Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'A19 Pro' Chip Coming to Studio Display 2
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
True, but the analogy doesn't quite work out. In one case, we're talking about retro enthusiasts replacing hardware that doesn't work (or that works) from a 30-40 year old computer for something much more convenient for transferring files in the modern age (and using inexpensive but available parts such as powerful SoC compared to 1980s standards). In the other case, someone with a 4-5 year old M1 Mac mini or M1 Mac Studio is replacing a display with a display... and unless the A19 Pro is there to do something absolutely mind-blowing to justify having such a high-end SoC in a display... you're essentially buying an iMac that you can hook up to your desktop or laptop Mac.
So, you're likely right that this is actually a cheaper edu iMac.
Why does a monitor need a chip like that anyway? It should just display the image given to it. Maybe color correction/calibration. The End.
Hmm. Which of these is most likely?
- A "cheaper edu iMac" with an A-series processor but with a super-expensive 27" 5k mini-LED HDR (and possibly ProMotion) display?
- A mid/high-end 5k miniLED ProMotion iMac but with an iPhone Processor rather than an M5 Pro/Max/Ultra?
- A newer, improved version of the Studio Display (which already uses an A-series SoC) getting a newer, improved version of the A-series SoC?
We already went through all this "why does it have such a powerful processor?" malarkey with the launch of the original Studio Display and - guess what - you can't use the Studio Display as a standalone Mac.
...at 5k3k HDR, possibly 90Hz, with as little lag as humanly possible, as well as running the camera, spatial audio etc. while preferably still running in economy mode and not generating a shedload of heat... and Apple knows a guy who can get them (possibly binned) A19 Pro chips at "mates' rates".
Explain Apple silicon to me, like I'm five.
Look, the M4 works in the iMac. It works in the MacBook Air. It works in the iPad Pro! It is expected that the M5 will work in all of them as well. Therefore, the M5 would work in the Studio Display. It is even thicker than the iMac. Duh.
The point being, if Apple designed the Studio Display to thermally handle the M5, then it certainly could handle an A19 Pro. And more importantly, make it that the board can be swapped out. It HAS to be possible because the unit can be repaired. With USB4, there is NO REASON to use any interconnection between a processing board and accessory board (power, speakers, cam, display driver) other than USB with Display Alt Mode. That makes it trivial to swap. Then also make the iMac and Mac mini use the same modular boards. AND then make the iMac capable of taking DisplayPort in on one (or all) of its USB4 ports, to be used as a 'dumb' display.
And, realistically, at this point, Apple would not need to put the M5 in the Studio Display right now… they could put the M4 in there for now (so same performance as the iMac). If you want more performance, pair it with a Mac Studio.
M5, YES. Pro and Max, NO, WRONG. Considering that the current iMac is priced similarly to the old 21-inch 4K iMac when it got discontinued, and the Studio Display costs as much as the 27-inch iMac when it got discontinued, a new "Big iMac" should be able to include a base M5 and be the same price as the Studio Display. If users want MORE power, just ignore the M5 and add a Mac mini or Mac Studio. Or MacBook Pro. Or Mac Pro. The 'premium' of the cost of the M5 is negligible to those folks. Better yet, at some point Apple needs to get their act together with clustering… that extra M5 or 2 in a pair of displays could automagically cluster in with the M6 Pro you have in your MacBook Pro or M7 Max in a Studio and help out with AI processing. Throw in an M5 Pro Mac mini to boot. Better than throwing them in the trash.
This is why making the main board on the iMac and Studio Display modular really is so beneficial. If Apple 'standardized' on common mainboard that could hold an M# and A# chip, the same panels they're currently shipping could be one of three things: a smart display or an iMac, or both. No additional cost, to Apple or Apple's customers. And a LOT of PR gain!
PERSONALLY: I don't see that they'd need to use any more than an M2 in these. The M2 is a very capable chip. The M2 MacBook Air is fine, performance-wise, for many folks. And the M2 is wasted in the iPad Air, but it thermally handles it! Now, to be seen if the A19 Pro outperforms the M2… but… I'd be surprised. I think there is more going on behind the scenes with supply chain, with TSMC's fab in Phoenix and what chips Apple can get cranked out there. Apple is looking not a year ahead, but 3 years ahead.
