What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
59 Comments
- devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+49Yeah, you'll get your iSight running on your Glossy Cinema Display, and you'll say: "WOW. That is a REALLY high definition feed of myself!"
And then you'll realize it's your reflection. - Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23The IR sensor on the iMac is under the apple logo, that's pretty much on the display. The reason why you'll need the IR sensor on the Cinema Displays is becuase it will be tricky to use the remote with the MacPro hiding under your desk.
Here's what to expect: Thinner, lighter Cinema Displays with IR sensor and iSight. - ObiusX, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21I find that glossy sucks, too much reflectivity, too much glare.
- LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I agree. Apple displays are high quality, but they lack sufficient features and the pricing is way outside of what the going rate for a display of whatever category... be it 23" displays, 30" displays, etc.
Apple consistently prices the displays very high, and almost never adjusts the price to reflect market realities. They are content with selling very few of them but having high margin. I wish they would change that. - RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Apple displays are beautifully designed but I can't make myself pay the premium when I know that Dell uses the same LCD panel in their displays.
- titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I would love an glossy Cinema Display but its too damn expensive.
- mfratt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9As far as the glossy goes, that would be an interesting addition. Before buying my MacBook, I had a Compaq with a glossy screen and it was horrifying. I practically coulnt see anything on the screen due to reflections and glare. The glossy screen almost stopped me from buying my macbook. However, I realized that Apple's implementation of it is much better than others I have seen. There is minimal reflection and glare, and the colors are sharp. I would go for the glossy screen on a cinema if they offered it.
- cheztir, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I'm with you RadientBeing, I have a Dell 2005FPW, uses the same panel as a Cinema Display 21", but it has so much more, VGA, SVideo, Composite, More USB 2. I can sacrifice the looks of the Cinema display for the functionality and economics of the Dell. Cinema Display $999, Dell was $399.
- neom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I doubt apple will ever make their Cinema Screen line glossy, people like myself and other photographers and gfx designers would not buy them. Fact of the matter - There is little or no colour management with a glossy screen, the colours are artificially saturated to the point they are un-usable for post processing.
The Cinema Screen line are geared towards people who work in the gfx industry. - node3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You actually have this exactly backwards. Matte screens are matte *because they blur the screen*. They have a rough surface which dulls reflections by scattering the light. Unfortunately, they also scatter light going *through* the screen. This reduces sharpness, color accuracy, and brightness. Glossy screen are superior except for one fact: reflections are really, really clear, sharp and bright. What this means is that since the beginning of LCDs, the glossy display has been more accurate, clearer, and brighter, than the exact same display with a matte coating (that is the only physical difference). The thing is that until recently, in far too many situations, reflections have been so problematic that the inferior matte coating is more viewable than the superior glossy coating with all the reflections.
Enter modern coating techniques which can significantly dim, but not entirely eliminate, reflections, without resorting to the rough surface of the matte display. Combine this with the increased brightness inherent in a glossy display, and now the glossy display is not only superior in far more indoor lighting situations, it also is more easily viewed outdoors than a matte display.
If you still find yourself in those situations where lighting reflections overpower the advantages of a glossy display, then matte may still be the way to go for you, but now that there are far fewer such cases than before, if you *can* use glossy, you *will* get a superior picture, thanks to the newer coatings that have recently come into common use. - NoOnEx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9I find that my glossy WXVGA 17" Xbright sony monitor has almost no glare, and the sharpest picture and best contrast of any screen I've ever seen.
- cheztir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5almost makes you wonder if Apple will just pipe IR and iSight via the same port. I wonder if theyll keep iSight with Firewire or switch to USB2.
- rickcarson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Some guys I worked with bought Dells with 19" (not widescreen) LCDs. I ran the numbers and they had about 13% more pixels than my 20" Apple cinema display. But for some reason people who saw them thought the Apple one was bigger just because it was wider.
So when I got a Dell at my next workplace I was looking forward to working with the screen.
The really big difference? Apple's 20" offerings (Cinema Display, G5 iMac etc) are solid. Dell's is really wobbly. Which is okay I guess so long as you don't bump the desk.
