Apple Discontinues 20" Cinema Display, Product Refreshes Coming?

[Tallest Skil]

My idea:
1. 24" is the new 20"
2. 30" transitions to 32"
3. small chance: 40" Cinema Display but I doubt it.

1. Yep, I can see it.
2. Nope, it would just be bigger pixels... not a good idea.
3. It'd be amazing... and amazingly expensive.

 

[kabunaru]

1. Yep, I can see it.
2. Nope, it would just be bigger pixels... not a good idea.
3. It'd be amazing... and amazingly expensive.

2. Just what is so bad about bigger pixels? I think it would be better because it would be easier to read.

 

[kolax]

3. small chance: 40" Cinema Display but I doubt it.

What would be able to drive a 40" display assuming such a one exists and has the same PPI has the 30"..?

 

[Digital Skunk]

2. Just what is so bad about bigger pixels? I think it would be better because it would be easier to read.

But it would be a hell of a lot softer.... like the garbage 27" panels with 23" panel resolution.

They are terrible to look at.

 

[PCM]

I know that all of this is speculation, but the real question is will they force glossy on pro users?

I have an NEC SpectraviewII 26" LCD on backorder, very excited about it but still curious as to what Apple will release.

If they went glossy on the MacBook pro, that probably hints that they'd be heading that direction with the cinemas, no?

 

[danny_w]

But it would be a hell of a lot softer.... like the garbage 27" panels with 23" panel resolution.

They are terrible to look at.

For you maybe, but you don't speak for us all. Larger text is necessary for some of us, and we might rather have a 'garbage 27" panel with 23" panel resolution'. To each his own.

 

[drlunanerd]

For you maybe, but you don't speak for us all. Larger text is necessary for some of us, and we might rather have a 'garbage 27" panel with 23" panel resolution'. To each his own.

Text size isn't usually a problem - in most apps you can increase its size without having to decrease your screen resolution (e.g. Finder, web browsers etc.). It's UI elements that are the problem and that OS resolution independence will solve when it's finally implemented.

 

[danny_w]

Text size isn't usually a problem - in most apps you can increase its size without having to decrease your screen resolution (e.g. Finder, web browsers etc.). It's UI elements that are the problem and that OS resolution independence will solve when it's finally implemented.

Agreed, but it isn't here yet.

 

[russ99]

Now, in regard to Blu-Ray. I mentioned earlier that my eMac had a DVD burner. I think I can count on 2 hands the number of times I actually used that DVD burner. Everything is digital! BluRay to me is just a stop gap technology. I'd be surprised if Apple even sold any computers with optical drives in just a few short years, especially when you have these massive hard drive sizes these days. I mean you can put a couple of terabyte drives in a desktop these days. That's insane! 20 GB used to be considered massive--what 6, 7 years ago? We have thumb drives that can hold 16 and 32 GB and even more now, so why even use a disk? It's the age of the digital downloads -- Tivo, Slingbox, Apple TV etc. BluRay to me is already antiquated technology. I know I will catch some flack for saying that but notice I said "for me". There may be some of you out there that have a real need for BluRay etc. but I don't and it's definitely not a selling point on me buying a computer. I could care less if it's on there or not. And so I go back to my original comment about stats and specs: if Apple released an iMac next week that was say a 2.8ghz with a 20" screen and BluRay (keeping in mind that the fastest 20" is currently 2.66ghz and has no BluRay) there would be people out there who own the 2.4 or 2.66ghz and would try and sell theirs on craigslist so they could buy the new one, even though they'd probably never even use BluRay. We are stats/specs people.

Apple didn't make us get on their wagon; we got on their ourselves and we are responsible for our buying decisions.

That's just being misinformed. I expect Blu-Ray to have the same effect on computers as the jump from floppies to CD's.

Because programs and data (both high-megapixel count photos, new lossless 5.1 audio and all this new HDTV content) is big, unless you want it hideously compressed, moving, viewing and storing this data is ungainly with both current portable storage and broadband download.

Until broadband can push data in the hundreds of MB or 1 GB per second, this storage will be necessary. The problem with the current technology is that they're selling low quality or highly compressed data and either displaying it at lowered quality or letting your device upsample it. This may go on for a few more years, but eventually consumers will demand full-quality data.

Since BD discs hold such large amount of data on one disc, this will eventually be the storage media of choice, especially for large-volume work (such as photo shoots and video work) and backups.

Movies may be the reason that Blu-Ray was developed, but it will be able to do so much more. For instance, Adobe CS4. Would you rather keep track of 5 DVD install discs, or have it all one one disc? As programs and operating systems continually get bigger, This kind of convenience will eventually become a necessity.

