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 does Apple's Thuderbolt display cost so much?
- Thread starter Jimmy B
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
simsaladimbamba
Guest
It has a 27" IPS panel with 2560 x 1440 pixel, similar displays with similar qualities cost around the same and less. Also take into account the Unibody construction and all the ports on the back. While it is a lot for a simple display, it is not far fetched.
Now if there were an Anti-Glare version ...
Now if there were an Anti-Glare version ...
the previous display was the same price and didn't even have a Thunderbolt port. while it is a high quality display there is certainly a premium for it and thats because it has premium features.
It isn't more expensive than other displays with the same size/quality as far as I know. However, there are quality displays in the 24" segment for a lot less, so that might be an option.
The screen itself is wonderful and worth the money for me since I use it professionally. If it had been only for personal use I would probably have bought something a bit less expensive.
I am a bit concerned about the thunderbolt connection causing heat issues though (doesn't seem to affect everyone however). I regret not buying the Cinema display instead.
The screen itself is wonderful and worth the money for me since I use it professionally. If it had been only for personal use I would probably have bought something a bit less expensive.
I am a bit concerned about the thunderbolt connection causing heat issues though (doesn't seem to affect everyone however). I regret not buying the Cinema display instead.
Lennyvalentin
macrumors 65816
Basically because:
- 27" panel size
- 2560*1440 resolution
- IPS technology
- Aluminium and glass construction
- Apple logo(s) 😀
Generally, nearly all 27" (or 30") displays with 2600*1500ish rez costs roughly as much as the Thunderbolt Display. There are some 27" displays using VA technology panels at 1920*1080 rez that are quite cheap, but they only have a bit over half the number of pixels that Apple's has so there's part of the explanation. Also, VA is an overall inferior tech compared to IPS as well, and then add shoddy plastic construction (sometimes held together with plastic clips and tape rather than screws) and you end up with an overall lower quality product and hence cheaper sticker price.
convergent
macrumors 68040
Its actually quite a bargain when compared to other similar spec'd displays... and then factoring in the Thunderbolt and ports. It actually costs the same as the Apple 27" Cinema Display, which doesn't have the ports. Maybe you should ask why that display cost so much?
Can anyone explain to me what the advantage is over having the thunderbolt feature? I always thought it was good to transfer data really fast and stuff, but why is it a big deal when the TB Display has it? I am kinda confused...
MrCheeto
Suspended
Because it turns your portable into a desktop?
A MacBook Air, which has only two USB ports and an SD card reader, could have FireWire, Ethernet, and more USB ports...
Also, the display won't clog your ThunderBolt port.
If it were MiniDisplay, then the ThunderBolt port would be no better than a MiniDisplay Port when the display is plugged in. But with a ThunderBolt display, you can add more ThunderBolt peripherals while the display is in use.
A MacBook Air, which has only two USB ports and an SD card reader, could have FireWire, Ethernet, and more USB ports...
Also, the display won't clog your ThunderBolt port.
If it were MiniDisplay, then the ThunderBolt port would be no better than a MiniDisplay Port when the display is plugged in. But with a ThunderBolt display, you can add more ThunderBolt peripherals while the display is in use.
JUiCEJamie
macrumors 6502a
simsaladimbamba
Guest
MrCheeto
Suspended
Thunderbolt is a single port that can be used for audio, video, data and networking all through a single plug.
It's an external PCIe interface, basically. Think of it this way: anything you could do with a PCI card, you could do with this one port.
As well, they're daisy-chained, meaning you theoretically only need one. You could plug in the display, then plug hard drives into that display, then plug a networking cable into the hard drives and so on and so on. Your Mac will see all of the devices and use them just as if they were plugged right into the Mac itself.
Best of all, it runs at 10GB/s both ways! That's blazing fast! This allows the ThunderBolt display to have slower I/O ports on the back without sacrificing any performance. FireWire 800, USB and Ethernet all run at fully native speeds from the display to your Mac, almost as if the ports were built into the Mac itself.
