Apple today lowered the prices across its Cinema Display family which each offer a two-port, self-powered USB 2.0 hub, two FireWire 400 ports, a Kensington security port, and are VESA mount compatible.
• 30-inch Apple Cinema HD Display (2560 x 1600 resolution) drops from US$1999 to $1799
• 23-inch Apple Cinema HD Display (1920 x 1200 resolution) drops from $999 to $899
• 20-inch Apple Cinema Display (1680 x 1050 resolution) drops from $699 to $599
More info here.
Apple TV on Thursday released the trailer for its new culinary docuseries “Awkwafina: The Unlikely Cook,” premiering globally on November 6th…
Apple TV’s “Brothers” is the result of a production that lost its original showrunner with most of the season already in the can…
Apple TV continues to bolster its streaming catalog by expanding beyond its usual lineup of original series and films. Subscribers can now…
Apple is restoring Messages Suggestions in the iOS 27.2 beta, bringing back a conversation shortcut that disappeared shortly before…
Apple is expected to introduce its first touchscreen MacBook Pro models in October or November. Apple will unveil long-rumored 14-inch and…
New Display models coming soon???
20″ monitor is still way over priced.
I agree, that 20″ is really overpriced for what you are getting.
Any price drop is better than no price drop.
Not enough to get me off my dual Dell 20″ widescreen displays.
be thankful
a 20″ crt monitor used to be a lot more than this
I think my 21 inch “Moby” was $1200 (r.i.p.)
yea but then you have to look at a DuLL logo all day. No thanks.
btw isnt that extraordinarily painful?
a 20″ crt monitor used to be more? Of COURSE it USED to be more. So did 256MB of RAM.
You aren’t kidding about being too high. Newegg has 8-10 differant 20″ monitors for under $300, and with better specs. If you just gotta have that Apple logo on your monitor, be prepared to be ripped off.
ps I think I read in where was it…TIME Magazine I think, that Dell monitors give people tumors because of the cheap, low quality components that they use.
Has this been your experience? Or are they fine apart from that ugly logo that stares at you all day saying…if you just payed a little more you could have a beautiful cinema display, but no, you were a tight ass, and now youre paying for it.
jay…
How many of those monitors have built-in FireWire 400 and USB2 hubs?
I was hoping to see a new line of monitors with faster refresh rates and built-in iSights. Maybe next week?
But, price reductions like these generally mean that new iron is in the pipeline.
Maybe when Leopard is released.
I’d love to see Apple replace the 23″ with a 24″ screen at the same price.
Apple uses higher quality panels. Many wrongly conclude that the panels are the same, but upon closer examination, Apple purchases panels with better color reproduction. Which is important in the Pro market.
The UK is still £799 for the 23″, rip off Britain. Back off Brussells… except for lowering prices.
The only people that complain about ACD’s are people who don’t own them. I’m not sure what the logic behind may statement is, but I enjoy my daily and I paid $1000 CDN for a 20″ at the time.
Hmmm… new cinema displays with multi-touch coming in time for Leopard ?
re: Mr. Reeee-
The Dell 24″ display I recently purchased doesn’t have FireWire ports, but it has 4 USB2 ports and a media reader built in. It also has a 3 year (vs. Apple’s 1 year) warranty, and is more adjustable in tilt, height, and swivel. It also rotates to portrait mode. It has 5 inputs (DVI, VGA, Composite Video, Component Video, S-Video) and Picture-In-Picture capability. On top of all that, it has better techincal specs (contrast, brightness, etc) *AND* costs less, even after Apple’s price reduction.
I don’t care for Dell computers, but at least this model display pretty much smokes Apple’s closest offering. Which is really too bad- Apple is so much more competitive hardware-wise when it comes to computers. I wish they’d be as competitive in displays and other peripherals.
stingerster –
At least at the 20″ level, they absolutely use the same LM201W01 panel. LCD panel as the Dell. Just different backlights.
Also, for less $, the Dell is warranteed for 3 years. Apple’s still only covering for 1, last time I checked. It’s a shittier deal unless you need the logo.
‘Bandit Bill’ said: “… I paid $1000 CDN for a 20 …” Ouch!
Who was the “bandit” in this scenario Bill?
Rock on anyway.
shiva –
Agreed. Dell’s displays beat the Cinema Displays hands-down. The built-in universal media reader is absolutely fantastic And at the price ($579 as of yesterday) it just makes spending the extra money on Apple’s alternative look berry berry silly.
TFT Screens are what Dell do best. Their higher end panels tend to be very good and very well priced, far better than Apple.