Last edited:
...or just want to get on with using your Mac to do stuff rather than climbing on the desk with a jeweller's loupe to go artefact hunting, while getting a dual/triple 4k display setup for less than the price of a Studio Display.
So why couldn't Apple "get them (possibly binned) A19 Pro chips at "mates' rates"" for the Apple TV? There is zero way you need a top of the line SoC for a display. 5k3k HDR, 90Hz, running a camera, and Spatial Audio doesn't require an A19 Pro chip. Even a binned one when they could settle for previous gen chips that would be even cheaper than a binned A19 Pro.
Pretty sure this rumor has all the details wrong and is mixing two leaks together. Remember that there is also the discount A18 Macbook rumor so a discount iMac isn't out of the question. Just, it wouldn't have the display specs that are part of the Studio Display 2 rumor.
At any rate, most of the rumors on MacRumors in the past couple years have been 100% wrong so I don't think we'll see any edu iMacs or any Studio Display 2 with an A19 Pro.
edit: All started with me making fun of a dumb rumor... and then people that take these rumors at face-value and seriously are telling me that this is for real and a possibility. rofl
Last edited:
Yes, because it was designed to keep an M-series processor cool.
Yes, because it was designed to keep an M-series processor cool (with a bit of throttling - hence the M4 MBP being a smidge faster).
Yes, because it was designed to keep an M-series processor cool (probably with quite a bit of throttling & various restrictions on display support etc. that wouldn't wash in a Mac).
No, that doesn't follow. What you mean is therefore the M5 would work in a new 27" iMac enclosure if it were designed to properly cool an M5 with acceptably low fan noise.
M5 would probably work well in an old-style 5k iMac enclosure which could cool an i9 spaceheater, but those things had a huge rear bulge and got loud as soon as the processor & GPU started getting busy.
There's no sign that the current Studio Display was designed to specifically cool the SoC (active heatsinks, heatpipes etc. going to the SoC) - the fans are needed because there's a big PSU and ultra-bright display LEDs in there.
Anyway, an M5 5k iMac with a high-end display isn't going to cut it without M5 Pro and M5 Max options, so it's no good the enclosure just being able to cool a regular M5.
Yeah, with a girt great sweaty power supply designed to supply 90W via Thunderbolt as well as powering the display - c.f. the 24" iMac which uses an external brick.
Sure, going from the A13 (in the ASD) to a new SoC makes perfect sense.
Going to the A16 would be within normal expectations. Going to the newest, chip that's also needed by future iPhones, just seems surprising... Maybe it has some silicon they really need? We don't know yet.
We also don't know for sure which of these monitors are what size.
Apple doesn't sell simple monitors. Apple sells display docking stations. In the general Monitor market, the vast majority of units have more than one input socket. Apple 'monitors' ... one and only one. One port that does everything ; including optionally powering the Mac laptop that is docked to the monitor. Control buttons on Apple's 'monitor'... none. General market ... several. Apple is not trying to build a 100% direct substitutable good here.
The Studio display does outside of general monitor class sound. General monitors have a very simple amp for a 2-5W speaker. Relatively, the somewhat similar issues with the camera. ( Pretty sure 'Center Stage' doesn't work on Intel Macs where all the processing is done local to Intel hardware. Studio Display brought that too the tail end of the Intel Mac line up. If recall correctly 'Desk View' doesn't work on 1st Gen Studio Display. If that features arrives with gen 2 then new computational grunt available is likely a contributor. ) If the Studio display had no speakers and no camera then would have a point. Real time video inference processing takes computational 'grunt' horsepower. Spatial audio likely be delivered by some specific fixed function ( or minimally very narrowly specialized) hardware.
In short, it is likely not the screen, solely in and of itself, that is driving this. ( Unless Apple goes "free AppleTV" inside route matching what Samsung has done with their 'smart' monitors. Doubtful Apple wants to attach enough storage for that use case here ). Apple does have a fixation on getting rid of wires. Apple Vision Pro can be a wireless monitor to Mac. I wouldn't be very surprised if option for wireless coupling to a iPad or Mac wasn't an option (maybe finally add a button on monitor to switch inputs.
). Throwing computation at the "war on wires" would be a very aligned with Apple's track record. (e.g., nominally stripping entry iMac of an Ethernet port).Sweeping, universal generalizations very often are not true. Scaling 3240x2160 to 1920x1080 works. Many folks may not like 1080 ( e.g., want more 'stuff' on screen so pick some multiple in middle , or try to 'push' the 4K to 5K scaling stops. ). 'Never' would be the entirety of all possible options. It isn't the one you don't/do like.
