Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Where Is Apple's 5K Thunderbolt Display?

Why is it so hard for the richest company on the world to update their one monitor?

Forget 5k, just get on with the 4k display compatible with the millions of Thunderbolt 2 devices already out there and which is at least two years over due. And OS/X is about three versions beyond when it should have had support for external video cards over Thunderbolt.

Apple's monitor situation has gone from ridiculous to just flat stupid. Do they even have anybody in charge of this part of the company anymore?
[doublepost=1452973856][/doublepost]
Gudi said:
...The current Apple Thunderbolt Display is good enough for existing MacBook Pro's and vice versa. ...
Click to expand...

No it is not. The MacBook Pro's have been built specifically with the ability to run dual 4K external displays ever since the first Thunderbolt 2 model. I bought one specifically for that. Still waiting. But TB2 will not run even a single 5k.
 
My theory is that the new display has been choked up by Apple's back and forth strategy for AppleTV. A 4K display that includes AppleTV's chipset would be considered an actual Apple television.

My guess is that when Apple was rumoured to be releasing a tv, it was ready to go and the display was tied into it. When the tv fell through and Apple decided to just update the AppleTV box instead, the display died with it.

Once AppleTV is established, with a thriving App Store and with content deals to offer users live tv bundles, Apple will release their TV set which will also work as a display for your headless Mac.
 
Stacc said:
One question is whether the displayport 1.2 limitation is due to skylake processors or if its the specification itself.
Click to expand...

All the TB3 announcements have talked about DP 1.2 and using MST to support 5k so I guess its the specification - but they probably won't update it until they have DP 1.3 iGPUs to sell you too - Intel aren't going to help AMD and NVIDIA.

MrNomNoms said:
it appears that they're slowly killing off the Mac Pro which explains why they're not upgrading their Thunderbolt display
Click to expand...

Not sure that's connected - the Thunderbolt display's big strength is as a MacBook accessory: the built-in Magsafe and docking facilities are pretty irrelevant to Mac Pro users, many of whom will have specialist display requirements.

Before getting bogged down in conspiracy theories, consider the least hypothesis: if the TB display had ever been a moneyspinner for Apple then it would have been upgraded to USB3, Magsafe 2 and anti-glare screen years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bernuli
one more thing against...

if apple only authorise the imagined 5k display for DP 1.3 capable devices it means, that rMBP 15" (Late-2013), Skylake rMBPs, Mac Pros etc. should be all incompatible..?!
 
Well there is the option to Build a 5K Display and include a GPU in the Display. Thunderbolt has enough bandwidth to drive PCI Bus and there are number of GPUs that support 5K. The additional advantage would be that even a MacBook Air would be able to drive such a Screen, and a lot more elegant then a Thunderbolt Kable, a PCI Brake Out Box, a Nvidia GTX 970 or AMD Radeon R9 390 & a Dell Monitor.
Just Food for Thought.o_O
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbrian and domsodidavid
LOL if we stuck with Thunderbolt Display, we will need two adapters, one for magsafe to magsafe 2 (or magsafe 3) and one for thunderbolt to thunderbolt 3 (because of USB type C port)
 
Apple sells some nice displays, but they're overpriced for the market, and offer a paltry selection of them (literally one-size-fits-all), so most people buy third-party. The only reason Apple has them is for the businesses and people who have to have all Apple-brand equipment to impress visitors to their studios.
 
I'm definitely not asking where is Apples 5k Thunderbolt Display. Why? Because their 2560x1440 model that's almost 5 years old is still selling for full pop. Imagine how much more Apple would sell a 5k display for. Insanity at best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JDHiro
Wild-Bill said:
I can't believe they're still charging $999 for that woefully outdated display.

Nearly six years old, USB 2.0 and first gen t-bolt.

Totally unsat.
Click to expand...

You know what's crazier? That people at my office still order and use them. When I ask why, they have *zero* concept of resolution. "I don't know - it looks fine and it works well with my laptop".
 
  • Like
Reactions: BenTrovato
If Apple does release one I think they should make it at least 43' and then build in an Apple TV and 1 or 2 HDMI leads.

2 birds, 1 stone.
 
I disagree. Unless you're suggesting the new Mac Pro is "not profitable" too, it's essentially a case of a company selling an incomplete workstation solution as their highest-end product. An appropriate display should have been an option ASAP after the NMP was released, even if nobody would have purchased it except for those people.

The early adopters of the new Mac Pro often had a real hassle trying to get a 4K display that worked properly with it. Apple had to update OS X several times to add compatibility for some of the most popular models, after nobody could get them to work properly in the native resolutions. That's embarrassing, and shouldn't have had to happen at all.


