Why are Mac monitors Sooo expensive???

Go to an Apple store and see for yourself.

They are brushed aluminum not plastic. They usually
have the best lcd screens their standards are
generally higher. But if price is the main factor
then your right they are higher but see for yourself
... the whole monitor stands on an aluminum base and
looks great.

The funny thing about monitors seems to be they
outlast the actual computer! I seem to update my
system every 2 to 3 years and hook the new box to the
same monitor so dont skimp to hard....

Apple Displays in my history of using them are overall excellent. Only very few had problems. The TFT LCD's are rugged, sturdy, and the displayy quality is excellent. I've heard of cheaper displays from companies like Dell and ViewSonic, but they're not built the way I would want them. They're made of cheap plastic that can easily break.

Right now I'm sitting behind a 30" Aluminium display from Apple. This thing could not be more gorgeous.

BTW, One Apple CRT that I've used was the 17" Apple Studio Display. To this day it still works well, and the colour is still brilliant. My PowerBook G3's LCD display has yet to fail on me.

Apple gets some of their displays made by either Samsung or Sony, I believe, but are made to Apple quality and standards. They're very high quality and worth the price. And they'll last you years and years if taken care of well.

I, personally, have never been disappointed with Apple's displays.

Actually, the Dell 24" Monitor was one of the most awarded consumer electronic products of 2005/2006. It is an outstanding monitor, and to my eye and esthetic, a much better design than Apple's. Enough of this "brushed grey metal" as being considered superior, higher quality, or better built. It's a design gimic that serves mostly to justify to some the premium price that Apple has a penchant to charge for everything it makes.
to some of us Dell owners, Apple's "aluminum" Displays are cold, distracting (especially framing an illuminated panel where black is so much better at absorbing reflectivity), and overpriced. In fact, it was Dell's widely celebrate initial release of the 2405WFP Ultrasharp at more than $500 less than Apple's was last year that forced Mr. Jobs and Co. to immediately lower the 23" Cinema Display. It was Dell who threw down the HiDef LCD gauntlet with a superior product at a much lower price. The same thing again happened when Dell announced the release of it's 30" Monitor that had better specs than Apple's 30", and again, at a lower price than Apple's 30". Within a few weeks, Apple quietly "refreshed" it's own 30" display to match the specs of the Dell's 30 incher. So in short, it was Dell who is responsible for bringing us higher quality and lower priced and more choices for HiDef LCD monitors.
As a disclaimer, I am a defector from Apple's 23" to the Dell 24", and then to the great 30". It is brighter, has higher contrast and to my taste has better design than Apple's. Nothing is "cheap" about this monitor but the price...

Actually, the Dell 24" Monitor was one of the…

You might want to notice from my signature below exactly what display I'm using. To my mind, the performance of the display is far more important that what is surrounding the display, and, at the time the Dell was superior to the Apple product. That and the fact that the Dell has multiple inputs (so it can works essentially as a KVM) is what sold me on their product.

Now, having said that, for some the bezel and stand of the display is important to some. This may appeal to some and for most, it does look better, cleaner and more stylish. Additionally, the performance of both displays (as displays) is far more similar today due to Apple's recent changes.

Brushed Aluminium is more expensive to produce than plastic. It's a fact, not an opinion. So is the fact that a 23" 1920 x 1200 display panel more expensive than a 24" 1920 x 1200 display panel. Is it cheaper and easier to make a better performing 24" display than a 23" display… yes it is. This is why the Apple display cost more, not its logo.

An Aston Martin is far more costly to produce costs more and than an Audi but that doesn't make the Audi a bad car. What part of my post did I make any comment of the quality of other displays? All I said was that they were cheaper and why they're cheaper. I didn't say any particular display from any particular manufacturer was "cheap".

