What used to get me was how a 30" display costs $2500, but you can buy a 32" (or larger) LCD HDTV for well under $2k. That was until I bought a 32" LCD HDTV for well under $2k, and was all excited cuz it had VGA and DVI/HDMI inputs. Then I discovered that it really only works with the computer in 1024x768. It can do other resolutions, but they don't work out very well. Luckily I was really buying it for the TV function, which I'm quite happy with, and the computer connectivity was just a bonus. Might still make a nice display for a Mini with Front Row.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why are they so expensive?
- Thread starter rye9
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
rye9 said:
The manufacturing process to produce small LCDs is well understood. The process has had time to be refined enough so that there are relatively few LCDs that end up with defects in the LCD. With larger LCDs it gets exponentially harder to manufacturer an LCD that does not exceed a certain defect threshold.
Every LCD produced that needs to be junked adds to the cost of the LCDs that end up working.
It is exactly the same reason why 1st generation chips at a certain process size are expensive compared to later generations. (Or of chips produced using larger and more established processes.) That is, when you reduce the process size it takes time to iron out the kinks and thus improve your yield.
Debeers is a pretty terrible corporation with their dirty monopoly tricks. Debeers have been around for almost a 100 years. There are in fact many other natural diamond distributors. However the desire for diamonds, or jewelry in general is not because of them. The art and desire for jewelry has been around for thousands of years, and people have been desiring jewelry for thousands of years. It is just that we are at a time where we have a wealthy middle class in america and europe who can afford such luxuries, which until now were only limited to the upper-class.
Also jewelry is art. You can get cheap necklaces, rings, etc. for a decent price, but that is for a utility purpose, such as wooing a girl
, but a nice piece of jewelry will be expensive, just like a nice painting. Paintings can cost more than jewelry, and they're just some paint and canvas. It's not what it's made from, but the end result.
Sorry for the long rant, I'm a jeweler (the arty kind).
Also jewelry is art. You can get cheap necklaces, rings, etc. for a decent price, but that is for a utility purpose, such as wooing a girl
, but a nice piece of jewelry will be expensive, just like a nice painting. Paintings can cost more than jewelry, and they're just some paint and canvas. It's not what it's made from, but the end result.Sorry for the long rant, I'm a jeweler (the arty kind).
Dane D. said:
That's still not a good way to compare. You're still comparing linear measurements, but the important thing about screen real estate is AREA. The increase in area is the square of the linear proportionality constant, so the screen AREA increase between 17" and 23" is 83%.
Think about it this way: If you were to double one of the linear measurements, let's say width, that would be like having two smaller monitors side by side. To maintain the aspect ratio, you'd have to double the height too, for a total of 4 monitors (in a 2x2 array). That's 4 times the screen area. Twice the width (or height or diagonal) gives four times the area.
So, hopefully that helps illustrate how increasing any of the linear measurements (it doesn't matter which one) 35% increases the area 83%.
The £400 price difference between the 20" and the 23" is a disgrace!
nearly double the price of the 20" for an extra 3 inches!
Perhaps I'll just get another 20" instead
nearly double the price of the 20" for an extra 3 inches!
Perhaps I'll just get another 20" instead
Why is nobody talking about the stats of these monitors? Comparing S-IPS, VA and TN monitors? How about quality of colour output vs other monitors. It would appear that no professional graphics/print people have added their 2 cents.
Ok, the iMac screens use TN technology (basically this is the cheap, crappy technology that is fine for basic use but has relatively poor color reproduction). The Cinema Displays use S-IPS panels, these are considered to be the top of the line, best color reproduction panels. Obviously since the Cinema Displays have much higher quality they are going to be more expensive, but Apple's are still cheap (and very high quality) compared to other companies' S-IPS monitors. If you are looking to do any kind of color work, you should not be using a laptop screen or iMac screen because they use TN screens.
More info here.
That being said I am guilty of using my MBP screen for photography work, despite being a TN panel it is super high-end for what it is and can be pretty accurately calibrated (but still not as good as the Cinema Displays).
We've put a man on the moon; peered into the vastly of space and took pictures of the planets on the outer edges of the universe, yet we can't artificially manufacture a shiny transluscent rock? We're able to read DNA, I'm sure we can make a damn shiny rock. Now that we've all digressed a whole lot, back tot he topic of the ACD.
It's nice but way too overpriced. Just like everything Apple makes.
It's nice but way too overpriced. Just like everything Apple makes.
What does that have to do with anything? And FYI, we can make diamonds, we just don't because they're not as valuable so what' the point?
Did you read this thread? Apple's displays are some of the cheapest of their quality.
This has been talked about many times regarding Apple screens. Apple uses S-IPS screens manufactured by LG.Philips. In other words, the best you can buy.
About the only other 23/24 S-IPS (or IPS) you will find is the NEC 24" W-UXI which costs about $1100.
So for quality screens the ACD is actually about the cheapest in its range, and they have had incremental upgrades over the years as LG.Phillips have upgraded their panels.
Benjamindaines, I think you are incorrect regarding the iMac. They use H-IPS screens afaik - i.e. perhaps even better than the S-IPS
About the only other 23/24 S-IPS (or IPS) you will find is the NEC 24" W-UXI which costs about $1100.
So for quality screens the ACD is actually about the cheapest in its range, and they have had incremental upgrades over the years as LG.Phillips have upgraded their panels.
Benjamindaines, I think you are incorrect regarding the iMac. They use H-IPS screens afaik - i.e. perhaps even better than the S-IPS
I've read some stuff lately that says the 24" iMac has an S-IPS panel but that the 20" has been changed to a TN panel. Not sure if this is true.
It is true from everything I've read. The narrow angle on the new 20" iMac is also very visible in person. That's why I bought the old (white) 20" iMac, because they used a better screen in it.
Not sure why someone brought a 2 year old thread back to live.
Greg