So I reckon the extra $600 must go into the stand. :D
To answer some other poster's question: yes, they have actually had several (small) price drops on the cinema displays since they came out. The price drop is most noticeable on the 30" display.
If you take into account the price of an Apple cinema display between the mac mini and the 20" iMac... the iMac is better value.... If you accept Apple's claim that a 20" cinema display is worth $800.
For the 17 inch iMac though... once you bump up the hard drive to match the difference is $325. If we say that $100 of that is the faster cpu, then what Apple is saying is the marginal cost of the 17" monitor is $575.
Would you pay $575 for a 17" monitor? It seems... not a very good value proposition.
Now lets compare Apple's with Dell's. Apple's 30 inch monitor costs $2500, Dell's 3007WFP costs $2200. They are pretty much exactly the same except:
The Dell weighs 8 pounds more. The Apple uses a maximum of 150 watts, the Dell uses 147 to 177 watts. The Apple has 2 usb and 2 firewire (400) ports. Since I don't have any firewire devices, I'll call that one in Dell's favour. :D The Dell also has some kind of card reader slot - not sure what that is for (memory cards from cameras?).
The Dell is also height adjustable and can be swiveled horizontally (left-right) whereas the Apple only swivels vertically. But if the 19 inch Dell is wobbly, I'd guess the 30 inch is even more so. (And that would be a big concern for me) If I could eliminate the wobble concern then all in all the Dell would be slightly better. To recap it's 12% cheaper, less power efficient (18%), much heavier (22%) and so long as you don't care about Firewire has better ports.
Strangely the Apple is cheaper to rent: $59/month vs $66/month for the Dell. Though if interested in that you should of course check the fine print to find out what the real costs are.
According to Dell: As of June 30, 2006, APRs range from 18.24% - 29.99%. Your rate will be disclosed upon approval.
According to Apple: Your initial APR for purchases will be set between 13.49% variable and 22.49% variable based on your creditworthiness. The APR is not guaranteed and may change.
So Dell is the price gouger when it comes to renting... who'd have thought? :D
I'm not sure what causes the power difference, maybe the card reader and usb ports are real power hogs.
Also I don't know if the Dell 30" ever comes up in their online promotions... I tell you what, at a 40% discount (or similar) it would start looking mighty fine... :D - CreativeGuy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm wondering how this article can be flagged as inaccurate when it's clearly an opinion article to begin with. This isn't a rumor site we're talking about. This isn't speculation, hint, "my brother's friend's cousin saw the box" type of garbage. It's pure opinion.
That being said, the glossy screen would rock. I've found them to be excellent unless you're sitting outside or in a very bad overhead lighting situation. And an iSight NEEDS to be added.
I'm not sure about glossy screen, but I'm betting an iSight shows up in the Cinema display line. Apple would love to sell more cinema displays without lowering prices. Adding an iSight would do the trick. - vinny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I like the metal and don't mind paying extra for it. As has been said many times, Apple doesn't go after the price-is-everything market. If you want cheap, there are other options, as you have stated.
- einsteindesign, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Oh, and for the "Apple displays are expensive" crowd, no doubt they are. But even at those prices, they are some of the cheapest SWOP certified displays on the planet. Trust me, they know exactly who their target audience is.
- cbeach, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Articles like this should NOT be in digg. It's speculative, poorly written, amateur and full of advertising.
Marked as spam - envy860, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A hidden IR port would be fine, but an iSight would ruin the looks of the screen and generally not work because of position. It works on the iMac beause thats about where your face is. Your face doesn't sit the same place on the 30" screen. Also, multiple monitors are often used so a fair amount of times the one monitor isn't directly infront of someone, the ends are, and the camera cannot be moved. The tech that was rumored to be built in the screen would be nice though.
I wish they would maybe offer HDCP complient monitors. I'm against the whole thing, but really dont want to spend that much on a display that might not work all the time. - fudgebrown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4there is a question mark on the end of the title for a reason...
- icabod540, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And it's only $799 not $999.