While it may be true that it cost slightly more to produce the framing and stand of the apple 23" than it does for the Dell 24", say a $25-50.00 difference at most, this does not mean it's of any higher quality as a durable and well made product than the Dell. It's just using a different type of material. I know many of us who have chosen the sleeker black bezeled Dell's are not really impressed with Apple's grey, brushed metal approach, and do not consider it better or perferrable to Dell's very well designed and much more funtional "plastic" bezel and stand.
And if it is true that it cost less to produce a slightly larger 24" LCD panel that is a superior performer to apple's 23", then why didn't Apple do that from the start- as Dell and many others where smart enough to do?
Well, it seems that indeed that Apple too has just seen the LCD light and followed the 24" gang...sort of- with the new 24" iMac, which is the very same panel that Dell is currently using.
The actual cost of making the current 23" or 24" hiDef LCD monitors is far, far less than the price and quality difference between an austin Martin and that of an Audi. In reality, both displays are made to about the same specifications and to around the same quality standards. And despite the legendary Apple "allure" as a premium product, the cost of manufacting the 23" Cinema Display in China is probably no more than 5-10% at most. If Dell had not come along to challenge Apple head on when they did, Apple would still be happily charging everone 50-100% mark-up for "brushed Aluminum" design.
While I still do believe the Apple produces the best desktops and some of the best laptops, they have been matched ..and in the case of the Dell's 24" Ultrasharp-exceeded.

this does not mean it's of any higher quality as a durable and well made product than the Dell

Can you read?! Nobody is saying the Apple display is "better". It's more expensive… yes (for which there are reasons). It's different… yes. Better… nobody's said that!!

then why didn't Apple do that from the start- as Dell and many others where smart enough to do?

Because there's more to a display than just brightness and contrast. While it's clearly unimportant to you, for some, dot pitch consistency is extremely important. Have you noticed that Apple's choice to go with a 23" display enables them to keep their 20" and 23" displays at the same dot pitch and very near the 30" display dot pitch. For your average Joe this doesn't matter. But for a graphic arts professional who often uses more than one display this is crucial. By going with a 23" display the variance to the 30" display is 3.1%. For a 24" display the variance is 7.4%.

For a graphic arts professional a 23" display is clearly better if dot pitch is consistency with 20" and 30" displays is important whether they use multiple displays or not. It's all a matter of perspective.

While I do agree that the Apple products don't suit everyone and we shouldn't shove them down people's throats I don't understand your complete opposite view that Apple should follow the crowd and do what everyone else are doing so they're no different to anyone else. One less choice in the marketplace is bad for everyone.

I finally gave up on Apple Cinema Displays.

I shopped for a monitor for about a month while I waited for my Mac Pro. The 20" Cinema Displays were too small (even with two of them—I needed to be able to display 1080p for video editing), so that left the 23" and 30" models.

The 30" model has an annoying problem with green "running" pixels. I thought I was going crazy when I first noticed them on the 30" ACD I picked up, but my wife saw them too. I got a replacement. The replacement did it too. Thinking that the problem might be my video card, I hooked the monitor up to my PC. The problem persisted.

I returned the second 30" ACD and picked up a 23" ACD. It wouldn't even power on. I exchanged it for a second 23" ACD, which had a ghosting issue that the Apple Store folks called "image persistence." The third 23" ACD they gave me had a number of dead and stuck pixels, and the backlight was anything but uniform. (I realize this is an LCD, but the lack of backlight uniformity was among the worst I've seen.) I returned the third 23" ACD for a refund.

I finally settled on a Dell 2407WFP with a 5 Year Advance Replacement Warranty for a grand total of about $800. I wasn't expecting much, but I was shocked a how good this monitor looks in person. The silver accents are very nice, and while it certainly isn't brushed aluminum, it feels very solid. The backlight uniformity is good, and there are no dead or stuck pixels (knock on wood—now watch me find one!). In short, Apple couldn't make me happy. I had to buy a Dell before I was happy.

It makes me sad to say it, but I think Apple's quality control is in decline. I don't mind paying a premium for a product that provides a superior user experience, but that is not the case with Apple's current line of Cinema Displays.

iMac Core Duo 2.0 w/ 2 GB RAM | MacBook 2.0 w/ 1 GB RAM Mac OS X (10.4.6)

It seems that it is an industry wide problem. Someone else went through DOA Dell 20" (5) and is fed up with their quality as well.
http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/displays/

I am looking for 23-24" once I "pay off" or stop upgrading Mac Pro, more and more web pages and applications just don't fit well in 1280x1024 screen size I have.

