First non-Apple mini DisplayPort monitors look suspiciously familiar
By Nilay Patel 
posted Apr 14th 2009 12:37PM
posted Apr 14th 2009 12:37PM
[Via Slashgear]
posted Apr 14th 2009 12:37PM
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
This is ridiculous. I"m not exactly an Apple fan, but the fact that companies can directly rip off another product with a straight face never ceases to amaze me.
Yeah, because everyone knows Apple invented the LCD monitor.
Pffft.
Are you telling me Apple fans right now aren't buying these things out like they were going out of style?
It matches their stuff and they dont have to pay through the ass to get it from Apple.
@Look_Around_You: I wish I pooped money.
@Look_Around_You
Apple fans arent buying this LCD monitor nor is anyone else. they're not available for sale yet.
Agreed...there is no creativity out there these days.
@Sweet...chambo is talking about the design, not the concept of an LCD monitor, get serious.
Sure there are only so many ways to build certain things but people still find a way to differentiate their products without completely ripping off 100% of the concept. Doesn't really matter as followers will never be leaders.
@sweet greggo you're a PC and you completely missed the point.
These monitors are pieces of garbage. Triluminous RGB local-dimming LED backlighting? Nope. H-IPS panel? Probably not. Refresh rates > 60Hz? hahahaha, not a chance.
@Oakie... I could be wrong, but I think Look_Around_You was implying that Apple fans are buying the actual (expensive) Apple monitors like they're going out of style. Idk.
Look_Around_You:
By "matches", you mean these are lower resolution and use shittier panels than Apple does, right? Or did you think these were cheaper for no good reason?
As always, your idea of what constitutes "exactly the same" is way, WAY off.
I agree, and on an additional point, it shows how out of touch people are with why Apple is successful (and nobody can claim it isn't).
I like Apple products because they make the extra effort. The little things, like having a backlit keyboard controlled automatically with a light sensor, or tweaking the manufacturing process to save fractions of an inch in thickness, or making the screen flash in photo booth to give you great looking pictures with your webcam, or drilling the iSight light in such a way so that you don't even know it's there. These little things are what I, as an engineer, love about Apple. They take time, they do things right, and they think it through and add logical additions to enhance the product. As a result, you can bet the people who designed them are proud to associate themselves with them.
They also don't cut corners. Your stereotypical OEM tries to raise profits by cutting corners - maybe making the plastic a little thinner, installing some trialware to subsidise the cost. Squeezing the RRP. Apple typically don't (although they too have slipped up on this from time to time). They try to raise profits by making better products. They set their products apart by making them from Aluminium rather than plastic. Using LED backlighting instead of CCFLs on the 24" cinema display. Using glass for their screens, iPhones and trackpads.
If other companies want to emulate Apple's success (and in a market of windows PCs were it's hard to differentiate your product, they do), they should start being original. Hiring better designers on higher salaries, who don't just make products look fancy, but (and this is the important bit) work well and intuitively. Start using better materials. Don't compromise, and never ship anything unless you're 100% sure you want to associate yourself and the company you work for with it.
@KarlW
I'm not disagreeing with you perse, but I feel the need to put the iPod Shuffle into play when the discussion moves to cutting corners and making 'better products'. I also recommend taking a look inside some of Apple's hardware. Just because they don't cut a corner on the exterior shell doesn't mean the components and internal design are up to snuff. I have seen plenty an iBook with a pinched LVDS cable for the display or something similar like that. Strict product life lines are also a factor one should look at when they consider the premium they are paying. As I said, I'm not disagreeing, just offering another view point as the proud owner of a MacBook Pro and not so happy service technician of quite a few broken iBooks.
Also, am I the only one who thinks the fact that the largest LCD has a 16:9 aspect ratio instead of 16:10 is weird?
@ Zak
By 'matches' I believe he is insinuating that the bezel and stand are very similar in style to existing Apple products.
Perhaps not everyone needs the high tech Apple screens, and these may be satisfactory low cost substitutes.
@Gojulas
Nope not at all. 24 inch would make a good-sized TV, which explains the cooler resolution.
These are being sold through a company connected to a guy who has an established scammer record a mile long - Jack Campbell. Mac's may have few (if any) viruses but they do have predators..... Here's the whole story:
http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/consumerissues/topic4449.html
Apple product and non apple price?!?!?!?! WHAT?!?!?!
oh really, looks like TN panels.
Erm.. who the hell pays $499 for a 24-inch monitor nowadays? Those aren't cheap.
If they were smart they would have made a 30 inch
I rarely see any other Cinema Displays any more. Cheap 30s would fly off the shelves.
A 30" TN Panel? Really? Smart? You'd need to shift your whole body everytime you wanted to see something on the side of the screen!
That being said, I think this is brilliant! The Apple style is generally very attractive, but the prices are stratospheric. The only monitors Apple sells are expensive panel types for prices to match. This company has brought a line of monitors that has all the style, but none of the price for people who just don't need S-IPS.
