen in store. I'm inclined to believe the Anandtech article was in error.

Odds are they're waiting for the new Mac Pro to be ready before releasing a new ATD, since it and the Mini are the only Macs they ship without screens. I doubt this model will have Retina, but the next one is likely. New laminate process, anorexic thinness, Magsafe 2, and USB3 are safe bets.

4K desktop displays from third parties this year are a very real possibility I'd rather keep waiting for. I also hope a firmware update can provide DP 1.2 support to Thunderbolt Macs. The bandwidth is already there, and so is the horsepower.

 

[Radiating]

Not sure why they would wait until later this year to build in a port spec for higher resolutions and then not have the display support a higher resolution. Seems like they could update the display now and when the new port spec is ready, just include that in the factory when ready.

----------

Here's an idea, maybe they have a 4k thunderbolt display in the works.

 

[luffytubby]

A Thunderbolt Display... The idea is that it's more than a display. It's a docking station for the Apple Laptops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z7RxvkqF5I

 

[Frostd Flakez]

Not sure if anyone is aware of this, but I've noticed over the years that when a new product release from Apple is imminent, BestBuy.com either removes the product or parks the previous sku under a generic name. For the past week, if you search for the Thunderbolt Display, it returns no results. However, if you search under the part number mc914ll/a, it has now changed the name to 'apple led monitor.' That's a huge hint to me that something new is right around the corner.

 

[Serban]

yes and the thunderbolt 20Gb is around the corner so i think in june the entirely mac line up will be refresh and a thunderbolt display aswel

 

[Xgm541]

Ok, so I'm starting to get inpatient. The Thunderbolt Display hasn't been updated since 2011, and all portable Macs aside from the cMBP now have MagSafe 2, Thunderbolt, and USB 3.0.

iMac production is all caught up, and yet anyone with a newer Apple notebook who wants an Apple display is forced to buy a dated USB 2.0 hub that requires a dongle adapter to even connect it with their shiny new and expensive MacBook Pro or Air.

While I'm hoping the new/thinner Thunderbolt Display is announced at the next event, I'm not sure why we even have to wait for that. Apple has 1,000's of employees and $120B in the bank. Update the display and send out a press release. What is so hard?

Haha, that part of your statement made me chuckle. When you run your own multibillion dollar corporation you can make your own decisions and then maybe youll know "what's so hard"

 

[PatriotInvasion]

Haha, that part of your statement made me chuckle. When you run your own multibillion dollar corporation you can make your own decisions and then maybe youll know "what's so hard"

Not really sure what you mean considering Samsung can pump out 4,000 phones a quarter. My only point was that an updated Thunderbolt Display shouldn't be hard to get into production for a company with the resources of Apple...even with the focus on iOS devices.

I mean, in a highly competitive consumer electronics market, we have not heard a peep from this company in 6+ months from a product standpoint! That's just odd.