Apple launches new 27-inch Thunderbolt Display, Mac mini

thunderbolt looks excellent.

Nope, $1,800 for the high-spec Mac mini, not £1,800 for the "decent" spec. A Mac mini with 4 GB of RAM and other specs that are on the cheaper models are plenty for most tasks, just not heavy-duty gaming.

Uh yeah... if you complain about the prices, you can't afford it so don't knock it and move along.

I don't go to a Lamborghini or even a Merc dealership and complain about how overpriced they are. The car is not for me.

People just like to talk some dumsht all the time about Apple being expensive and overpriced... there's a market for a 1k Display - and you're not the target.

FURThermore, I'm a pro mac user for many years, I don't like the glossy screen, but no one's actually invented a matte replacement, I think it can be done so innovators and inventors... start crackin'. And I want 15% for the idea.

You just need to pull off that glass screen and make a replacement. Don't just sit around and wait to be fed like chicks in a nest, if you don't like the high gloss glass screen lets see some action on your end.

Im sorry but why would I go buy something like this for such a high price. I can build a pc that is twice if not three times faster, network it just as easy, and have an incredibly stable system for not even half the price as a mac of any type. To much hype, to much money, and not enough bang for my buck. Yall can keep them. One side note: If you try to repair or work on macs, thats even more money out of your wallet.

@^Guest above me saying sorry then saying this is such a high price.

Tired. How many times do techtrolls like this always (yawn, blink, blink) have say they can oh, "build" a PC four times faster, for three times less or something...

Why do you have to even say that? What purpose does it serve?

Again, just go about building and investing your time and all that and installing whatever OS you want and building PC's... go... if the Apple junk is too expensive, its NOT FOR YOU...

One side note... c'mon... don't front, I've been a LONG time Mac user, I haven't had too many problems, probably one or two in 20 years of pro work, and I push my macs really hard, and the repair, hardly a bump in the wallet. HD crashed, overheated, so I replaced it, not difficult.

You, techtroll, are talking or rather typing, out of your...

First, I'll say that I despise apple's business practices, and that I would refuse to buy either of these things. HOWEVER.....

Point me somewhere I can buy a 27" IPS monitor with a 2560x1440 for under $500. Hell, tell me where I can get one for under $800. That means they give you a hell of a lot of computer for $200-$500. For me, however, the deal breaker is that you pretty much have to throw away a $500 + monitor every time you want to upgrade you system.

Nevermind, I need to RTFA..... seeing how its only the display.... meh.

You have got to be kidding?! your joking right? you just forgot the /sarcasm??

Because I just configured one:
£1,539 will get you:

Intel Core i7 Duel Core 2.7Ghz
8GB RAM
256GB SSD & 750GB HDD

Still using the inbuilt Graphics, Still using Inbuilt sound card. No extra inputs or outputs (USB3 for example)

You were joking obviously, even at this price point it still isn't capable of any gaming... At All. Not even a little bit. And I didn't even configure the "Server" version.

I'm sorry, but to all who say "its not aimed for you". this isn't aimed for anyone with a brain, you can buy or build, an ITX based computer (so pretty much just as small) but with a Quad core i7 and a descrete graphics card and a proper creative sound card for instance.

Seriously, no way is Mac OSX worth the extra £1,100 Just absolutely no way.

Agreed.

"I'm sorry, but to all who say "its not aimed for you". this isn't aimed for anyone with a brain, you can buy or build, an ITX based computer (so pretty much just as small) but with a Quad core i7 and a descrete graphics card and a proper creative sound card for instance."

Why would I want to do something stupid like that, when I can buy a Mac Mini and have it do everything I need it to do? Oh, and "proper creative sound card"? That made me laugh...

Um Guest is it ok if I'm to guess you dont know that Creative is a company that makes sound cards; hes not referring to the literary definition.

No one has invented a matte LCD display? You're joking, right?

Apple offers matte screens on their laptops (15"/17"). There is no reason why they couldn't offer matte cinema displays as well.

Actually there is a reason, it's just not a technical reason. A high gloss display will always have much higher d-max, c-sat, and contrast, than does a matte screen. So, when they're placed in the right environment they look much better than a matte display. However, a matte display will always be easier to situate with respect to controlling glare.

For those saying this particular display is overpriced, look at other 2560x1440 resolution 27' inch monitors.
Look at this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...SpeTabStoreType=&AdvancedSearch=1&srchInDesc=

If this display was 1920x1080 then yes I would agree with the overpriced statement.

And I agree, $1k is a lot of money. But the argument that it is overpriced in comparison to other monitors in this same category is just false.
It is competitively priced. Period.

My only gripe is that you are pretty much forced into buying a Mac in order to make use of it unless there is some sort of display adapter that will let you use it with a Windows PC. Or until there is a Windows PC capable of hooking up to Thunderbolt.

A lot has changed in the monitor market with respect to price. At one time the 30" Apple cinema carried a price tag of $3000.00, which wasn't competitive.

The question becomes, do you really need 2560 x 1440 resolution?

I'm going to say you don't. Apple will say you do.

Some will argue I'm behind the curve. Apple will say they're ahead of it.

I still think 16:9 sucks for a computer screen, regardless of how many pixels are on it.

But, Apple's business model is mostly having Steve Jobs convince you that you'll find a use for this new device. And mine will remain thinking he should stick his new device someplace where, "good things can't hurt you"!

I think the name, "Thunderbolt" is fairly droll and absurd for a computer monitor. Apple is banking on its prospective owners believing that possessing a "Thunderbolt", will make them feel important.

And so the beat goes on.

The point I was making had nothing to do with whether or not you really need a 2560x1440 display, or if Apple will say you need it. Because you're right, you don't need it. Nor was I making a point about Apple's business model and their use of the name "Thunderbolt".

The point I was making is that it is not overpriced.

There is a difference between something being overpriced, and something being a poor value.

With that said, suppose I cop to the fact that when comparing, "Apples to Apples", the "Thunderbolt" isn't over priced. However, it is a surprisingly poor value.

Up front, it is a 16:9 aspect ratio display. Which means, that a 24" panel @ 16:10, has almost as much screen area.

So, if I were going to piss away $1000.oo plus dollars for displays, I'd buy >>> THREE<<< of these 24" IPS Hewlett Packards .....http://www.amazon.com/HP-ZR24w-24-i...ADUU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1311360122&sr=8-2

And verily, I haven't spent $1200.00 on three of them. Total resolution : 5670 X 1200 with "Eye Finity".

Just by itself the HP ZR-24w is a fine monitor, and perhaps the Apple is "better" or "has more pixels", but it doesn't represent a "good value", even if the price is "fair market value".

That's an interesting point. I had just succumb to the idea that the high performance stuff was "poor value" and is what you pay for that 'last 10%' of performance. Is there a textbook definition of each? or is there a subjective line there?