That's what she said
I want people to please review the website and look at the other products this company makes (or "Coming Soon"). What a bunch of useless junk!
http://www.collinsamerica.com/
Items like Great Big Nuts, PC Pillow, Bible Buddy, Dry Shake, etc. This really tells me these guys build high quality products (sarcasm). Of the ten items they list, only one is actually shipping. And this company has been around since 1971! Smells like a scam as everything is pre-order now.
Carl
ah geez, more useless mini Displayport stuff. Why not just call it quits on Displayport in general, HDMI is clearly winning.
Unless you want to drive a monitor with more that 1080p resolution, in which case HDMI will do you absolutely no good.
Agreed...... But apple has to use things that no one else does and hope one day they will.... I remember that odd com port they had on the wallstreet g3 until they wised up to USB.....
"Unless you want to drive a monitor with more that 1080p resolution, in which case HDMI will do you absolutely no good."
BS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI
a) Few people have monitors with more than 1080p resolution.
b) Look up HDMI 1.3(a, b, or c) It can handle 1600p resolution. It's maximum bandwidth is 10.2 Gbit/sec whereas Displayport's maximum is 8.64 Gbit/sec.
HDMI Maximum video bandwidth (Gbit/s): 8.16
HDMI Maximum video resolution with Deep Color: 1920x1200 progressive @ 75Hz
DisplayPort Maximum video bandwidth (Gbit/s): 8.64
DisplayPort Maximum video resolution with Deep Color: 2048x1536 progressive @ 60Hz or 1920x1080 progressive @ 96Hz
Sources: http://www.displayport.org/white-papers/ & http://www.hdmi.org
oh for Chrissake: http://www.hdmi.org/press/pr/pr_20060622.aspx
http://www.twice.com/article/CA6345214.html?text=hdmi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI
@Mad Mike: might want to check the HDMI site again:
High Speed (or “category 2”) cables have been tested to perform at speeds of 340Mhz, which is the highest bandwidth currently available over an HDMI cable and can successfully handle 1080p signals including those at increased color depths and/or increased refresh rates. **High-Speed cables are also able to accommodate higher resolution displays, such as WQXGA cinema monitors (resolution of 2560 x 1600).**
@Jacob:
a) except in the Mac user space, where the market share of >1080p monitors is much higher.
b) I think that the bandwidth comparison is a red herring: You need HDMI 1.3 to support such a high bandwidth (and the percentage of 1.3-supporting devices is low compared to the lower bandwidth versions); and DP 1.2 (ratified soon) will support double the bandwidth of the current version. So the argument on bandwidth will just go back and forth, so no point in bringing it up.
@Angry Intern: I posted the highest resolution that was capable of showing deep color and the bandwidth I posted was for VIDEO only. Check your fanaticism at the door, and really RTFP before responding, please.
@Jacob: That 10Gbit/s number is for video AND audio. The VIDEO uplink bandwidth is 8.16Gbit/s @ 340Mhz delivering a signal that can transfer 36-bit deep color at 1920x1200 at 75 frames per second.
Compare Apples to Apples.
@dyt
a) "except in the Mac user space, where the market share of >1080p monitors is much higher."
[Citation needed] (not to mention we already debunked the no >1080p myth.)
b) "I think that the bandwidth comparison is a red herring: You need HDMI 1.3 to support such a high bandwidth (and the percentage of 1.3-supporting devices is low compared to the lower bandwidth versions); and DP 1.2 (ratified soon) will support double the bandwidth of the current version. So the argument on bandwidth will just go back and forth, so no point in bringing it up."
I was pointing out how wrong someone else was regarding the maximum resolution of the spec. Forgive me if you will, but raw bandwidth will be the determining factor in how many pixels/colors/refresh speeds your monitor will have. And this is a current spec comparison, mind you. You claim HDMI 1.3 devices are relatively few, well tell me, how many Displayport 1.2 devices are there?
Throwing around numbers makes for an interesting debate, but it doesn't change the fact that the OP is correct. HDMI is clearly winning by a mile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Versions
"Maximum audio bandwidth (Mbit/s) 36.86"
Gee that's huge ain't it compared to 8 something Gbit/s.
By the way, I was quoting 8 Gbit versus 10 Gbit because that's the TOTAL bandwidth of each spec. The video bandwidth, by your numbers, looks identical. So tell me again HDMI can't handle 1600p?
They are really for two completely different uses. For the main stream, their dell or hp laptop is also the DVD/Blu-Ray player that they hook to a 42" Vizio POS HDTV and they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to computers, HDMI works great.
For home theaters, HDMI is awesome. I love HDMI, it connects my Tivo, my HTPC and my PS3 to my receiver which connects with HDMI to my HD projector. Simple, easy. Me likey for when I want to lay on my couch and watch multimedia content while in a semi-vegetative state.
