Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Desktops (Apple) Graphics Businesses OS X Portables (Apple) Hardware Apple Technology

Apple Says It's Out of the Standalone Display Business (macrumors.com) 108

Posted by BeauHD from the third-party dept.
The launch and marketing push of the 27-inch 5K UltraFine Display made in partnership with LG all but confirms that Apple is out of the standalone display business. Previously, it was rumored Apple was working on its own branded Thunderbolt Display powered by an integrated GPU, but with the launch of LG's display it appears to indicate Apple gave up those plans. The Verge's Nilay Patel also confirms the news, tweeting: "Good notes by @jsnell. I can add that Apple told me it's out of standalone display biz." 9to5Mac reports: The two new LG displays, which will be available later this year, feature Thunderbolt 3 connectivity for an easy one-cable-solution for new MacBook owners. Apple will sell both displays, a 4K model for $699.95 and a 5K model for $1299.95, on its online store. Back in June, Apple officially discontinued its lone company-branded monitor, the Thunderbolt Display, after it had languished for a period of time without a substantial update. Apple's statement on the discontinuation made it appear as if it may be the last of the Apple-branded display, and this has been seemingly confirmed: "We're discontinuing the Apple Thunderbolt Display. It will be available through Apple.com, Apple's retail stores and Apple Authorized Resellers while supplies last. There are a number of great third-party options available for Mac users," said an Apple spokesperson.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Says It's Out of the Standalone Display Business More

Apple Says It's Out of the Standalone Display Business

Comments Filter:

  • The margins are just too low (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Can't sell a monitor for $2K these days. Only the most dedicated suckers would buy it.

    The old Thunderbolt Display just proved that the product line wasn't worth the trouble..

    • Re:The margins are just too low (Score:5, Interesting)

      by saloomy ( 2817221 ) on Friday October 28, 2016 @08:22PM (#53172903)
      The Thunderbolt Display was a fantastic monitor, and sold at $1k. I bought two of them back in 2012 and they have served me well, functioning as my primary displays for years. I feel I certainly have had my use of them, and they are no where near the end of their useful life. They have Thunderbolt, USB, Gig-e ports, and pretty good speakers.

      Besides, doing design work, programming, web design, and handling a massive amount of information, long code blocks, huge CSV files, etc... etc... $1K was really not a lot for this display. If you were to buy 2 displays and a mac pro to boot, you would be out maybe $6k. That setup would last you for at least 3 years, and Mac's keep going. Especially the desktops. To spend $2k/year on the tools that earn you a really good six-figure salary is pretty stellar.

      I don't really understand why people complain about Apple's prices so much. Yes, they are more expensive when you compare the components bit-by-bit, but the whole package is a value proposition that I believe can't be beat. You never have to worry about drivers. Your stuff works perfectly together. Each piece, like the magic trackpad (and trust me, compared to a trackpad on some random PC Laptop, it is magic), or the displays, the backup to time-capsule... it all works so well together. Billing out at $150/hour, you really need to be productive, and not constantly work on being your own Sysadmin. That is who apple makes these devices for, since the high-end highly integrated workstation market pretty much collapsed. You used to be able to get workstations from Sun, etc. Not anymore. Now, only Apple make a truly workstation-class computer. Everyone else just assembles PCs and throws Windows on it.

      It sucks to see them back away from that market. Maybe they feel the unit volume they spend is not worth the time, or the market has really caught up with the bar they set. You can still bank on the performance engineering they put into their systems. I remember reading an article a while ago, that benched a MacBook Pro as the fastest Windows Laptop (if you change the OS, obviously).

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Bongo ( 13261 )

        I like the point about not being your own sysadmin. If someone is willing to pay, I'll suggest a Mac laptop, simply because it'll be less hassle for them.

        Much as I respect people's technical skills with fixing stuff, that time is wasted if the thing didn't need to break in the first place. And I say that as a guy who mostly admins a Mac shop, with other stuff where needed.