I'd expect Blu-Ray to sweep through the computer industry when the new Intel Nephalem processor/chipsets are implemented as they do the required Blu-Ray processing such as encoding/decoding internally on the processor/motherboard and won't bog down the operating system.

Apple may get on board late, but they will get on board.

 

[marold280]

I hope they are, the 23inch ones are gorgeous

 

[Tallest Skil]

That's just being misinformed. I expect Blu-Ray to have the same effect on computers as the jump from floppies to CD's.

Why? It's nowhere near as revolutionary. This isn't VHS to DVD, this is just laser to laser.

Because programs and data (both high-megapixel count photos, new lossless audio and all this new HDTV content) is big, unless you want it hideously compressed, moving, viewing and storing this data is ungainly with both current portable storage and broadband download.

NAND is cheap.

Until broadband can push data in the hundreds of MB or 1 GB per second, this storage will be necessary. The problem with the current technology is that they're selling low quality or highly compressed data and either displaying it at lowered quality or letting your device upsample it.

Yep. Which is why I believe that Apple will finally concede in 2015 and include Blu-ray: The U.S. ISPs won't have the infrastructure in place to keep up with Super Hi-Vision video downloads, even though getting a 1080p movie in less than an hour will be affordable for everyone by then.

I'd expect Blu-Ray to sweep through the computer industry when the new Intel Nehalem processor/chipsets are implemented as they do the required encoding/decoding internally on the processor/motherboard and won't bog down the operating system.

Apple may get on board late, but they will get on board.

2015. I envision another "We were late to the game on this one..." bit like when they first included...

was it CD-RW or DVD-R? I can't remember...

 

[russ99]

Why? It's nowhere near as revolutionary. This isn't VHS to DVD, this is just laser to laser.

The data percentages are why.

CD to DVD was 8-1, floppies to CD was 10-1.
DVD to Blu-Ray is 10/15-1.

NAND is cheap.

Are people really going to want to mess with memory cards, to the size of a BD Disc and extent of how people are used to using DVDs?

Yep. Which is why I believe that Apple will finally concede in 2015 and include Blu-ray: The U.S. ISPs won't have the infrastructure in place to keep up with Super Hi-Vision video downloads, even though getting a 1080p movie in less than an hour will be affordable for everyone by then.

2015. I envision another "We were late to the game on this one..." bit like when they first included...

was it CD-RW or DVD-R? I can't remember...

You bring up a good point. 1080 won't be the highest HD video resolution for long. I'm sure we'll be at 1240 or 1750 by 2015.

But BD has updateable firmware and quad-layer 100GB discs are already being developed. Unlike CD to DVD, you won't need to get a new player to use these new discs that can handle the space required by future hi-def resolution boosts.

 

[Tallest Skil]

The data percentages are why.

CD to DVD was 8-1, floppies to CD was 10-1.
DVD to Blu-Ray is 10/15-1.

Um... sorry, I don't know what these ratios represent.

Are people really going to want to mess with memory cards, to the size of a BD Disc and extent of how people are used to using DVDs?

Yes. Non-spinning media is safer than spinning media. It's hard to scratch (and in so doing, render useless) a NAND flash chip, too.

You bring up a good point. 1080 won't be the highest HD video resolution for long. I'm sure we'll be at 1240 or 1750 by 2015.

Think bigger. Super Hi-Vision is 4320p. Japan begins television broadcasts in SHV in 2011.

But BD has updateable firmware and quad-layer 100GB discs are already being developed. Unlike CD to DVD, you won't need to get a new player to use these new discs that can handle the space required by future hi-def resolution boosts.

The 400GB/1TB Blu-ray disks will be the ones carrying Super Hi-Vision movies at first...

But flash chips will be a cheap alternative thereafter. Instead of DVD/BD players, we'll have a little box that we plug our USB 3.0 movie drives into to watch movies in 7680x4320 resolution.

 

[Digital Skunk]

For you maybe, but you don't speak for us all. Larger text is necessary for some of us, and we might rather have a 'garbage 27" panel with 23" panel resolution'. To each his own.

NO!

What I said wasn't an opinion. It was a fact.


Displays with larger panels but lower resolutions SUCK.

 

[seb-opp]

NAND is cheap.

Not as cheap as pressing a BD disc. Optical media will always be the cheapest option

I personally think Blu-ray will not be as wide spread as DVDs are today at least for video because of competition from movie downloads, but probably wont die out as soon as some people are saying

 

[kolax]

NO!

What I said wasn't an opinion. It was a fact.

Displays with larger panels but lower resolutions SUCK.

I agree - but to make it clearer: larger panels with low PPI suck.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Not as cheap as pressing a BD disc. Optical media will always be the cheapest option

No, it won't.