I ended up getting a very good 20″ HP display for a lot less than Apple could. I would have been happy paying a premium for a Cinema Display but not the amount it was. I’ve ended up with a screen with more inputs, better spec and far more adjustable.
I’d like some hard proof that Apple uses better panels. Apple had one hell of a problem with pinkish tones on at least two sizes of its monitors several years ago.
I think that’s cleared up lately, but even so, it’s unlikely Apple purchases some sort of overly “deluxe” panel from any manufacturer. I have never read anywhere that Apple has some lock on better quality panels, and the top quality monitors from all other manufacturers are many hundreds of $ cheaper.
It’s the same with RAM. Do you think Apple buys some sort of ultra deluxe memory that no one else has?
I have that proverbial bridge for sale to anyone who thinks so.
Apple makes a lot of gross profit, money they plow back into new and better operating systems, programs, gagets, support, etc. Sometimes I like to pay a higher price, knowing the quality stream can be maintained. If you ate in an Apple restarant, you would know the kitchen was clean, they would charge enough to keep it that way. A Dell kitchen, maintained by super razor-thin profit margins might give you food poisoning. Some people are cheap. They pay a price later.
Got a 24″ Dell at my desk and there is a 23″ ACD in the edit suite right across from me. I’ll take the Dell any day over the Apple. Better specs, contrast ratio, brightness etc., an inch bigger and $300 cheaper (at the time). I don’t ever even notice the Dell logo at the bottom, just huge pretty pictures on the screen.
Virtually all of the cheap LCD screens use TN (twisted nematic) panels, they aren’t even 8 bit (TN panels can’t display 8 bits, it has to be dithered to fake 16 million colors)
Yes the entry level TN screens are a great value but don’t think they are equivalent to a professional display (minus a few features and an aluminum case) they aren’t. For homeowners gaming or web-surfing or light office use they are fine, for accurate gamma and color gamut they just aren’t in the same league.
jay –
“Newegg has 8-10 differant 20″ monitors for under $300, and with better specs. If you just gotta have that Apple logo on your monitor, be prepared to be ripped off.”
It’s not the size that counts – it’s what you do with it. Most cheap LCDs out there are unsuitable for photo retouching – excessive brightness, poor color accuracy, narrow viewing angles, and blocked up rendition of dark tones. The ACDs are several notches above the cheapies, though not quite up to the better displays from NEC and Eizo.
It’s not a question of being “ripped off”. There’s a trade-off between size, quality and price. Me, I chose a 21″ NEC over a 23″ ACD for about the same price. If I were shopping today, I’d go for a 26″ NEC over a 30″ ACD.
OK, everyone who thinks Apple monitors are better because of the use of “pro” quality panels.
(1)name the source of the panels;
(2)name other brands that use the same or equal panels, and compare the prices;
(3) tell me where I can buy one of these non-Apple equivalents.
(4) state objective techncial or popular reviews (if any) that agree with your position.
And please, don’t even attempt to suggest Apple is the only one using the above-mentioned “pro” quality panels.
I do not, in the least, object to the notion that there are high quality, pro-type equipment available for whatever equipment we could discuss. I am saying I do not believe Apple is using any better panels than many other brands are using in their top models. These other top models are cheaper, period.
Take an 8-bit Dell display, then reduce its brightness to a level suitable for onscreen matching of photographic prints – say 120cd/m2 – by turning the panel into a neutral-density filter because Dell’s backlight has only one unadjustable brightness level, and, voilà, you’ve got yourself a 4- or 6-bit display. Good for pie charts, lousy for photos. No thanks.
There’s a reason why Apple, NEC and Eizo dominate the photo market.
Apple must charge more for its cinema displays with aluminum enclosure (versus plastic), FireWire ports, and Kensington locking feature because other less expensive displays have greater brightness, faster response time, higher contrast ratio, and capacity to pivot.
The run of the mill $250 20″ LCD displays you find out there on the market definitely use lower quality panels than Apple does.
That’s not to say that Apple’s 20″ display isn’t higher than most *comparable* displays available out there because they are, but it’s not nearly as bad as most of you are making it seem.
So no, you can’t go on New Egg and find a comparable 20″ display for under $300….
stock clearance ahead of the new range ?
I’m not purposely being argumentative, and as I stated, I know there are obvious quality differances, based on price, for any product you can name. I do tend to buy high quality when I can.
The bottom line for me is that I have never read any objective report that states or suggests that monitors from Apple are any better than those from other top-line manufacturers. They may be better than the rest, but I’d like to see some proof. I’m reading it here, but it’s opinion, not fact.