I am putting together an mac system and new monitor and have delayed my purchase for a variety of reasons. In the interim I have done quite a bit of research on monitors. It's pretty clear that there are people who find fault with nearly every retailer including both Apple and Dell. In my opinion though, with Apple's significantly higher prices, their QC should result in far fewer complaints, but it doesn't. Nor does their higher price result in a monitor with more features/input, or a greater ability to calibrate the monitor for professional graphic use. They are adequate for many people, but nonetheless do not provide the options that many others desire or require. I'll be shelling out the bucks for an Eizo, and while I would not expect Apple to hand-calibrate each monitor as they do, I would expect a greater degree of on-board calibration to be available and less evidence of the QC problems that people report. QC for these relatively expensive monitors is clearly something that Apple should consider improving.

Yes, I can read. I guess it was the Austin martin/Audi analogy that threw me off- as there is quite a difference in price, quality and performance between the two cars. Maybe I just didn't fully understand why you were using that analogy when an Audi/Volvo analogy might have been more apt.
As far as the pixel pitch is concerned- Apple's is; 0.258, and Dell's is;0.270...hardly a serious or dramatic difference worthy of spending several hundreds of dollars for. Even the far, far superior LaCie 321 21" had the very same pixel pitch as the Dell's...and I can assure you from my experience working with many imaging professionals, they would much rather work with the LaCie than the Apple for several more important reasons: better color accuracy, higher ability to finely calibrate, and more connectivity options, and yes, it also sports the very same type of a black, sleek, "plastic" bezel as Dell does.
Apple was, a few years ago, was the runaway leader in high quality, well designed LCD Monitor displays. And at that time, their Cinema Displays were made of..Shudder!!...PLASTIC..errr..acrylic.
If you were to go into many of the SF Bay area's Imaging/Design firms today, as I do frequently, you would most likely see them using the Dell 24" LCD in a 2 to 1 ratio over Apple's 23" Cinema Display. One of the main reasons for this is Dell's ability to show absolute blacks...where as already mentioned here in this thread, Apple's Display has much more light bleed and "washed out" black backgrounds. Side by side, the Dells are more vibrant and far better consitency across the color spectrum. Pixel pitch is indeed important to these imaging pro's, but the Dell is quite acceptable, and it's other parameters out-weigh this very slight edge of Apple's 23".
So as to providing choice...it was Dell that provided an alternative to Apple's higher priced "brushed aluminum" display with better specifications (sans pixel pitch), and at a much lower price. And so now, even Apple is adopting the same Samsung LCD panels as "everyone else", with the new 24" iMac, and their quietly "reissued" 30" Cinema Display-that is now the exact same panel as the Dell's 30".
Competition in this highly competative LCD monitor market has forced Apple's hand and changed the equation as being the only high quality HiDef Display in town.
Now, if Apple were to come out with even a larger and higher resolution LCD monitor that is HDMI compliant ( as recently rumored ), then they could again reclaim their crown as the top display brand. Time will tell.....

"I'll be shelling out the
bucks for an Eizo, [...]"

An Eizo is an excellent choice. For critical Photoshop work I use an Eizo CG210 and I am very satisfied with the display.

1600x1200 native resolution, accurate colors, very bright, Hardware-Based Portrait Mode Support , 14-bit color processing capability, 10-bit Look-Up Table, Very low tolerance warranty for dead pixels and just a dream to work with. One of the best monitors I ever have used.

That said, I intend to buy a new setup for Aperture on a MacPro, and I am considering a 30" Apple Cinema Display (or two) for this setup.

But, for my Photoshop work I stick with the CG210. And... it comes with a monitor hood as well.

Regards
paul k


Mac OS X (10.4.8)

I guess it was the Austin martin/Audi analogy that threw me off- as there is quite a difference in price, quality and performance between the two cars. Maybe I just didn't fully understand why you were using that analogy when an Audi/Volvo analogy might have been more apt.

Which sort of proves my point in that each product has its "use" and specific benefits. With two 6 year-olds (with or without mud and ice-cream) and the need to stow more than a pair of sneakers in the boot space any of the Audi models down to even the A2 (excepting the TT) will out-perform an Aston Martin. In this regard my 6 year old Renault Clio outperforms Michael Schumacher's F1 Ferrari.

Everything has it's place, Apple have chosen the market they wish to attract which is fine by me even though I'm not one of them.

the Dells are more vibrant and far better consitency across the color spectrum.