This also a bit backward in 'root cause' assigment. It isn't a "monitor" problem, it is a macOS root cause problem.
Take same Mac, run Windows full screen and scale and it is likely better results. The monitor isn't the bottleneck to looking good.
Decent chance this is about 'more affordable' and oversupply in inventory than about "horsepower". If these are A19 Pro that didn't make the cut then picking them out of the 'trash can' ( so therefore cheaper. The fully functional units are paying for the wafer these dies came from.). If 'trash can' has several 100's of thousands chips in it then there is probably more than decent inventory to match the Apple studio.
Secondly isn't it isn't the age when it first goes into the Studio Display, it is the age at which looking to turn the Studio display off. A13 is at six years now. If there is nothing else consuming them , then that is problem to keep making them.
The Studio Display also slapped a full RAM and Flash Storage complement from an iPhone on the set up also. Some of that is just cheaper engineer and inventory buying. An even bigger mismatch on storage size than computation. ( or just compenstatig for SSD degregation over longer service life.). [ Not sure but camera module could come from 19 Pro era phone also. So some software resuse here for camera subsystem. ] pruning iOS down to this embedded system can be cleaner if keep hardware fingreprint looking mostly the same.
Then again, years before the current Apple Studio Display launched there were rumors that Apple was developing a display that had an integrated GPU so maybe that is now becoming a reality and they want the best GPU cores they have (which will be in the A19 Pro).
There is a GPU internal to the Studio Display.
You are talking about something that would present as an "External GPU" over Thunderbolt back to the Mac. That 'external GPU' camp was mainly the same proponents that Apple has "got to have a discrete GPU solution" . Lots of tilting at windmills.Apple is unlikely going to make the GPU driver stack and software more complicated. Integrated Apple GPUs is only approaching full adaption and optimization focus. Distractions probably are not coming.
Yeah, it's looking less and less likely that they'll make such a special case for, what, 1% of users?
Once they drop Intel, Metal can rely entirely on the assumption that there's one GPU, period. On Apple Watch to Vision Pro all the way to the Mac Pro.
It's not a "dumb" rumor. You may think an A19 Pro is absurdly overpowered for a display, and you wouldn't be wrong, but it doesn't follow that this isn't happening.
What?
The Studio Display has entirely different internals than any of those other products. It doesn't follow at all that it could fit an M5. In fact, that's quite unlikely. Why would Apple, always obsessed with making devices thin, leave room for an SoC with much higher thermal output?
Which they didn't.
I… I'm not sure what I just read.
Apple does not need to put any user-accessible SoC in there at all, much less the M5. The Ax is in there to support user-facing functionality such as Center Stage. That's all.
The… displays are now… clusters for AI processing?
Beneficial to whom?
Except, of course, for the triple whammy of
1. higher engineering cost due to much higher complexity
2. higher support for the same reason
3. lost revenue
I assure you "what if our displays were… clusters for AI! 🤯" is not where they're looking.
1. Apple TV and Apple Studio Display very likely have order of magnitude different run rates.
AppleTV is a relative small player to Roku or FireTV units sold but it is still in the 'millions' range.
U.S.: Apple TV active devices 2015-2023| Statista
In the United States, the number of Apple TV active devices steadily increased between 2015 and 2023.
www.statista.com
AppleTV likely sells in the 'millions' per year run rate. Studio Display probably is closer to '100's of thousands' per year run rate.
( e.g.., https://www.techradar.com/pro/repor...s-studio-display-and-pro-display-xdr-per-year ). The 5K display submarket isn't a major driver of display unit numbers in the overall display market. There is likely presumptions by some that since the old legacy iMac run rate was 'millions per year' that the Studio display picked up the same order of magnitude unit sales. That probably is not true. (and a major contributing reason why Studio Display is priced as it is. It has a Apple 'low volume' tax on it.)
I wouldn't be surprised if the total installed base of Studio Displays barely cracked the 1M market. I'd be shocked if it was any where near 10M. Even 10M would be dwarfed by AppleTV.
