digitimes.com— Coming end of 2006, beginning of 2007. The prices for 17-inch widescreen monitors will not necessary be higher than 17-inch 4:3 models.
Nov 27, 2006View in Crawl 4
I actually think this move makes perfect sense. I've been waiting for manufacturers to come around and realise there is a market for smaller, cheaper wide-screen monitors. This of course all hinges on the cost being competitive. There are many people now with mini's and 13" Macbooks, a large portion of them students on a rather strict budget, who would appreciate this. This once again relies on Apple getting over themselves and setting price points that make sense.
Seems to me that the notion of the 17" being too small for TV holds no water over at Apple. FrontRow and the Apple Remote are both included with the MacBook 13", MacBook Pro 15"/17", and iMac 17". Not to mention that iTMS video is still at 640x480.
@ heresy16:10 = 8:5The only reason it's usually expressed as 16:10 is because 16:9 is the other common widescreen ratio, and the difference between those two ratios is a little more obvious.
My 21" Dell Trinitron flat CRT fits me perfectly. The quality is amazing, and paired with a magnetically shielded cable and an ATI X850 XT PE it is..amazing!
novaprive & sleepwalkers: Consider that the first unix was written on a computer without a monitor, then reconsider your statements about 17" monitors being useless for running any kind of "real" program. I know that 17" is relatively small now, but to say 1280x1024 is useless is foolish. Maybe for photoshop or whatever else you run you need a much lager canvas, but a lot of people don't need anything more than a 17" screen.You talk about how 17" is fine for web surfing & e-mail, but you seem to fail to realize that most people don't need to do more than that. Apple has bigger monitors, if they want to target people who buy Minis then who cares if they start making a 17" screen? Don't buy it if it's too small.
Where was this? Amazon sells them for $999.00.Also, I doubt the specs on that $149.00 19" monitor are worth talking about. There is something to be said for quality and a good design.
We can see the differences by going to the Apple store, clicking on the Mac mini and then the 'compare specs' button.This shows that the $799 mini is very similar to the $999 iMac.The mini has a DVD burner (super drive rather than combo) and bluetooth.Whereas the iMac has $200 more of hard drive, a Core 2 Duo instead of a Core Duo*, a built in 17" monitor and keyboard and mouse.So it is a much better deal than the mini. If you consider the MARGINAL COST OF THE 17" MONITOR TO BE $0 (sorry about the caps, but it is relevant to the overall thread, note also that it is a widescreen 17" monitor), you are _still_ getting the processor upgrade and other accessories 'for free' (if you would have paid the $200 more for the larger hard drive, which on the Mac mini is still 5400, but on the iMac is 7200 rpm).In addition to all that, there is also the ability to hook up a _second_ display to the iMac, for maximum goodness (assuming that they aren't limited to only doing mirroring, which would be minimum goodness instead).*Personally, I think this is appallingly bad marketing on Intel's behalf. It is completely unclear why if and how a Core 2 Duo is 'more betterer' than a Core Duo. Yes it has 'more stuff' but so what? Do I need that stuff? Will it make the internet go faster? I think not.Also, I have (despite my inherently frugal nature (translation: I'm a tightwad)) become a big fan of the bluetooth devices, and I consider it to be an important part of the 'iMac experience', that all out assault on desktop clutter which rocks so very much. I compare a 20" iMac with wireless keyboard (total 2 cords, one power, one for trackball), with an old old G4 Mac mini without bluetooth or airport, and the mini has a dozen different cords tangling around back there, it is a _huge_ difference. Also, without bluetooth for keyboard and mouse, those USB ports disappear pretty quickly, and the iMac only has 3 compared to the mini's 4. If you're shopping for external drives better make sure they are Firewire ones! (The two on the keyboard are low powered 1.1, so your iPod shuffle for instance won't recharge in them)
scoreboard27Nov 28, 2006Submitter
Standalone monitors, ben. And this is the direct link off the the appleinsider.com story, not SPAM
swaxhogNov 28, 2006
iTunes to support Zune connectivity would top that
abusetheforceNov 28, 2006
I actually think this move makes perfect sense. I've been waiting for manufacturers to come around and realise there is a market for smaller, cheaper wide-screen monitors. This of course all hinges on the cost being competitive. There are many people now with mini's and 13" Macbooks, a large portion of them students on a rather strict budget, who would appreciate this. This once again relies on Apple getting over themselves and setting price points that make sense.