32GB flash drives are only slightly more than 50GB Blu-ray disks right now.

By this time next year, 64GB flash drives will be cheaper than a 50GB Blu-ray disk.

In 2012, it will be a trifling thing to pop a Super Hi-Vision movie and special features onto a 512GB flash drive and sell them instead of disks.

It'd save a lot of space on store shelves, I'll tell you.

 

[danny_w]

NO!

What I said wasn't an opinion. It was a fact.


Displays with larger panels but lower resolutions SUCK.

Perhaps they do (I'm not arguing that fact) but if you had bad eyesight you would be glad they existed. Don't think that everybody has 20/20 vision, or even close.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

No, it won't.

32GB flash drives are only slightly more than 50GB Blu-ray disks right now.

By this time next year, 64GB flash drives will be cheaper than a 50GB Blu-ray disk.

In 2012, it will be a trifling thing to pop a Super Hi-Vision movie and special features onto a 512GB flash drive and sell them instead of disks.

It'd save a lot of space on store shelves, I'll tell you.

That's never going to happen.
What's more likely is we'll just download movies. There will never be a market for buying movies in flash drives.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I agree - but to make it clearer: larger panels with low PPI suck.

thank you for that. I was having a brain fart...... for ...... the..... past..... few...... years....

Perhaps they do (I'm not arguing that fact) but if you had bad eyesight you would be glad they existed. Don't think that everybody has 20/20 vision, or even close.

No problem brother. and I agree that they are better for viewing text, and those low PPI displays (such as the 22" and 27" models) aren't that bad I guess.

For someone that doesn't have 20/20 either, they are welcomed for viewing bins and such in FCP.

 

[umbilical]

Cutting the 20" this week could be in preparation for a refresh on the 24th (this Tuesday coming up).

I cross my fingers for that, I cancel my dell order for a 23 inch monitor of $320, when I know this notice, I want a new apple cinema 20 or 24 for my macpro!!!!!!!!!

 

[flipperfeet]

I cross my fingers for that, I cancel my dell order for a 23 inch monitor of $320, when I know this notice, I want a new apple cinema 20 or 24 for my macpro!!!!!!!!!

The cinema displays are beautiful, but you would be paying a premium for a smaller screen. I went with the Dell Monitor, three years ago they used the same Samsung LCD as Apple did for their 20s and 23/24." Specs for contrast and response were identical and I worked in a place where I was able to compare them side-by-side. The Dell colors calibrated out the same. The big difference is the Apple only accepts DVI input, the Dell has four inputs, DVI, VGA, s-video and composite. Same number of USB ports, but the Dell also has memory card reader built in. At this point the Dell Monitors are using newer panels. In this instance, I could not justify more money for truly less flexibility. Take a close look at your options, the current black and sliver Dell color scheme looks fine sitting next to a MacPro and the Mac laptops. The Dell will also attach to a WESA arm or mount without buying a special bracket. Happy hunting

 

[Umbongo]

I cross my fingers for that, I cancel my dell order for a 23 inch monitor of $320, when I know this notice, I want a new apple cinema 20 or 24 for my macpro!!!!!!!!!

You understand it is unlikely Apple will offer two 24" displays, let alone have pricing similar to Dell's?

 

[umbilical]

You understand it is unlikely Apple will offer two 24" displays, let alone have pricing similar to Dell's?

The cinema displays are beautiful, but you would be paying a premium for a smaller screen. I went with the Dell Monitor, three years ago they used the same Samsung LCD as Apple did for their 20s and 23/24." Specs for contrast and response were identical and I worked in a place where I was able to compare them side-by-side. The Dell colors calibrated out the same. The big difference is the Apple only accepts DVI input, the Dell has four inputs, DVI, VGA, s-video and composite. Same number of USB ports, but the Dell also has memory card reader built in. At this point the Dell Monitors are using newer panels. In this instance, I could not justify more money for truly less flexibility. Take a close look at your options, the current black and sliver Dell color scheme looks fine sitting next to a MacPro and the Mac laptops. The Dell will also attach to a WESA arm or mount without buying a special bracket. Happy hunting

yeah I think that buy a apple monitor is just for luxury, but they are beautiful! haha, Iam more happy whit apple products... and remember too for the new ones, CAM and MIC, a great speakers inside, and LED (we hope) so I wait for see what Iam buying

 

[sishaw]

I've spent a lot of money on Apple products over the last few years. The problem with Apple is that once you buy in, you've hitched your wagon to them. You're stuck waiting for them to update things on their schedule. You can't go to another vendor.

--

And all this time I thought it was love...