        It's actually a problem I have with Siri on AppleTV and iPhone and now macOS. It fails more often than not. For me it somewhat ruins Appl

      • The price argument for Apple is actually quite true. If you try to match All the specs of the Apple and try to find a replacement you are normally paying a bit more. However the kicker is Apple often bundles stuff you don't need or care about.
        I don't care about thin or light but I want more CPU. I want a touch screen at the cost of screen resolution.

      • Some of those things that Apple systems do well are things that don't matter to all users. Yes, those Apple trackpads are great, but if you're a user who doesn't like trackpads, even the very best ones, and who will connect a mouse to any computer you use, that magic trackpad is worthless. Sometimes it's less than worthless, like on those new MacBook Pro systems where the huge trackpad means that the keyboard has been moved farther back and is harder to reach, not to mentionthat the placement is so far back

    • Can't sell a monitor for $2K these days. Only the most dedicated suckers would buy it.

      I would buy it, but it would have to be a lot bigger than 27". I've had a 27" monitor for 5 years now.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )
        Yeah, the LG 5K at 27" was like WTF? At 4K I'm looking for a 35-40" monitor. There is a point where retina becomes silly. How many pixels to form a period that you can see?

    • Can't sell a monitor for $2K these days. Only the most dedicated suckers would buy it.

      Not true at all. Firstly you can most definitely sell a monitor for $2k. There are entire companies who have this as a business model. If you're calling suckers people who buy quality gear that lasts a really long time, then I'm going to put my hand up. I'm a sucker right here with my $1.5k but 10 year old monitor. There's also many cases where cheap and shit aren't the most desirable option.

      The problem is the volume and the fact that 90% of a monitor is paying money to someone else for everything except a

  • "all but confirms" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Friday October 28, 2016 @08:09PM (#53172821)

    "all but confirms"

    So in other words, it's not confirmed, it's just speculation and rumor, right?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Entrope ( 68843 )

      The quoted statement from Apple about discontinuing the Apple Thunderbolt Display is close to confirmation that they're exiting that line of business. If the displays go fully out of stock for more than about a week, I will take it as full confirmation even if Apple doesn't formally say so.

      • The quoted statement from Apple about discontinuing the Apple Thunderbolt Display is close to confirmation that they're exiting that line of business. If the displays go fully out of stock for more than about a week, I will take it as full confirmation even if Apple doesn't formally say so.

        They just came out with a whole bunch of USB-C stuff... and you are concerned about the Thunderbolt display? Looks to me as if actual Thunderbolt is about as dead as actual Firewire.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Entrope ( 68843 )

          I'm not "concerned" about any of Apple's products, but the Apple Thunderbolt Display is the last Apple-made standalone display. When it's gone, they are out of the display business.

          As a docking interface, Thunderbolt is nicer than USB 3.1 because it provides more bandwidth over a single cable, with the same power delivery capacity (100W). Can you find a 5k monitor that connects to a laptop via USB 3.1? An external GPU enclosure? As far as I can tell, they all use Thunderbolt 3.

    • So in other words, it's not confirmed, it's just speculation and rumor, right?

      Apple never confirms anything, so speculation and rumor are the best we can do.

  • And nothng of value was lost. (Score:3)

    by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Friday October 28, 2016 @08:10PM (#53172829)

    Apple's monitors (featuring panels obviously not made by them) were nice, but not nice enough to justify their patented Apple-brand pricing. They weren't kept up to date technology-wise either compared to competitors.

    The strongest reason to get an Apple display for your Mac was so it wouldn't be connected to a monitor that said "Dell" on it.

    • Re:And nothng of value was lost. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by thecombatwombat ( 571826 ) on Friday October 28, 2016 @09:08PM (#53173101)

      I disagree. I'm typing this on a Fedora desktop attached to an Apple Cinema Display. I've had this 27 inch cinema display since whenever they came out six or seven years ago. It's still going strong. If you wanted a large monitor you'll use for a long time, it was a great option. Mine still has great picture, awfully good speakers, a web cam, useful ports, the best laptop connectivity around, and a metal and glass frame that's really nice. It cost around $1000 but considering how long it's lasted and probably will last yet, I have no regrets.

