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 and Intel have struck a preliminary agreement under which Intel will manufacture some of the chips that power Apple devices…
Apple is tightening its education pricing program with a new verification process that officially rolls out in the United States today…
In Nasdaq trading today, shares of Apple Inc. rose to hit a new all-time closing high. Apple’s all-time intraday high was also set today…
Apple TV announced that the new three-part docuseries, “The Dynasty: UConn Huskies,” featuring the legendary University of Connecticut…
In a move that underscores the growing friction between Silicon Valley and governments worldwide, Apple and Meta have formally…
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.