[besson3c]

I know that Apple displays are supposed to be good, but give me a damn break... Why would anybody but the pickiest of picky graphic designers buy an Apple display at Apple's prices if they knew about how much cheaper other good quality monitors are?

Take a look at this 22" display I just bought:

Newegg.com - CHIMEI CMV 221D Black 22" 5ms DVI Widescreen LCD Monitor 330 cd/m2 800:1 - Retail

It looks great, is getting great NewEgg customer reviews, and cost $240 before a $30 rebate. Apple wants $600 for a 20" display! WTF? I could nearly buy three of this non-Apple monitor for the price of one smaller Apple monitor!

What sort of justifications do people in the know have for shelling out this sort of dough for an Apple display?

[Lateralus]

Yeah, but a lot of people would never allow something from a company called CHIMEI on their desk. Myself included.

If you're gonna compare an Apple display to anything, at least compare it to another high-end product.

[exca1ibur]

I paid $1400 for two 24" Dell 2405FPW LCD when the Apple 24" Cinema Display was going for $1999. Apple was never an option with a price difference like that.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Not only are they overpriced (Dell sells the same models technology wise for much less) they are also REALLY out of date.

I mean how long have we been waiting for a new model with an iSight built in with some better specs and cheaper price?

[Faust]

Quality + aesthetics is the paradigm for me. I'll continue to buy overpriced ACDs until I find equally aesthetically pleasing monitors by other companies with similar quality. So far, I've not found any that did not strike me as plain ugly. Yep, beauty and the idea of it when it comes to computers is quite important to me. Oh, that certainly is stupid, isn't it? I am taking the priviledge of being most happily stupid in this regard.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What sort of justifications do people in the know have for shelling out this sort of dough for an Apple display?

Maybe they consider it their own business on how they decide to spend their money and don't rally feel that they need to justify their decision? Maybe they like the way the Apple monitors look? Maybe they decide to drive a Mercedes instead of a Lexus?

How many more times do we need to flog this tired old horse?

[OreoCookie]

Also, most cheap displays have TN panels. As a matter of fact, the cheapest display with MVA panel cost 430 €, a good one costs more than 500 €. So it's more than just looks. But even if you compensate for that, Apple displays aren't cheap. But they're not the most expensive either (have a look at Eizo, for instance).

Edit: I have a 21" Samnsung lcd on my desk (which uses an MVA panel).

[Oisín]

Yeah, but a lot of people would never allow something from a company called CHIMEI on their desk. Myself included.

What’s so bad about evil spirits?

[MacosNerd]

I think its a matter of taste. I have a dell display sitting on my desk, but I am looking for possibly getting a ACD if apple decides to unveil an updated line next week.

I think its a valid question but, without a truly valid answer. I think its just because they can.

You can probably find a monitor that's half the price of what apple charges, but would you want it. You do get what you pay for and by going bargain basement you're setting yourself up for headaches imo.

[Faust]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

I think its a matter of taste. I have a dell display sitting on my desk, but I am looking for possibly getting a ACD if apple decides to unveil an updated line next week.

I think its a valid question but, without a truly valid answer.

See, I think your first sentence pretty much sums it up. It's a matter of taste and taste is hardly worth arguing or justifying. Perhaps there are displays with better quality out there. Perhaps they're even less expensive. Some might be more expensive. It's a matter of taste if equal quality is to be had by a variety of companies. Isn't the hardware (or parts of it within the ACD) the same that Dell and other manufacturers use anyway? Seems like a mute point then.

And I strongly doubt Apple would be where they are if it weren't partially due to their aesthetics.

[Oisín]

You can probably find a monitor that's half the price of what apple charges, but would you want it. You do get what you pay for and by going bargain basement you're setting yourself up for headaches imo.

There’s a lot between bargain basement and Apple displays. I have (and love) this Samsung monitor, which is a pretty good screen, both spec-wise and aesthetically (not quite as good-looking as the Apple displays, but very close), and cost me exactly half of what a 20” (two inches smaller) Apple display would have cost me.

[starman]

Dell monitors are so much better. Not only are they cheaper and good quality, but they have multiple inputs and memory card slots on the side.

[MacosNerd]

Oh I know. I'm using a dell display right now. I'm not completely happy with it. I'm not sure if the apple display would be better though.