DisplayPort is slated to directly replace DVI for the high-end computer workstation, not for watching finding nemo on a f&ck*ng blu-ray. While, as usual that niche market does take longer to adopt new features and standards - it will most likely become fully mainstream over HDMI, especially for multiple high-resolution displays.
Clearly HDMI is doing well in the field for which it was designed - Multimedia.
Clearly DisplayPort is doing just find for the field in which IT was designed - Work.
you mean the scsi port that was an industry standard for fast connections. I remember that odd com port on PC's(the really big one) that was still common place till Apple forced the PC industry to start using usb with the imac. like the floppy and the cd drive........
HDMI is winning, but DisplayPort is better. There is less processing to be done to format the signal internally, and it supports cool stuff like bi-directional data flows (allowing things like multi-touch monitors with one cable) and daisy-chaining. And there are no royalties.
I'm also a fan of Mini DisplayPort. It's a free spec, supports everything the normal DP does, just with a smaller cable. Apart from the obvious finger wagging due at Apple for not contributing it to the original spec, what's not to like?
Jacob: I'm trying not to flip out and crack your skull open with a f*ck*ng wrench, because clearly, your an idiot.
Maximum signal bandwidth (MHz) 340
Maximum TMDS bandwidth (Gbit/s) 10.2
Maximum video bandwidth (Gbit/s) 8.16
Maximum audio bandwidth (Mbit/s) 36.86
Maximum Color Depth (bit/px) 48[A]
Maximum resolution over single link at 24-bit/px[B] 2560×1600p75
Maximum resolution over single link at 30-bit/px[C] 2560×1600p60
Maximum resolution over single link at 36-bit/px[D] 1920x1200p75
Maximum resolution over single link at 48-bit/px[E] 1920×1200p60
A signal at 36 & 48 bit color, at 1920x1200 lines of resolution, in progressive mode, would eat up the MOST possible bandwidth that HDMI can handle currently for VIDEO. I don't give two sh!t$ or a F^ck, about the audio bandwidth. When you purchase a HDTV, you want to get a 36-bit capable TV - making all other color spaces freaking irrelevant! They do not make 1600p TV's.
For a computer monitor, HDMI 1.3 is CAPABLE of handling a 30"+ monitors resolution. However, all the 30" computer monitors I know limit the HDMI input.
You do know the difference between an apple and an orange, do you?
"Jacob: I'm trying not to flip out and crack your skull open with a f*ck*ng wrench, because clearly, your an idiot."
"Your an idiot"? My "an idiot" what?
"A signal at 36 & 48 bit color, at 1920x1200 lines of resolution, in progressive mode, would eat up the MOST possible bandwidth that HDMI can handle currently for VIDEO."
I know that, moron.
"I don't give two sh!t$ or a F^ck, about the audio bandwidth."
lol you made a big deal about it earlier.
"When you purchase a HDTV, you want to get a 36-bit capable TV"
[citation needed]
"For a computer monitor, HDMI 1.3 is CAPABLE of handling a 30"+ monitors resolution. However, all the 30" computer monitors I know limit the HDMI input."
[citation needed]
wow you guys are idiots.
DP 1.3 can output 8.4mp, hdmi 1.3 can do 4.2mp.
see the difference. thats why DP comes after HDMI not before it. and 99.999% of LCD tv's only have 24bits of colour so 36 or even 48 bit output isn't needed, and the monitors which need use those amounts of colours use DP because they need the higher standard.
I don't know where the last poster got his figures, they both have basically the same bandwidth.
Why are people talking about 36 bit color? There are no 36 bit color displays for computers.
The idea that DP, with its micropacket format, is less work to convert to/from is a joke. It's a cool standard, but it's more complex than DVI/HDMI, which is just basically a digital version of the RGB we are used to.
HDMI/DVI was the smart move. Apple was insane to switch. I personally can't see how DP will ever beat out HDMI/DVI.
After reading all that, I think Jacob wins =D
"DP 1.3 can output 8.4mp, hdmi 1.3 can do 4.2mp."
Well finally an engineer from VESA is here to talk to us. DP 1.3? I thought you guys were working on 1.2 still?
Seriously, mp? like as in megapixels? (serious question). If it's megapixels, then stick to resolution times refresh rate or bandwidth. We're dealing with video here, not still images.
"see the difference. thats why DP comes after HDMI not before it. and 99.999% of LCD tv's only have 24bits of colour so 36 or even 48 bit output isn't needed, and the monitors which need use those amounts of colours use DP because they need the higher standard."
What difference? please cite some sources, your above talk of megapixels or whatever needs some backing up.
"After reading all that, I think Jacob wins =D"
Thanks. But I feel like we've proven that old adage about arguing on the internet: http://carcino.gen.nz/images/image.phpi/463c5922/arguing.jpg?cb=1115204527
;)
Now with working link goodness. Thanks engadget comment system!
http://www.eggs-world.com/content/images/arguing.on.the.net.jpg
lawsuit in 3....2.......
Worst KIRF in history!
...-1, -2, -3, ..