- mfratt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@zybch
No... The Compaq screen is crap. All that I'm saying is that the MacBooks screen has less reflection and a shaper picture. How is that turning it into gold? I would still prefer a matte screen (espeically on a laptop), im just saying that apple's glossy screen is better than most. - Powerdrift, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4o_O
- Dog_Paddle, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Hopefully the iMacs will go glossy as well.
- carebearwarrior, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3[quote]almost makes you wonder if Apple will just pipe IR and iSight via the same port. I wonder if theyll keep iSight with Firewire or switch to USB2.[/quote]
The internal iSights are USB 2.0 already.
I don't see Apple added iSights to their displays yet, but maybe putting them as a cheaper addon. - Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I'm getting two of them. :-)
- einsteindesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1pinga, it's true, but so is your assessment: they DO use superior quality panels. Same glass, same manufacturer, just higher tolerances. What doesn't pass muster for apple gets sold to others (including dell). And of course, the glass is only one component of monitor design.
- dickrichie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8yeah I agree about the glossy screen comment obiusX. Its all smoke and mirrors. Its not really brighter or have deeper colors as perceived. What it does do is blur the line between pixels giving you a untrue color scale. Which if you are watching a DVD probably wouldnt matter but when designing web-pages, page layouts or video editing its hard to tell what will actually be seen on paper or screens. They are nice though if you want to see if anyone is standing behind you or if you are lost in the mountains and need an emergency mirror to signal for help.
- dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The title/description never once stated it was going to happen, look at the question mark, "it makes sense for" etc..
Anyway, why does the cinema display need a built in webcam? For the notebooks, sure, it's not easily possible to carry around a webcam with it, the iMacs, fair enough, it's supposed to be an all-in-one home computer, but the cinema-displays tend (not always, but where they're used a lot) is for companies that use the macs for profession graphics/video stuff (for example), where a webcam is just going to shove the price of the screens up a tiny bit.. The glossy screen would be nice, since they tend to have better colour
Also, the webcam built into the iMac/Powerbooks makes sense as it's a single unit, and a seperate cable can be run from it to a USB connector, but with the displays, wont it be a seperate cable running from the monitor? If so, doesn't it make more sense to leave it seperate, which also allows you to point it in different directions, or, more importantly, not buy it?
- Ben - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Anyone else think it's odd that Apple is the company making sure Orwell's 1984, with cameras in the home aimed at you, is coming true?
Maybe there is a reason they play so nice with Microsoft nowadays.
Bill would have been lynched had he done the same thing. - tecmec, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4To add to what zybch said, Apple doesn't even make the actual LCD screens...most laptop LCDs are all made by just a couple different manufacturers,
- rickcarson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I had a day of a couple of months ago, went to the movies and saw three films, Man Inside (or was it inside man?), V for Vendetta and Basic Instinct 2.
Two of those films had blatant Apple product placements. There is for instance one shot where Jodie Foster in the foreground is being drowned out by a 30" monitor in the background with the plasma screensaver going. Very distracting. :D
I find it interesting to note which was the dystopia, and which didn't have any Apples in it... and I leave you to draw your own conclusions... :D - cbeach, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3..only in 2006 we're able to turn the cameras on and off at will, and select who we want to see the video..
..did you _read_ 1984? - Worf2006, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Fact is Apple filed for a patent that would embed sensors in the screen itself, allowing people to just look at the screen and use the camera inside the screen (Think Startrek) I doubt highly that Apple could have converted it's entire Cinema Display line so quickly. Give them 6-8 months and you'll see new Cinema displays.
- ianbetteridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And yet again, we see the crapness of Digg: how the hell is a story that's quite clearly opinion and speculation be inaccurate?
- matt0ne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1total speculation...
- blindpyro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2That'd just be weird for a multi-monitor setup.
- n00bst3r, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8I don't find the Apple displays "to die for". First of all they have a refresh rate of 14ms. All displays should from here on out be at least a real world performance of 8ms. Also the stand and the bezel are not that ellegant. At a refresh rate of 14ms I expect the damn thing to be less than an inch thick. Also I don't like how the top and bottom are rounded off while the sides are cut off. I would like to see all hard edges with a discrete rounding for safety. I don't know what would make the stand look better but I would like to see something other than a sheet of aluminum with curves inconsistant with the rest of the display. Not to mention all the horror stories of clusters of dead pixels and pink hues.