[starman]

What don't you like about it? I have two and haven't had any problems.

[Paco500]

Apple displays are 100% about design. We are a 100% laptop house with no fixed monitors, but I think I would buy an ADC just becase they look so pretty. I know I could get better for less.

[grayware]

I still like this one aesthetically:



The Steampunk monitor.

[Dork.]

More specifically, it's about Marketing. Apple knows that there are people who will spend the extra money for the appearance. They also know that there are people who simply don't care what the monitors cost. There's a third category who will want to get a totally "Apple" system out of fears of incompatibility (no matter how unfounded). Apple has decided that this is one area where they won't compete at all on price, and expect to sell fewer units, but get higher margins on them.

Remember, it's not about how much the unit costs, it's about how much they make on each sale (gross margin). They probably make more money selling fewer monitors with healthy margins then they would if they sold cheaper monitors with razor-thin margins.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by starman 

What don't you like about it? I have two and haven't had any problems.

I have trouble with the brightness, insofar as working with my photos. I've calibrated it, turned down the brightness as much as I can yet when I work on my photos there, and either print them or view them from another monitor they're too dark.

I'm not sure if ACD would be any better. Overall its a nice display but I have to "over-expose" my images when working on them, in order to get them look right when printing or publishing them.

[chris v]

To be fair, the 22" you bought is the same resolutin as the Apple 20" -- most of the 22" displays out there right now are. So you're getting bigger pixels, not 2" more real-estate.

That said, no one in their right mind besides the idle rich would buy an Apple display right now. I bought a refurbed Dell 2007WFP 20" a year ago for 269.00, and it's been fantastic. My only wish is that I could have afforded another one to go next to it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

There’s a lot between bargain basement and Apple displays. I have (and love) this Samsung monitor, which is a pretty good screen, both spec-wise and aesthetically (not quite as good-looking as the Apple displays, but very close), and cost me exactly half of what a 20” (two inches smaller) Apple display would have cost me.

That's not true.
Coincidentally I was looking at the same screen and I was seriously considering getting one. I agree that the design is beautiful. But it has a TN panel which are cheaper than MVA panels -- which is what the ACDs use. You can easily recognize TN panels: they usually have a viewing angle of 160 degrees instead of 170+.

Now, this doesn't mean much by itself, but as it turns out, the colors on MVA panels are simply better (larger gamut, more vibrant colors) -- I had to postpone my purchase until I can afford one that is more suitable. So Apple isn't overcharging €200+, the cheapest 20+ inch lcds with MVA panel cost about €500.

[MacosNerd]

funky double post

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

I have trouble with the brightness, insofar as working with my photos. I've calibrated it, turned down the brightness as much as I can yet when I work on my photos there, and either print them or view them from another monitor they're too dark.

I'm not sure if ACD would be any better. Overall its a nice display but I have to "over-expose" my images when working on them, in order to get them look right when printing or publishing them.

I have had the same problem, and it turned out to be the video card I was using. Switching out the video card made a world of difference.

[Oisín]

To be fair, the 22" you bought is the same resolutin as the Apple 20" -- most of the 22" displays out there right now are. So you're getting bigger pixels, not 2" more real-estate.

I know—but I can’t tell the difference, really.

That's not true.

What isn’t? I didn’t say anything that contradicted either of your posts—I merely said that there’s a lot between bargain basement (ultra-cheap, crappy) screens, and Apple displays. Which there is, obviously.

Coincidentally I was looking at the same screen and I was seriously considering getting one. I agree that the design is beautiful. But it has a TN panel which are cheaper than MVA panels -- which is what the ACDs use.

I know. But that doesn’t matter much to me (and to most other people).

You can easily recognize TN panels: they usually have a viewing angle of 160 degrees instead of 170+.

160° isn’t enough? If you’re out at 170°+, you’re completely unable to make out any details on the screen, anyway, since everything is squished together in half an inch. I can’t think of a single situation where those extra ten degrees matter (there might be some, but I can’t think of them).