The smaller the product run rate the easier it is to pull binned chips away from the iPhone Pro for its one year run. ( The Pro models die off every year unlike the 'regular' iPhone models. Those chips have to go somewhere in later years. Pretty likely another companion consumer would join the Studio Display later after iPhone Pro 'mate' disappears. )
[ P.S. One factor likely contributing to the AppleTV plateauing in deployed numbers is the price. AppleTV is sub $200 system competing against sub $100 sytsems. Studio Dispaly is $1599. There is tons more room to soak up the price of a higher priced SoC. A17 Pro could allow Apple to soak up remaining N3B wafer commitments far more than a much lower run rate Studio Display would. More mature so the design is already 'paid for'. Apple needs something to at least keep AppleTV the same, if not lower them. Not the most expensive wafer possible.
Studio run rate probably in range could just take 'trash can' A19 Pro dies to fill the role. Volume requirements on AppleTV likely to high for that (not going to be many millions of 'trash can' A19 pro dies. ]
2. The normal churn on Apple displays is in the 5-8 years range. One reason to select A19 Pro is that it could still be around in 4+ years. Older stuff less likely. If AppleTV gets an 17 Pro then in 3 years it probably would get something like A19 Pro. The Display is likely stuck on the same SoC (with zero hardware upgrades).
The large screen 5K iMac had the same panel for the whole run until it was canceled. (including the iMac Pro portion). Apple tends to pick panels and then ride them into the ground. There has been a bit of detviation at technology inflection points ( CRT -> LCD , LCD -> miniLED , etc. ), but look at the XDR... still shipping almost 6 years later. Apple 30" .. sold for about 7-8 years. Original Thunderbolt display ... sold for about 5 years. The Studio Display was a minor tweak to the old legacy iMac 5K panel.
If AppleTV started off at same level as Studio Display it would be there to support shared production costs later in several years down the road.
The Studio Display 2 appears to be coming out on relatively 'short' cycle. Doubtful that continues. For example there was only about a one year gap between T1 and T2 chip.
Apple silicon - Wikipedia
But once Apple was on the T2 chip they rode that all the way to the end. ( T2 spanned 5-6 years ). The T-series was used in an embedded chip fashion. Similarly, the longer service cycles on the Homepods. The T-series was a similar experiment at throughly effectively an A-series chip at an embedded processor problem.
Again probably missing the likely required longevity issue. It also more likely is riding on fixed function or specialized logic (Thunderbolt , NPU , etc.) far more so than the P-cores or GPU-cores at max constant throughput.
The catch-22 with large single die SoCs is it is all bundled together on one die. Need the specialiized logic then need to drag along the other stuff. Need 24 GPU cores then CPU core count increase is coupled to that.
Last edited:
Maybe the A19 will have Thunderbolt, meaning it can handle the display's Thunderbolt i/o without needing an extra controller? Maybe it will support newer versions/modes of DisplayPort?
It's only a sketchy rumour anyway, so all that really matters is that it's perfectly plausible for Apple to use an A19 pro in a high-margin product like a Studio Display. They're going to be making millions of A19s for iPhones and economy of scale is a huge factor in chip manufacture - so from Apple's POV the "cheapest" A-series chip might be whatever one they're using in the current iPhone.
Good point - one thing to consider is that it's the 32" Pro XDR that's most overdue for updating.
I agree that ATV and SD really aren't comparable products, but this whole discussion is also straying into "I don't believe sketchy rumour A (A19 Pro Studio Display) because it doesn't fit with sketchy rumour B (A17 Pro Apple TV) or sketchy rumour C (A18 Pro MacBook)" - all, some or fewer of which could be true. However, none of those possibilities change the laws o' physics, Jim, or even the laws of economics (given that the cost of SoCs to Apple is negotiable between them and TSMC and hugely dependent on scale).
Last I looked even the A19 Pro/iPhone 17 was still a rumour. OK, the iPhone 17 rumours are starting to firm up this close to the launch but the relevant point here is which old iPhone models are going to stay around as budget options & hence which A-series SoCs Apple will still be producing in quantity.
The A18 and A18 Pro are two different dies.
"... The Apple A18 and A18 Pro feature an Apple-designed 64-bit ARMv9.2-A six-core CPU with two high-performance cores @4.04 GHz and four energy-efficient cores @2.42 GHz, a four to six-core GPU, and a NPU with 16 cores. Both are produced on TSMC N3E (3nm FinFET) and measure 90 mm2 and 105 mm2 respectively.[6] ..."