It's an external PCIe interface, basically. Think of it this way: anything you could do with a PCI card, you could do with this one port.
As well, they're daisy-chained, meaning you theoretically only need one. You could plug in the display, then plug hard drives into that display, then plug a networking cable into the hard drives and so on and so on. Your Mac will see all of the devices and use them just as if they were plugged right into the Mac itself.
Best of all, it runs at 10GB/s both ways! That's blazing fast! This allows the ThunderBolt display to have slower I/O ports on the back without sacrificing any performance. FireWire 800, USB and Ethernet all run at fully native speeds from the display to your Mac, almost as if the ports were built into the Mac itself.
SO basically, if I don't have a Thunderbolt device (like external storage) the thunderbolt feature is kinda pointless for me, right? Cause the Cinema Displaz has all the same features except the TB, and does the same thing. As long as thunderbolt devices stay as expensive as they are, thunderbolt will not be an option for me.
It has nothing to do with thunderbolt being the reason it costs 999$.
It's the technology. The screen resolution, the build quality, it has built in speakers, built in USB ports, built in webcam. The Cinema display has all that two (Identical housing, 3 USB ports, built-in speakers, built-in webcam, and same resolution) for the exact same price. You technically are getting free features thrown in because it also has 2 thunderbolt ports, less cables, and an ethernet port (as well as the webcam being 720p HD)
It's the technology. The screen resolution, the build quality, it has built in speakers, built in USB ports, built in webcam. The Cinema display has all that two (Identical housing, 3 USB ports, built-in speakers, built-in webcam, and same resolution) for the exact same price. You technically are getting free features thrown in because it also has 2 thunderbolt ports, less cables, and an ethernet port (as well as the webcam being 720p HD)
throAU
macrumors G4
You plug thunderbolt from monitor to macbook. you can then plug external disks, gigabit ethernet, multiple USB devices into the display.
Need to pack up your laptop and go out?
Unplug TB cable, unplug magsafe power cable, you're done.
Unless there is a bright light behind you. Then the glare off the glass would blind your eyes, not insult them.
Prodo123
macrumors 68020
I find Apple's glossy displays to be bright enough to overcome most "glares" (which I almost never see).
Yeah.
It's expensive because of all the features built in. If you don't need some of the features, and just want a top screen, there are more suitable/cheaper monitors around.
1)To get a thunderbolt hub with all the I/O functions, you will need >$300.
2)Charging built in- save space + about $89 for a spare adapter.
3)FaceTime camera + Mic.
4) Built in 49W speakers. Best built-in speakers you can find.
It's basically a very nicely integrated machine.
Semi-related question...
Dell Ultrasharp monitors (i.e. U2412) have USB ports. If I plug peripherals into the those USB ports, does the data get passed through the display port cable, or do I plug display port and another cable into the MBP.
I understand everything runs through thunderbolt in the Apple display. Because I'll be unplugging the MBP several times a day, I'm seriously considering just spending the money to get the TB display.
Dell Ultrasharp monitors (i.e. U2412) have USB ports. If I plug peripherals into the those USB ports, does the data get passed through the display port cable, or do I plug display port and another cable into the MBP.
I understand everything runs through thunderbolt in the Apple display. Because I'll be unplugging the MBP several times a day, I'm seriously considering just spending the money to get the TB display.
Outrigger
macrumors 68000
The Dell only has a USB hub. Meaning you would have to attach a displayport cable which only transmits video signal and a usb cable to use the hub in the monitor.
The ACD also lacks ethernet along with firewire 800 that the thunderbolt has. So all you need is attach the one thunderbolt cable in order to utilize 3 USB, firewire and Gig ethernet.
Thank you for the clarification. I also need ethernet when at the desk, so I also like that benefit of the TB display. Of course, I could just use a USB-ethernet adapter, but I really like the idea of having only two connections (power and TB) into the MacBook.
Outrigger
macrumors 68000
Also keep in mind that when using USB 2.0 to ethernet adapter, the speed is limited by the small bandwidth of USB 2.0. so you won't get gigabit speed.