If there are facts to support the opinion that Apple’s quality support the high prices for its monitor line, I would like to read them. I would love to have an excuse for my next monitor to be from Apple, and cost is not the problem. I’m just not convinced Apple is worth the extra cost.
New Displays…Built-in iSight..Oh Yeah!!!
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1;=“20060007222”.PGNR.&OS=DN/20060007222&RS=DN/20060007222
I believe it is this same technology that enables multi-touch. Two birds with one stone. iChat via iPhone…rock on!
“The run of the mill $250 20″ LCD displays you find out there on the market definitely use lower quality panels than Apple does”.
Yes absolutely. Since I’ve been coming to to MDN, I’ve learned that ALL companies except Apple are made of “low quality parts” and “junky”….
Everything Apple makes is better than everything else. No one else in the whole world makes anything of quality except Apple….
I think Apple needs to make everything. I know I would love to pay $15,000 for a new color TV or $1200 for a HIGH QUALITY coffee pot. Ya get what ya pay for. Afterall, Apple is the BMW of EVERYTHING!!!!
WOOOOO HOOOOO!!!
My favorite quote from last year’s WWDC when talking with one of the display hardware guys:
“Everyone else uses the panels that Apple throws out.”
A few weeks ago, I was in Costco to pick up some stuff for the house. I saw one of those $250 LCDs that everyone talks about. What caught my attention was that the background was a dull yellow and I thought, “Gee, that’s odd. They have the display set for a D50 white-point.”
Nope. I was at about a 60 degree angle to the display (and a little below). When I walked up to the front of it, the background returned to white. When I walked off to the other side and looked, it was yellow again.
Trust me. With LCDs, you get what you pay for.
What these guys are saying is mostly true. Apple (along with other professional grade displays) use better panels (TN panels are low end consumer level only) Also recognize that LCD panels, just like memory and CPU’s, are graded as to performance after manufacturing. The ones that perform better cost more. (just like CPU’s and memory) Not so hard to understand is it?
If you really want to know more wickipedia has a couple good into pages to LCD displays
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_crystal_display
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD#IPS
Dell should give up in the CPU department and concentrate on just monitors.
OK, let me ask (seriously) my question a differant way: Are Apple monitors fairly priced for the actual, real performance they produce in image quality, color reproduction, refresh rate, stuck pixels, and overall build quality compared to its peers (obviously not the $4,000 Eizos).
Apple displays are not what they used to be, judging from Kodak’s recent decision to drop certification of the 23″ Apple Cinema Display HD for its virtual proofing applications. At this point, only the 20″ and 30″ remain certified. They seem to suggest that the 23″ ACDHDs have reliability issues (due to faulty quality control).
Now, how would THAT grab you if you paid the usual Apple premium for such a display?
We have twelve of them and we’re certainly not happy with this development.
You’re willing to pay $200+ more for a monitor because of a LOGO?!? Your parents must give you one heck of an allowance.
“TIME Magazine I think, that Dell monitors give people tumors because of the cheap, low quality components that they use”
I’d like to see a source for that… otherwise I’m just going to assume it’s your typical anti-everything-not-Apple FUD.
jay –
Yes, they are fairly priced. They’re positioned in the middle, between the cheapies like Samsung and Dell and the top-end stuff from NEC and Eizo. There aren’t many good comparative reviews of displays in the media, and the mfrs keep making better and better displays at lower prices, so we’re tracking a moving target, anyway. That said, I’m a professional photographer who pays close attention to print matching and color management, and I’ve found that the ACDs and xx70-series NECs are the only mid-range displays that are actually suitable for use in professional digital photography. The Dells show promise, but Dell keeps mucking them up by putting in overly-bright, non-adjustable backlights. Great for gaming and movies. Disastrous for print matching, because prints just aren’t that bright unless you shine a 1000-Watt light on them. The ACDs offer very good color accuracy and viewing angles, and they can be dialed down to an appropriate brightness level. I wouldn’t call them a bargain, but NEC is the only other mfr that offers professional quality at a moderate price. I splurged on a top-end NEC, but I could work happily on an ACD. I can’t say the same about Samsung or Dell.
That’s my perspective as a photographer. If you’re not heavy into digital imaging, a carefully-chosen cheapie might do just fine for you.
Realista:
Thank you, you answered the question I should have asked to begin with. I apoligize for my lack of clarity in my previous questions; I realize that quality/price differances exist, and that a low price can mean low quality. (I’m typing this on a Doze box with a “TTX” monitor now)
We went from the specific-my statement that I didn’t believe Apple monitors were worth the premium, to the general-pay more, usually get more, but I was always trying to compare Apple to its peers. Now I know. Pay more, get more-but not necessarily if it’s an Apple monitor.