I personally find the Dell display fantastic for web/electronic media work and absolutely horrid for print work. Given 90% of what I do is the former I'm not bothered, but if it were other then I doubt I'd buy another Dell. It's way too bright and contrasty and the extra vibrant colour is a negative IMHO as it's not reflected in print. I'm sure other's opinions can and will differ from that, but hey, everyone's entitled. 🙂

Apple is adopting the same Samsung LCD panels as "everyone else", with the new 24" iMac

Again, everything in its place. The iMac is Apple's consumer level desktop and the components there-in are the same. By this you can clearly infer that the 24" display is that much cheaper that Apple prefers to use a completely different panel rather than expand their orders of 23" panels.

While you might argue as to what is "better" all that really matters is what Apple thinks their customers want. If they're happy making a higher profit (assuming they are) from a smaller marketshare then good on them. Given the recent introduction of the 24" iMac and the recent updates in their displays Apple still considers the 23" display superior for their, and their customer's, needs.

if Apple were to come out with even a larger and higher resolution LCD monitor that is HDMI compliant

Errr… that would be a TV so unless Apple wants to enter that market space it's sort of silly. As far as I last heard, the ACDs are computer displays and not TVs. This sort of comment just reminds me of those that complain about what the iPod can't do. Funny how people keep buying those too.

PS It's Aston and not Austin. Austin is a city in Texas.

I'm not a car fancier and haven't a clue as to whether it's an Aston or Austin Martin. I couldn't tell the difference and really could care less. That's why I think that mixing metaphores and using unrelated anologies is not the best way to prove a point.
Apple decided to move to the 24" samsung model because of the price-point, and not because the 23" is any worse, better or more "pro"- it's not. If Aplle were truly listening to their customers concerning thier displays, they would most likeIy have much better calibration options as well as better color accuracy, but hey, they do seem to make some of the best laptops/desktops around. I guess they can't be the best in everything!
I am currently working with 4 professional photographers who use the Dell 24" for print work and find it far more accurate than Apple's for their production flow. I guess, it's just a matter of taste and not whether one is more "pro" than the other, or whether it does the job for you.
As for my last remark about a higher resolution display: I did indeed mean a Computer Monitor- not a HDTV at all...just HDTV/HDMI compliant. Check out this just released Westinghouse 8 megapixel monster 56" display.
I'm not sure if apple would go that huge, but a 42" 6 megapixel would really be sweet. Who knows, maybe it will be Dell that releases an affordable behemouth next....

One thing to remember is that most TV's just have a resolution of 1368 X 768 or less. My Sony says that, but when used as a computer display it is only 1280 X 720, also known as 720p. It will also run 1080i. But the i means that it is interlaced video. That means that 2 scans must be made to give the 1080 lines. If I run my Sony at 1920 X 1080i the screen will just look as if it is vibrating.

There are a few 1080p TV's or TV type displays out today with more coming in the future. Just remeber that TVs do best as a TV, as it has larger screens, more advertised contrast & lower price per inch. Computer displays are generally smaller in size, much higher resolution, higher price & loer advertised contrast. My 23" Apple Display runs 1920 X 1200, my Apple 30" display runs 2560 X 1600, 17" ViewSonic TV runs at 1280 X 768 & my 32" Sony TV runs at only 1280 X 720.

I use both computer displays & TV displays as they both fill the job they do better than the other. If I only did one thing it would be 2 or 3 Aplle 30" displays. They're almost as big as my Sony TV & does a better job as a computer display. ViewSonic makes a nice HDTV Tuner if you want a TV, but decide to go the Apple 30" display route.

Bill the TaxMan

Another consideration is the type of display at the core behind the prettyness. I am a professional graphics guy, and we all use apple because of the LG OEM display behind the aluminum. It is much more accurate with color for us graphic and print guys than the dell. The dell is for the consumer with its brightness and saturation, while the ACD exhibits better color accuracy. If I wasn't a graphic designer, I would probablly get the dell.

Anyone tried the Samsung 22 monitor? I believe the price is around 400 dollars. I am considering 2 of them as extended desktop for 800 bucks. I think it is a new model but I haven't seen it in stores yet.