ProjectManager101 said:
It is a product that is not profitable to Apple. People have iMacs or other options for displays so... there is no rush in a market already flooded with options, it is more like an accessory.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: EwanMcTeagle
ProjectManager101 said:
It is a product that is not profitable to Apple. People have iMacs or other options for displays so... there is no rush in a market already flooded with options, it is more like an accessory.
Click to expand...
doesn't explain the fact that Mac Pro needs a monitor that's new. mac pro is not discontinued.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cerberusss
They do at my workplace too, every so often. I think their reasoning, though, is that it works pretty well as a substitute for buying a docking station AND a display for a retina MB Pro. It's a matter of paying more so you have everything in a clean, single piece solution, I guess. Although I agree that it's a lousy deal at the current pricing.


JDHiro said:
You know what's crazier? That people at my office still order and use them. When I ask why, they have *zero* concept of resolution. "I don't know - it looks fine and it works well with my laptop".
Click to expand...
 
kingtj said:
I disagree. Unless you're suggesting the new Mac Pro is "not profitable" too, it's essentially a case of a company selling an incomplete workstation solution as their highest-end product. An appropriate display should have been an option ASAP after the NMP was released, even if nobody would have purchased it except for those people.

The early adopters of the new Mac Pro often had a real hassle trying to get a 4K display that worked properly with it. Apple had to update OS X several times to add compatibility for some of the most popular models, after nobody could get them to work properly in the native resolutions. That's embarrassing, and shouldn't have had to happen at all.
Click to expand...

Apple even offered that http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00F8OHBM8/ monitor as a configuration option for the Late 2013 Mac Pro in their online store.

Edit:

https://www.macrumors.com/2013/12/0...arp-displays-in-european-online-apple-stores/
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
kingtj said:
They do at my workplace too, every so often. I think their reasoning, though, is that it works pretty well as a substitute for buying a docking station AND a display for a retina MB Pro. It's a matter of paying more so you have everything in a clean, single piece solution, I guess. Although I agree that it's a lousy deal at the current pricing.
Click to expand...

Most people don't need 5k displays for work.

The 27" TB Display is 2560x1440...which is no slouch. I bought a used one in perfect condition for $450 and use it as my daily driver with my 2014 rMBP.

The convenience of charging, USB (albeit USB 2.0) ethernet and additional thunderbolt port on the monitor trumps a 4k/5k display.

The rMBP is already a retina display which is fine for me.

Remember that driving 4k/5k displays takes up more bandwidth/more ram/more power is needed (to run at higher mhz).
 
theluggage said:
All the TB3 announcements have talked about DP 1.2 and using MST to support 5k so I guess its the specification - but they probably won't update it until they have DP 1.3 iGPUs to sell you too - Intel aren't going to help AMD and NVIDIA.
Click to expand...
Who is making the TB controller in the current Mac Pro? Is it Intel as it is for the one in the MacBook Pro and Air? You are right about the iGPUs, until they support DP 1.3, Intel won't support DP 1.3 in whatever version of TB in its motherboards. But Alpine Ridge and its successors are separate chips in my view and not part of the Intel motherboards (though one might argue that anything soldered to the motherboard should be considered part of it, which now sometimes includes the RAM).
 
manu chao said:
Who is making the TB controller in the current Mac Pro? Is it Intel as it is for the one in the MacBook Pro and Air? You are right about the iGPUs, until they support DP 1.3, Intel won't support DP 1.3 in whatever version of TB in its motherboards. But Alpine Ridge and its successors are separate chips in my view and not part of the Intel motherboards (though one might argue that anything soldered to the motherboard should be considered part of it, which now sometimes includes the RAM).
Click to expand...
Intel is the only one who makes the controllers. Thunderbolt is owned by Intel, Apple helped design it.
 
This article explained it pretty well and it makes pretty good sense. I see no mystery here.
 
SDAVE said:
Intel is the only one who makes the controllers. Thunderbolt is owned by Intel, Apple helped design it.
Click to expand...
Which makes differentiating between TB as a specification and TB as a controller difficult. Whatever Intel implements in its Thunderbolt controllers is de facto the TB specification.
 
The Thunderbolt Display is an absolute disaster. Terrible quality control, terrible life span, horrendously out-of-date, ridiculously over-priced.

I have seen so many thunderbolt displays crap out a year or two into their life. I honestly cannot believe that Apple even sells them any longer.
 
It's about time someone has asked this question. Not too long ago when I was working in the retail environment, I found myself often asking why we were still selling this display for $1000. Especially after the 5K iMac was reduced in price to only a few hundred dollars more. The only reasonable answer that I ever received from any of my colleagues was that the thunderbolt display had an ethernet jack, and could be daisychained.
 
I was holding out for a Mac Pro and Apple 4K/5K monitor and finally gave up last week and bought the 5k iMac maxed out. Not bad. I didn't realize how much my 30" was lacking but it is a shame that Apple didn't release a 4K monitor when they released the MacPro in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cerberusss
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back