Now, this doesn't mean much by itself, but as it turns out, the colors on MVA panels are simply better (larger gamut, more vibrant colors)

Larger gamut—possibly, that’s hard (for me, anyway) to tell just by a plain look at a screen.
More vibrant colours—well... My only experiences with Apple displays are from Apple Stores and school, but I’ve never seen an Apple display hooked up to any of the Macs (or PCs) in either location that had more vibrant colours than this one. Perhaps they were just not properly calibrated, I don’t know—but the end result was that there was no visible quality advantage to the Apple display over this one.

So Apple isn't overcharging €200+, the cheapest 20+ inch lcds with MVA panel cost about €500.

I didn’t say they are—but perhaps, for the sake of competitiveness, they should consider also making TN displays, as well as MVA displays. The Cinema line might then be realistically attractive to more than professionals (designers, etc.) and people to whom money is not an object.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

160° isn’t enough?

No, I said that you can recognize TN panels by that. Not that 170 degrees are necessary.
The benefits are better colors, etc., not necessarily the larger viewing angle.

This might not be relevant to you (and I agree, if it isn't, go for the cheaper one, my father has a Samsung, I have a Samsung (with MVA panel) on my desk, they're making very good screens), but my argument is that you can't compare Apple's and oranges. But you're right, this isn't relevant to everyone who buys a screen.

My rather strong reply wasn't necessarily directed at you (sorry if it came out this way), but mainly at others (among others, besson) who claimed that the difference is just design, it's not.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

my argument is that you can't compare Apple's and oranges.

My, aren't we clever this morning.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, I said that you can recognize TN panels by that. Not that 170 degrees are necessary.

Ah, sorry, misread.

My rather strong reply wasn't necessarily directed at you (sorry if it came out this way), but mainly at others (among others, besson) who claimed that the difference is just design, it's not.

No problem

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I have had the same problem, and it turned out to be the video card I was using. Switching out the video card made a world of difference.

This was a problem with my Macpro and now the MacBook Pro. obviously I cannot swap the video card out of the MBP. Plus it was occurring on two different computers so that led me to believe it's the monitor not the GPU

[MacosNerd]

Also from what I've read (uncorroborated) Dell has switched over to the TN panels. I have an older one and the display is nice (other then the noted problem). I wonder how good they are now and are they in fact using TN panels.

[angelmb]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

My rather strong reply wasn't necessarily directed at you (sorry if it came out this way), but mainly at others (among others, besson) who claimed that the difference is just design, it's not.

True. TATA unveiled its promised $2500 car today, I swear the astonishingly overpriced small european cars are not only a matter of design for design's sake

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

Yeah, but a lot of people would never allow something from a company called CHIMEI on their desk. Myself included.

If you're gonna compare an Apple display to anything, at least compare it to another high-end product.

What about the Chimei makes it a low-end product? Just curious...

My understanding is that contrast ratio is an important spec. Here's a 32" NEC with a contrast ratio of 5000:1 going for $860:

Newegg.com - NEC Display Solutions ASPV32-AVT Black 32" 6ms(GTG) Widescreen LCD Monitor 500 cd/m2 5000:1 Built in Speakers - Retail

Apple wants f-ing $1800 or a 30"!

Tell me what the hallmarks of a good display are so that I can make accurate comparisons if you feel like my original comparison is unjust. I suspect that regardless of what specs you go by, Apple's displays will still be greatly overpriced.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Also, most cheap displays have TN panels. As a matter of fact, the cheapest display with MVA panel cost 430 €, a good one costs more than 500 €. So it's more than just looks. But even if you compensate for that, Apple displays aren't cheap. But they're not the most expensive either (have a look at Eizo, for instance).

Edit: I have a 21" Samnsung lcd on my desk (which uses an MVA panel).

How does the panel type equate to noticeable differences for customers? This is one variable I know nothing about.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Apple displays are 100% about design. We are a 100% laptop house with no fixed monitors, but I think I would buy an ADC just becase they look so pretty. I know I could get better for less.

This is exactly what I don't get. I guess computers have become fashion sort of like expensive designer clothes or something? To me, it's all about the tangibles: specs, price, quality, reliability, etc. With a monitor I'm looking at the display itself - not the frame. In fact, the less intrusive the frame, the better...