Apple displays are SWOP certified. Very important in a publishing workflow.
From Apple’s site: “Certified systems are capable of producing proofs visually identical to the SWOP Certified Press Proof, as defined in ANSI CGATS TR 001, Graphic Technology. ICS and KPG choose Apple displays because they’re capable of creating onscreen proofs with virtually the same brightness and feel as paper.”
The vast majority of other LCD displays aren’t SWOP certified. They are no way good enough. Other, cheaper LCD display screen specs may be equal, or even somewhat higher numerically, but the important difference (for SWOP certification) is in the other electronic components of the display.
If you are not a photgrapher or a graphics pro in the publishing field, then none of this will be important to you. Knock yourself out and go for that Dell, or whatever, display. They’re more than good enough for ordinary computer use.
In a few months, I’ll be getting a highend MacPro system with a 30″ Apple display, but I’ll also be getting Mac Mini and since I’ll be going for the biggest and least expensive display I can find for it, it probably won’t be an Apple Display. Unless I find one at a substantial discount somewhere.
“Dell should give up in the CPU department and concentrate on just monitors.”
Dell doesn’t manufactuer CPUs. Neither does Apple, for the matter.
Majikthize:
Thank you, too, I missed your post when I sent my response above. I don’t want a cheapie; as I mentioned, I’m typing this on a low-bid cheapie, and it’s much poorer quality than my 20″ ViewSonic at home. I also use Pantone Huey, which seems pretty good at correcting color for a consumer color corrector.
I want accurate color, but not in a professional way. I just like to know I’m looking at what it suppossed to look like. It’s the same with clocks-I don’t like clocks that don’t show the correct time. I’m anal I guess.
Yes absolutely apple screen are top notch and represent a good value in that segment even though they cost significantly more than entry level.
dell/acer/viewsonic/septre also represent a good value.
Quoted specs are often misleading and very often misquoted, misrepresented or even falisified. Unless you understand under what parameters they are measuring them and what is characteristic for a given type of panel (TN panels have fast uncoil (g to g response) times because of the lower twist rotation of the crystal) Bottom line; specs quoted by the company’s marketing department can be (and are often) virtually useless. (except perhaps in adolescent pissing contests about whose gaming box is da’ bad-ist)
Think yourselves lucky you don’t live in Treasure Island (where the international bandits come to plunder and pillage the locals – the UK).
The pre & post tax US dollar equivalent costs of the Cinema Displays are:
20 inch : $ 845 and $ 992
23 inch : $1244 and $1461
30 inch : $2473 and $2906
Enjoy!!
well its more to do with what that logo means. It means ill know that i bought a good product (hey customer satisfaction is important when youre spending decent money), and yes color accuracy is important to me. Im of the mind that you get what you pay for, dell monitors seem a little over the top in terms of their color output, the Apple Displays are more natural in their output, the quality is in the picture and in the frame of the display.
But going back to my first reason, Im not going to pay good money for a MacPro, and then sit in front of a some dell display, not going to happen.
Its like buying the top of the line Nikon and putting a cheap kit lens on it, its pointless.
if you dont care, and stare at excel all day, then go ahead and finish the deal off and sit in front of a dell, i probably would too, then again i dont sit at the screen all day and stare at excel.
Ok, I’m convinced! When it comes time to upgrade, I’m going to give serious consideration to Apple monitors. The opinions expressed here seem to suggest that there are better quality monitors than Apple available, but that Apple monitors are worth the money for its catagory. (upper mid-range or lower-upper?)
Please explain quantitatively how Apple cinema displays are “higher quality” and other displays are “lower quality” if:
1. Apple displays specs are less rigorous and demanding than most other displays, and
2. Apple displays only have a one-year warranty versus a three-year warranty.
I have to put in my real world experience here to back up the quality debate. My company last year replaced every monitor in the company (about 500 people) with LCDs. Most people (HR, Accounting, IT and everyone in AutoCAD production) got Dell 24 inch models. Yes they have all the features already pointed out. Lower price, bigger, media reader etc. The other 50 of us in design, graphics, print and marketing got Apple 20 inch displays. NO ONE complains about them being smaller and this is why. We use Gretag-Macbeth color spectrometers to calibrate printers, laser printers, wide format color plotters and monitors. We have custom built Colorsync profiles for use in our Adobe workflow to insure Pantone accuracy on screen and match to printed output on every color device in the building from any Mac and when we send jobs off to press. Before we rolled out the displays we bought one of each and tried to calibrate each of them. The Dell didn’t even come close to the accuracy of the Apple display. Not even close. And it was incansistant from display to display. We went with the Apple displays, calibrated them and now have a desk to desk, everyone who works on it sees the same color and prints the same color workflow. That is worth the extra money. Plus they are sexy as hell!