      I figure that's the real reason they're getting out. Few people buy them, and they last forever. I think I'm on my fourth iPhone in the time I've owned this monitor, and it will probably outlast my current one..

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by SeaFox ( 739806 )

        Well, I'm typing this on a homebuilt machine attached to a Samsung T240HD. It's eight years old now, and still works fine. It was a little pricey when I bought it ($510 per my NewEgg invoice) because it has TV hardware built in (ClearQAM and ATSC tuners, Component input, better speakers than most monitors, and a full remote). I think about replacing it now because of the better contrast and color reproduction in modern LED backlit displays, but the fact it's still working the same as when I bought it (and m

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          The monitor you mention is much smaller than the 27 inch cinema display, much lower resolution, lacks a webcam, USB ports, and a number of other features. If you're holding it up as evidence of "You could have gotten the same features and as reliable a device for less cost. That's why Apple didn't really bring anything special - they didn't have exclusivity to justify their pricing " it doesn't seem to be a very good example.

          The Samsung monitor has other features, as you said it's a TV, and it's cool if peo

      • And my main PC monitor is a $300 37" 1080P TV monitor I got from Costco. It works great for the computer -gaming on this thing is surreal. But it also works great for movies, spreadsheets, porn, etc. And it works great as a TV. The speakers even work very well.

        I am sure your $1000 screen is nicer and probably better, but I'll settle for "good enough for me" for 1/3 the price.

      • I've had this 27 inch cinema display since whenever they came out six or seven years ago. It's still going strong. If you wanted a large monitor you'll use for a long time, it was a great option.

        And yet there are a whole host of companies who produce high end panels that last many MANY years which offer better value for money than Apple displays.

        The Cinema Display was great for the receptionist at a design studio, and for people who want to make a statement. But it was far from the only high end product, and it wasn't the best value one out there.

        • And yet there are a whole host of companies who produce high end panels that last many MANY years which offer better value for money than Apple displays.

          Hell, they don't even have to be high-end panels. I have a pair of Sceptre X20WG displays that I bought for less than $200 each and are still going strong 11 years and three moves later. Those displays outlasted a Power Mac G4, an iBook, and a MacBook, all of which experienced hardware failures of one kind or another.

      • Few people buy them, and they last forever.

        To your point, I'm still using using a 30" Apple Cinema display HD.

        I paid $1600 for it and I've used it every work day for the last 10 years. I only wish it didn't require dual link DVI - it's becoming a huge pain to find the necessary adapters to go from Thunderbolt3/USBC to Dual Link DVI.

  • Nevertheless, apple remains a popular fruit among the snakes in the garden.

  • How soon before they announce they will no longer make Desktop or Desksite workstation boxes?

    They nearly already have. The Mac Pro is a boutique computer in a novelty case.

    They're making fewer MacBooks lately, too. Mobile Gadgets are where the money is, it seems.

    That's what Wall Street often refers to Apple as these days. "Apple, the gadget maker..." Check it out, you see stock-market oriented journalists referring to Apple as a gadget maker all the time.

    • Apple makes more revenue and profit on its services (which are driven by iOS devices) than it does on the Mac line. Macs are around 10% of the total revenue stream for Apple, and it's a shrinking stream at that.

  • I suppose if they didn't sell well enough, then I guess it doesn't make sense to sell them at all, but while expensive they were nice devices. I

    am still hoping that SOMEONE will start producing an attractive, high quality display with the docking features that would work well with a laptop or MacMini (power, Gig ethernet, USB ports). The LG models do not have ethernet ports or cameras, and while the 5k model does have USB 3.1 ports, the 4k model's downstream ports seem to be limited to USB 2.0. Whil

    • The docking functions can be on a standalone box, random vendors sell thunderbolt docks and you can look for the absolute best display you'd want but without the dock (the monitor can still have e.g. a USB hub that you can use as well)
      To think of it, a VESA compatible dock so that you can screw it behind the monitor would be more tidy, perhaps not the absolute best looking thing if you want people to ohhh and aahh and your desk is facing people, not a wall. But there wouldn't be a supid octopus box on the d

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by j-beda ( 85386 )

      My mistake: it seems as though the 5k LG displays do in fact have a camera and mic.