Regardless, I suppose I can appreciate some sort of psychological comfort in having gear that looks bad ass, but is this alone worth the price difference to you? If it does, cool, who am I to judge? I just can't relate...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

More specifically, it's about Marketing. Apple knows that there are people who will spend the extra money for the appearance. They also know that there are people who simply don't care what the monitors cost. There's a third category who will want to get a totally "Apple" system out of fears of incompatibility (no matter how unfounded). Apple has decided that this is one area where they won't compete at all on price, and expect to sell fewer units, but get higher margins on them.

Remember, it's not about how much the unit costs, it's about how much they make on each sale (gross margin). They probably make more money selling fewer monitors with healthy margins then they would if they sold cheaper monitors with razor-thin margins.

Yeah, you make good points... I might add a fourth category of people that just assume that Apple's displays are reasonably priced, and pick one up to go with a Mac Pro or something as an afterthought, without really doing any comparison type shopping... Sort of like picking up a magazine in the checkout lane.

Perhaps this is identical to your second category of people though...

[Dakar the Fourth]

There's this thing called multi-quote, perhaps you've heard of it...

[besson3c]

The other obvious point: in regards to the viewing angle and panel type conversation going on up there, there are a lot of customers whom don't give a rat's ass about this sort of stuff and/or don't know any better.

I understand the idea of targeting the people who are looking for the Ferarri of displays, and people who know all this sort of stuff cold, but it seems like such a minuscule market compared to your mainstream Mac audience. Dork's idea about marketability and profitability of high profit margins makes perfect sense to me, but all I'm saying is that unless you are in the minority that can rationalize buying an Apple display from a technical level like some of you have done in this thread, it just seems like a silly idea.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

There's this thing called multi-quote, perhaps you've heard of it...

There's this thing called good manners, civility, and being pedantic too...

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There's this thing called good manners, civility, and being pedantic too...

Ha, you're one to lecture on being pedantic.

[hookem2oo7]

that 32" NEC only does 1366x768

[PaperNotes]

The only thing Apple does well is hardware design, fast CPUs and good software. Everything else is ****. Their motherboards are ****. Their graphics options are ****. Their displays are adequate. They talk the big talk about how Macs are so important to photographers and graphics designers and artists but they still haven't offered a 10 bit display for those who need color fidelity before going to press.

We don't have one Apple display in our studio. We have a LaCie. We have an Eizo CG210. We also got NEC SpectraView 2690s. Now that's what you use if you're serious about color.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Ha, you're one to lecture on being pedantic.

let's move on.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hookem2oo7 

that 32" NEC only does 1366x768

Ahhh... so it does. All I did was an advanced search for high contrast resolution displays of that approximate dimensions. I didn't look any further at the specs of this monitor, so I'm not suggesting this is a monitor that somebody ought to buy.

I'm sure that if you conducted a different NewEgg search though, you could find a display of identical contrast and recommended resolution to an Apple display that works out to be hundreds of dollars cheaper.

[olePigeon]

People pay extra money for good looking products and brand affiliation. You don't think women buy $400 designer jeans because they're better than the $25 Levis? No, they buy it because it may be styled different than your average pair of Levis and, probably more importantly, it has some fancy label on it. Hell, both pairs of jeans are probably made in the same warehouse in China.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

People pay extra money for good looking products and brand affiliation. You don't think women buy $400 designer jeans because they're better than the $25 Levis? No, they buy it because it may be styled different than your average pair of Levis and, probably more importantly, it has some fancy label on it. Hell, both pairs of jeans are probably made in the same warehouse in China.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

However, that being said, if Apple really wants to penetrate mainstream audiences, I think they are going to have to compromise from their Ferrari approach to at least offer some more inexpensive options in addition to their Ferraris.

I mean, where is the line drawn? If I was in the market for an Apple Desktop, buying a Mac Pro would be a tough pill to swallow price wise. Caughing up for an Apple display to go along with the Desktop would be an even tougher pill to swallow.

I know that you could make the argument that for those that want cheaper displays they can always buy from Apple's competition, but this does nothing to address the notion that Apple gear is all grossly overpriced. It makes it much harder to convince people to buy a Mac if Apple themselves has this reputation of selling overpriced stuff across the board.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

However, that being said, if Apple really wants to penetrate mainstream audiences

They don't. They make a low volume/high margin product and that's just how they like it. There's already intense competition in the 'pile em' high and sell em' cheap' camp, so why would they want to enter that market?