At this very moment, the 23″ costs $1536 in Germany.
YES, you heard right:- $1536
As far as displays go, Apple have completely priced themselves out of the market here.
But why !!! ? I just don’t understand it.
I’ve had a Dell 20″ for a while, and I’m happy with it, cause I bought it for $300 back when they were going for over $500. Thanks, to all of those Dell coupons. Anyhow, as happy as I am with it, it does have its flaws. The screen is way too bright, and isn’t uniformly bright, which makes it not particularly good for photo editing.
Now where is my 16GB Nano?!? 🙁
Jay… I second, wholeheartedly Majikthize’s opinions. I’m a pro prepress/photographer, and they are a good mid-range pro monitor, either Apple or NEC.
@Trooth –
Display specs mean almost nothing except to marketers. It’s similar to the situation with audio equipment. There are crummy cheapo amps, even boomboxes, that boast “0.05% THD!” and “800 Watts!” Thing is, the numbers bear no relation to sound quality, and they’re doctored anyway.
The contrast ratio is a case in point. It can be measured in various ways, is heavily influenced by the brightness level used, and says absolutely nothing about the display’s ability to render a wide range of tones from black to white with detail and subtle tonal differentiation. Early LCDs had specs around 400:1. Now, some boast 900:1. But, take a look at the specs for digital projectors – some boast over 2000:1. If you’ve ever displayed photos on a digital projector, you know they’re terrible. In fact, the super-high-end CRTs used by prepress houses for retouching and proofing on big-budget jobs had contrast ratios well under 300:1. On a 21-step scale from black to white, a good display will show the difference between the last two steps at either end of the scale, and this has absolutely no correllation to the claimed “contrast ratio”. Apple, NEC and Eizo LCDs do very well on this test, despite having contrast ratios of “only” 400:1 or 500:1.
Ultra-brightness, likewise, is of little relevance unless you’re working in a very bright environment. For photo retouching, the standard target brightness is around 100-120cd/m2, well under the ACD’s relatively low 250cd/m2 max brightness. In this case, the 500cd/m2 Dells are a liability, because the backlights cannot be dialed down to the target luminance. What you end up with, then, is a display that will always look much brighter than your printed photos unless you hold the latter under a 1,000-Watt light or the mid-day sun. For other work in most normal working environments, 250cd/m2 is more than sufficient. Almost all but the very cheapest LCDs meet this requirement.
As for viewing angle, many different models with claimed specs of 178 degrees show significant differences in off-axis contrast and color. There simply isn’t any good standard for measuring this performance.
Remember, too, that two brands that use the same OEM panel may take very different approaches to circuitry and backlighting, yielding very different image quality.
Since the specs don’t mean anything, we’re pretty much dependent on informed user reports and our own eyeballs to determine which displays are best.
You might have persuaded me that specs mean nothing, except that Dell displays have consistently been ranked very well and you have conspicuously failed to include Dell monitors in your personal list of best-made LCDs.
If brightness, contrast ratio, response time, viewing angle, resolution, pixel pitch, and screen type mean nothing in estimating the quality of a monitor then what else determines the overall quality of the display? It’s not magic or wizardry that converts an series of digital inputs into a discernable projection of hues, values, and chromas. Some physics have to be employed. How else can an engineer determine how to design and build a monitor? Good grief, this is applied science, not alchemy.
You haven’t made a convincing argument that none of the six previously mentioned specs has any impact in determining the overall quality of a monitor. If none of these specifications has any influence on what I see, then what measurable property does influence what I do see? You have convinced me that you really are ignorant on the subject of what specifications influence viewing pleasure.
Here’s a comparison of the prices of Apple’s displays from what they were when they were first released in June 2004 to where they now are today…
30″ 6/04: $3,299 Now: $1,799
23″ 6/04: $1,999 Now: $ 899
20″ 6/04: $1,299 Now: $ 599
Apple has a one-year warranty on its cinema displays; other companies offer three-year warranties.
Now, who do you think thinks makes the better monitor? Why would anyone purchase an Apple monitor expected to last only a third as long as a competitor’s product?
Yeah, I’ll buy a Mac for the OS, but I’m not so inclined to buy a monitor from Apple.