narulaNov 28, 2006
Seems to me that the notion of the 17" being too small for TV holds no water over at Apple. FrontRow and the Apple Remote are both included with the MacBook 13", MacBook Pro 15"/17", and iMac 17". Not to mention that iTMS video is still at 640x480.
ecclesNov 28, 2006
@ heresy16:10 = 8:5The only reason it's usually expressed as 16:10 is because 16:9 is the other common widescreen ratio, and the difference between those two ratios is a little more obvious.
Closed AccountNov 28, 2006
My 21" Dell Trinitron flat CRT fits me perfectly. The quality is amazing, and paired with a magnetically shielded cable and an ATI X850 XT PE it is..amazing!
nofxjunkeeNov 28, 2006
novaprive & sleepwalkers: Consider that the first unix was written on a computer without a monitor, then reconsider your statements about 17" monitors being useless for running any kind of "real" program. I know that 17" is relatively small now, but to say 1280x1024 is useless is foolish. Maybe for photoshop or whatever else you run you need a much lager canvas, but a lot of people don't need anything more than a 17" screen.You talk about how 17" is fine for web surfing & e-mail, but you seem to fail to realize that most people don't need to do more than that. Apple has bigger monitors, if they want to target people who buy Minis then who cares if they start making a 17" screen? Don't buy it if it's too small.
stevejobsNov 28, 2006
Where was this? Amazon sells them for $999.00.Also, I doubt the specs on that $149.00 19" monitor are worth talking about. There is something to be said for quality and a good design.
rickcarsonNov 29, 2006
We can see the differences by going to the Apple store, clicking on the Mac mini and then the 'compare specs' button.This shows that the $799 mini is very similar to the $999 iMac.The mini has a DVD burner (super drive rather than combo) and bluetooth.Whereas the iMac has $200 more of hard drive, a Core 2 Duo instead of a Core Duo*, a built in 17" monitor and keyboard and mouse.So it is a much better deal than the mini. If you consider the MARGINAL COST OF THE 17" MONITOR TO BE $0 (sorry about the caps, but it is relevant to the overall thread, note also that it is a widescreen 17" monitor), you are _still_ getting the processor upgrade and other accessories 'for free' (if you would have paid the $200 more for the larger hard drive, which on the Mac mini is still 5400, but on the iMac is 7200 rpm).In addition to all that, there is also the ability to hook up a _second_ display to the iMac, for maximum goodness (assuming that they aren't limited to only doing mirroring, which would be minimum goodness instead).*Personally, I think this is appallingly bad marketing on Intel's behalf. It is completely unclear why if and how a Core 2 Duo is 'more betterer' than a Core Duo. Yes it has 'more stuff' but so what? Do I need that stuff? Will it make the internet go faster? I think not.Also, I have (despite my inherently frugal nature (translation: I'm a tightwad)) become a big fan of the bluetooth devices, and I consider it to be an important part of the 'iMac experience', that all out assault on desktop clutter which rocks so very much. I compare a 20" iMac with wireless keyboard (total 2 cords, one power, one for trackball), with an old old G4 Mac mini without bluetooth or airport, and the mini has a dozen different cords tangling around back there, it is a _huge_ difference. Also, without bluetooth for keyboard and mouse, those USB ports disappear pretty quickly, and the iMac only has 3 compared to the mini's 4. If you're shopping for external drives better make sure they are Firewire ones! (The two on the keyboard are low powered 1.1, so your iPod shuffle for instance won't recharge in them)
healmachineNov 29, 2006
well thats gonna be interesting!!