  • 2019: laptops, 2020: phones

  • Are they also out of the standalone computer business? The Mac Pro is a dinosaur, the iMacs are still OK but looking terribly underpowered right now. Even if the computer essentially 'comes for free' with the 5k monitor.

  • These are P3 gamut monitors, about halfway between sRGB and Adobe 1998. This helps justify the higher price, although it really should be Adobe 1998 to justify the premium.

  • I have confirmed that 30-Bit color is working on a 27-inch iMac. A 16-Bit greyscale ramp was used to test. Applications which support this capability are quite sparse. At the time of my testing Preview worked and Pixelmator did not. It is likely that applications need to optin to use this feature. The standard 24-Bit pipeline is indicated with Pixel Depth: 32-Bit Color (ARGB8888). New 30-Bit color pipelines will show Pixel Depth: 30-Bit Color (ARGB2101010) or Pixel Depth: CGSThirtyBitColor. I have also been

  • Well there you go...!

  • Apple has made this tradeoff before (Score:5, Interesting)

    by laird ( 2705 ) <lairdp@gm a i l.com> on Saturday October 29, 2016 @08:43AM (#53174683) Journal

    Apple's done this many times before. The introduce Apple-branded products (printers, monitors, digital camera, networking, etc.) where they do so to make a dramatic improvement over the state of the art, then they're willing to kill off their Apple-branded products in order to get third parties to support Apple.

    For example, Apple's LaserWriter was the first consumer networked printer, with Postscript, and they also had a highly profitable line of lower-end printers. Apple killed off their entire line of printers because they got all the major printer manufacturers to support the Mac, so even though it cost Apple $1B/year in printer sales revenue, broader industry support ultimately benefitted the Mac platform's growth.

    Apple introduced the first easy to use consumer digital camera, which triggered competitive innovation in the industry, which was Apple's goal, after which they killed their camera product and sold partner cameras.

    Heck, they had the first cheaply and easily networked computer, and they killed off their proprietary technology in favor of Ethernet as soon as it was possible. Same with USB replacing their proprietary keyboard and mouse connectors.

    They just replaced their Thunderbolt with USB (specifically, USB-C with the latest USB bandwidth), now that it's finally fast enough to drive monitors well.

    I'm impressed that Apple is willing to innovate ahead of the marketplace, and then to kill off their innovations when, years later, the marketplace catches up. Even more, Apple usually actively works to advance the state of the art in order to be able to kill off their proprietary innovations, because it's ultimately best for customers.

    • Very insightful. Too bad I don't seem to get mod points these days.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by puto ( 533470 )
      No they did not, they had several other companies release them before apple, Apple was the first one that cost under a grand. And it was a designed by Kodak and manufactured by Chinon, and was just a blip on the digital camera radar. Logitech, Kodak, and Kodak working with Nikon. /I work for Apple

    • They just replaced their Thunderbolt with USB (specifically, USB-C with the latest USB bandwidth), now that it's finally fast enough to drive monitors well.

      No they didn't, those are Thunderbolt 3 ports which use a USB-C connector.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      They just replaced their Thunderbolt with USB (specifically, USB-C with the latest USB bandwidth), now that it's finally fast enough to drive monitors well.

      No, Thunderbolt was not replaced by USB.

      Thunderbolt 3 runs OVER USB-C.

      USB-C is more than just a form factor change - USB-C carries extra signal lines - it can support DisplayPort natively (you can have both DisplayPort and USB on a USB-C port) as well as other signalling functions.

      Intel moved their Thunderbolt spec from (mini) DisplayPort to USB-C ports,

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by laird ( 2705 )

        Apple helped invent and continues to lead the USB standards. Apple worked with Intel to get USB to the point where they could consolidate Thunderbolt into USB-c - the capability to run DisplayPort and Thunderbolt within the USB-c connector and protocol isn't an accident, it was Apple's intention, allowing them to kill off and old, less widely adopted technology, and consolidate multiple ports into one (the proprietary power connector, Thunderbolt (mini-DisplayPort, not quite proprietary but not widely adopt

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close