There are enough people out there who are willing to shell out for the design and the brand name. I admit to being one of them.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

They don't. They make a low volume/high margin product and that's just how they like it. There's already intense competition in the 'pile em' high and sell em' cheap' camp, so why would they want to enter that market?

There are enough people out there who are willing to shell out for the design and the brand name. I admit to being one of them.

So then why are they making all of those Apple ads with the two Mac/PC actors? Why do they make inexpensive iPods like the Shuffle? Why do they make decently priced laptops? Why did they develop Boot Camp?

I think Apple has been reaching out at least a *little bit* to mainstream audiences... You can compromise a little and diversify a product line without changing your central strategy, which I agree still holds true for Apple.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

However, that being said, if Apple really wants to penetrate mainstream audiences, I think they are going to have to compromise from their Ferrari approach to at least offer some more inexpensive options in addition to their Ferraris.

Not necessarily. in the Mainstream world, Apple's target audience is the occasional computer user who views the computer as a tool to do stuff (communicate via E-mail and IM, get information from the web, get new music and videos), but doesn't have the time to understand how it all works. They're scared of PC's now, with all these viruses and spyware and bad things that can happen. They hear in the media about how the Techies don't like Vista, and that's all they can get at Best Buy, so they figure as long as they can't get what they're familiar with, why not get a Mac?

They're attracted to the Apple Stores because someone will take the time to meet with them and figure out which Mac is right for them. And they will have no problem shelling out a little extra for peripherals, since they're getting it all at one place and have one place to go back to if it breaks. These are the people who will probably shell out for AppleCare and ProCare as well.These are more profitable customers than the techies who will buy base-model Macs since they know they can get hard drives and RAM cheaper elsewhere.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Not necessarily. in the Mainstream world, Apple's target audience is the occasional computer user who views the computer as a tool to do stuff (communicate via E-mail and IM, get information from the web, get new music and videos), but doesn't have the time to understand how it all works. They're scared of PC's now, with all these viruses and spyware and bad things that can happen. They hear in the media about how the Techies don't like Vista, and that's all they can get at Best Buy, so they figure as long as they can't get what they're familiar with, why not get a Mac?

They're attracted to the Apple Stores because someone will take the time to meet with them and figure out which Mac is right for them. And they will have no problem shelling out a little extra for peripherals, since they're getting it all at one place and have one place to go back to if it breaks. These are the people who will probably shell out for AppleCare and ProCare as well.These are more profitable customers than the techies who will buy base-model Macs since they know they can get hard drives and RAM cheaper elsewhere.

I agree that they don't have time to understand how it all works, but I still find it astonishing that nobody would think to ask:

1) Can I use a non-Apple display with my Mac?
2) Are non-Apple displays cheaper?

I guess I'm just used to be around pretty price conscious buyers, sometimes so to a fault!

[PB2K]

my external 20" display reads SAMSUNG and I am happy with it because it saved me about 400US$ over the Apple model.

but since this was about design : lets talk about Apple's RIDICULOUS memory prices then

at Ramjet, a memory vendor, 8 Gb for the mac pro is 495 US$ (you keep your own memory)
at AppleStore however, the 8GB Ram upgrade costs 1000 US$ (you trade your old standard 2Gb memory since its an upgrade. so its more like 1500US$!!)

seriously I can't back a company who insults customers by ripping them off that much !

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I agree that they don't have time to understand how it all works, but I still find it astonishing that nobody would think to ask:

1) Can I use a non-Apple display with my Mac?
2) Are non-Apple displays cheaper?

I guess I'm just used to be around pretty price conscious buyers, sometimes so to a fault!

Some people put a value on being able to bring it all back to one place if anything goes wrong. Even if it's more expensive, they're buying peace of mind. These people also have no problem having to make an "appointment" at the "genius bar" if something goes wrong, and probably don't even think the term "genius bar" is as condescending as I think it is.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Some people put a value on being able to bring it all back to one place if anything goes wrong. Even if it's more expensive, they're buying peace of mind.

Peace of mind is an important factor in any purchasing decision. Why else do people have brand loyalty (regardless of the product). People are comfortable with the brand they know and have had a good experience.

Back to the display question, it appears that there is no one answer to besson's question. Some people do it out of aesthetics, others do it for peace of mind, and others believe they get a superior product. I'm sure there's other answers as well.