Apple A18 - Wikipedia
For several generations previously either Apple would bin a GPU core out of the 'plain' iPhone model or have the pro model n+1 generation ahead ( An for iPhone and An+1 for iPhone Pro ). For example The A17 Pro had no corresponding A17 so the 'plain' iPhone was a generation back that year.
The port speeds on the iPhone are market segmented. The Pro version might get Thunderbolt, but the plain die probably won't. There is less space (smaller die). The 'Pro' die is bigger because it gets more "stuff". Part of that stuff can easily include I/O differentiation. Apple shipped Macs for a while with just USB 4. The iPHone Pro 16 has USB 3. The next likely iteration would be USB 4. Technically USB 4 isn't automatically 'Thunderbolt'. 'Thunderbol't requires passing Intel prescribed tests.
The substantial problem with the "iPhone Pro" is that those models 'die off' every year. The 'plain' iPhone gets sold for 2-3 years. Building a 'Pro' only to completely abandon it after 1 year likely doesn't work economically.
So the different , larger die 'Pro' landing in a Macbook now after going to seperate dies is not all that 'sketchy' at all. After the iPhone Pro drops out of consuming that corresponding 'Pro' die Apple needs a high enough product to 'hand me down' , transition the SoC to. A cheaper Macbook won't sell in iPhone like volumes, but definately would be the > 1M per year run rate zone. Deploying to the Macbook in the same year have the ephmeral iPhone Pro volume doesn't make any sense. That would be 'sketchy'. That is very bad timing.
The A19 and A19 Pro likely being different dies will effectively 'split' that ecoomies of scale. The iPhone Pro likely will be 1/2 or less the total next generation unit numbers. While the regular A-series has volume iPads to drift down into ( and SE ) the Pro had had a limited path that Apple needs to grow its "hand me down" ecosystem.
"only a sketchy rumors" is a bit dubious.
" .... Here's everything that was confirmed through the code discoveries: ..."
Every Apple Secret That Leaked Wednesday
Apple made a major slip Wednesday when it accidentally included hardware identifiers in software code linking to numerous unannounced products. The...
www.macrumors.com
It comes from Apple code and the Apple code covers all of this together. It isn't like 4 different sources for the rumors. It is one source ( Apple's code) and all of these present together in the code ( not four different Apple beta code releases). It isn't a Gurman saying "I think Apple should" exercise.
The XDR isn't particularly overdue given Apple's track record. 30" ACD went 7-8 years with no updates. Apple squatted on the 5K panel in the large screen iMac for a similar amount of time. Apple's support policy of putting devices on Vintage/Legacy countdown clock after they stop selling it means longer support requires fewer updates. Not updating for 6 years gets a 12-13 year lifespan.
Secondly, the XDR has two fans with NO substantive SoC in it at all. ( holding down the thermal variations to get better color reproduction). No camera. No speakers. There is an even less plausible justification for a SoC in there to do even less.
A larger screen is simply going to cost more. Even if Apple just holds the underlying tech constant. If move up to fancier backlighting , more color , faster refresh , etc the price point will move up. The Studio Display is already partially hobbled on price. As the updated 5K-6K monitor IPS tech gets more mature Dell/Samsung/etc monitor vendors in the general PC market are going to push prices down even lower.
Apple might do another product above Studio Display , but below XDR in price. There is a huge gap there. But move Studio Display base price higher is likely just going to push more Mac buyers into a reduction of cost of complements ( i.e., Monitor/Docking station from a more affordable vendor).
For Studio Display similar issue. If people keep their Mini/Studio/Macbook for 3-4 years on average , how happy are they going to be if Studio covered support lifetime isn't 2x (or 3x) that cycle? Which means the Studio Display needs to settle into a refresh rate that is substantially slower than the Macs. If the device runs a limited , embedded OS with limited apps and very narrow and secured network connections it will cost substantially less to maintain long term also. (throwing a more complicated and secure vector exposed OS at the SoC only increases costs long term. That is taking away 'savings'. Will not be surprising if Apple abandonds the version 1 approach of cobbling up a iOS variant for Studio Dispaly.
https://www.macrumors.com/2022/03/18/apple-studio-display-runs-full-version-of-ios-15/
And another reason to relatively 'short cycle' version 1. ).
economies of scales is largely influenced by how long the product is sold. The whole "who's chip wins the tech porn benchmark' on release day is the myopic viewpoint problem here. Where the SoCs are going into products over time is what will illuminate the economies of scale issue.