I can buy a 20 BenQ moniter on newegg for $300 that performs better (8ms) and doesn't look half bad. Come on Apple, kick the expensive metals and become price competitive. - paragonconcept, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1this article is pure speculation - please disregard :P
- janjop, on 10/30/2008, -0/+0This took a year from the date of the posts but it happened at least for one display
- n00bst3r, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5But I do like the idea of glossy desktop displays. I don't often take my desktop out on the back patio to do some casual surfing, so I think glossy would be a good option.
- subnubilus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Node3 was dead on. I wish less people on here would say things they're unsure about.
Glossy screens are -more- accurate. Go to any upscale fine art museum and look at the paintings, and you'll see they use glossy varnish. Does that mean most people like glossy? No. They don't like the glare, and without a reference right by the picture, don't realize how incredibly washed out the blacks are made by the matte coating.
Glossy screens certainly don't superficially enhance saturation or sharpness, as some people seem to think. Superficial sharpness would be so obvious that anyone who accuses it of doing that must be clueless, but as far the saturation is concerned, it's simply blocking less of the color. If you want to see what graphics would look like on a matte display, you can adjust the saturation in the color profile, but rest assured the glossy screen is presenting a more accurate picture. Set a matte screen and a glossy screen next to eachother with an HD video running through both (and make sure the room is pitch black), and you'll see.
I don't understand why they'd put it on laptops, which need matte for avoiding glare, instead of the cinema displays, which should be set up somewhere without glare even if you use a matte screen (it still makes a difference, even if the reflections aren't clear). - brentzilla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Renting?! That's the APR for financing. That is for buying on credit. You can't really intend to compare them on that can you?! That has to do with the bank they offer credit through and ultimately depends on your credit rating.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"..only in 2006 we're able to turn the cameras on and off at will, and select who we want to see the video.."
Want to bet that there will be "features" in coming programs and/or os-updates that will be able to bypass the user settings?
Remember that many people will run WIndows on the new macs.
And remember when Macromedia was found out to have it's flash reader software settings default to granting access to the user's web-cam and mic through webpages the user may visit.
Funny how Macromedia also were doing contract work with the military around the same time. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Conjecture can't be innacurate, buries marked as innacurate
- aptmunich, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"I'm with you RadientBeing, I have a Dell 2005FPW, uses the same panel as a Cinema Display 21", but it has so much more, VGA, SVideo, Composite, More USB 2. I can sacrifice the looks of the Cinema display for the functionality and economics of the Dell. Cinema Display $999, Dell was $399."
There is no 21" cinema display, dumbass... - pinga, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"dell uses the same panel" - No way. I realize how widespread this notion is, but it simply cannot be true. I've worked with several 2005FPW's as well as 20" ACD's. ACD's are consistently better, with far less frequent defects.
- Kazaki, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The iSight will be integrated into the new displays using the new technology Apple recently signed up for allowing them to use the actual screen as a video input device.
That would be pretty snazzy and allow eye-to-eye video conferences. - joebob2406, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Apple definitely needs to bring down the price of their cinema displays to be inline with their market. If they can do this without sacrificing quality, they will be more likely to seel the cinema displays with their Mac Pros than Dells for example. They are definitely very nice screens. I used a 23" for a while. You get spoiled very easily. Also, do you think they will redesign the look of the cinema displays if they redeisgn the look of the mac pro to conform with the white style? Might get to see another design innovation from apple!!! (oops, a bit of fanboy leaked out there)
- bornhj, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Now I just don't know WHAT to think.
- einsteindesign, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The "dell uses the same panel" contingent should Google for the gradient/banding issues of the dells. I was *this close* to getting one and couldn't pull the trigger due to the doubts over quality issues.
Grabbed a Viewsonic VX2025wm instead; once calibrated I was very pleased. -
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is