Year Pairing ( A19 Pro )
1 iPhone Pro (10's M) , Studio Display (SD)
2. Macbook (1's M) , partial iPad Mini , SD
3. partial MB, iPad Mini , SD
4 partial iPad Mini , Apple TV , SD (***)
5. SD
6. partial SD. ( iterate SoC for SD )
( *** iPad Mini moving on from A17 Pro will queue AppleTV to move on also later. Step zero though is to pair up the iPad mini and AppleTV now. )
that is a better scale than
Year Pairing ( A17 Pro)
1 iPad Mini , Apple TV , Studio Display
2 Apple TV , partial iPad Mini , SD
3 Apple TV , SD (**** )
4 SD
5 SD
6 SD
(**** after Apple TV looses its volume buddy iPad Mini at higher motivation to transition )
SD has relatively limited volume and then leave cohorts behind faster is not a path to better economies of scale.
What is more 'sketchy' is ignoring the range of product couplings over multiple years. The core of Apple's Silicon strategy is putting a smaller subset of chips into a substantively larger set of products. That isn't a 'one year time window' plan. Where SoCs are going next probably substantially matters to the long term plan.
If Apple can delegate some more 'AI sauce' compute to the Studio Display that would probably substantively help its value proposition. E.g. Deskview.
Use Desk View to show your face and desk on camera - Apple Support
Desk View uses your iPhone camera or the built-in camera of your Mac to show your face and an overhead view of your desk at the same time. It's great for tasks such as creating DIY videos or showing live sketches in video apps like FaceTime.
couple an iPhone to a Mac and can do it. Wire a SD to a Mac and cannot. Should be able to bring feature to older Macs by offloading a substantial amount to the SD. Should work as well as a wireless connected iPhone if an iPhone worth of hardware inside the box already.
Similar with perhaps deploying "HomeOS" there (and adding some hardware WiFi).
Apple Working on All-New Operating System
Apple is developing an all-new operating system codenamed "Charismatic," according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. This is likely...
www.macrumors.com
Then a user could do something with Display Dock even if nothing docked with it. If Mac Mini/Studio/etc turned off then still have an "Home Hub" running in the background. [ I suspect more likely a pruned down "HomeOS" that isn't so app on the display oriented though for cheaper long term support costs. Or a pruned down tvOS ( if both on same 'Pro' SoC lineups over time then a shared cost over the long term. )]
Last edited:
Sorry - I was just sloppy and forgot to type the "pro" every time - my bad.
My point is that, of the two displays that Apple currently sells, the 2019 Pro XDR is considerably older than the 2022 Studio Display.
If the new Apple TV gets a worse processor than a new display, I'm never buying an Apple TV at full price again. What a rip off.
I think the best explanation is it will have ProMotion, and A19 Pro will be designed to help with that.
Apple TV $129
Studio Display $1,599
Can buy 10x Apple TVs and still not have paid as much as a Studio Display, but somehow they should run the same cost processor???
Apple TV can't be looking for the most expensive SoC possible because it has market competition problems at $129 ... drive the base price up and its ability to compete will go down. The A17 Pro is 'cheap enough'. Two generations back, it's R&D is paid for. It is mature. The process is two generation back so wafers are likely substantively relatively cheaper now. The A17 Pro is the cheapest path to putting a fully functional chip that qualifies for Apple Intelligence into the Apple TV.
The Studio Display probably isn't paying "full price" for those A19 Pro that it gets. Pretty good chance these are chips that Apple would have been thrown away ( defective GPU and/or CPU cores but most of the chip works OK). The 'charge back' cost for the product is probably pretty close to what the A13 was when the current Display came out. (pull them out of the 'trash can' but still have to package and test the completed units. Plus perhaps make a smaller contribution to the wafer cost overhead. )
Two products pulling out the 'defect' pile probably is likely a much larger volume than the defect pile. So two products pulling on that 'cheaper' A19 Pro source won't work. (AppleTV pulled 'full price' A19 Pro doesn't work either). The rational choice to select the product with the lower volume to pull out of the limited pile. That is the Display.
Dragging 'sibling' rivalry' drama into this highly dubious.