Any downside to ASD?

[drrich2]

Don't know why "2)" is listed under "Con".

It's half a Mac, to be more precise.

Apple is not in the monitor business.

A topic worth delving into. Regardless how Apple may wish to conceptualize the ASD, the potentially buying public who would use it have a say in what it's for, too. While a maker's vision may inform and at times justify some limitations, it's legit for buyers to ask whether said limitations are justified by the buyers' standards.

I think most potential buyers, including Mac owners, regard the ASD as a monitor. After all, if a Mac Mini or Mac Studio + a regular monitor (whether LG, Samsung, Dell, Philips or what-have-you) along with mouse and keyboard is considered a complete Mac, then the 'Mac' aspect of the system is in the separate computer, not the monitor.

So the ASD, irrespective of having an A13 Bionic Chip, isn't half a Mac. It is a Mac accessory. Given the sound system, center stage web cam and ability to adjust settings through the Mac and convenience of Thunderbolt for M-series Mac hook up, we can call it a targeted Mac-specific accessory, but not half a Mac.

I get your point that it's intended to be part of a multi-component Mac-specific system for a user. And I'm being a bit pedantic, but I think the reasoning is important.

That may be what Apple intends, but it's not the sole purpose from the perspective of many potential buyers, who must ask questions such as:

1.) Is it necessary it only be fully functional (e.g.: adjust settings) with a Mac (e.g.: also lack HDMI port, not straight forward to hook a game console to if I understand correctly, though the 60-Hz refresh rate might not suit some serious gamers)?

2.) Will this restricted range of function hamper usefulness to the customer?

Is there any reason Apple couldn't provide a software app. to let Windows or Linux users adjust the monitor's settings? If this is technically quite feasible and easy implemented at minimal cost, then the issue may be Apple deliberately withholding the functionality. They can, but it's not 'user friendly' to many who desire to do other things with it.

Will these restrictions hamper usefulness to buyers? In some cases, no. If you only have a Mac and/or only plan to use one with it, and bear strong confidence you won't change platforms for many years, it may not matter. But if you have a Mac and a Windows PC (and/or a gaming console), or there's a credible chance you might switch to a PC in years to come, then a monitor that only fully works with Macs isn't a good fit. A number of users have a Mac and a PC (e.g.: work notebook, gaming rig) and/or console. Someone plopping down down around $1,500 for what they see as a monitor may want it to work with the things most other (and much cheaper) monitors do.

So many people seem to miss this point.

That's because so many people want a broadly compatible monitor, like Apple's competitors put out.

I've never seen a post by anyone seeking a monitor listing a requirement as 'Only works right with a Mac, nothing else.'

 

[xraydoc]

A topic worth delving into. Regardless how Apple may wish to conceptualize the ASD, the potentially buying public who would use it have a say in what it's for, too. While a maker's vision may inform and at times justify some limitations, it's legit for buyers to ask whether said limitations are justified by the buyers' standards.

I think most potential buyers, including Mac owners, regard the ASD as a monitor. After all, if a Mac Mini or Mac Studio + a regular monitor (whether LG, Samsung, Dell, Philips or what-have-you) along with mouse and keyboard is considered a complete Mac, then the 'Mac' aspect of the system is in the separate computer, not the monitor.

So the ASD, irrespective of having an A13 Bionic Chip, isn't half a Mac. It is a Mac accessory. Given the sound system, center stage web cam and ability to adjust settings through the Mac and convenience of Thunderbolt for M-series Mac hook up, we can call it a targeted Mac-specific accessory, but not half a Mac.

I get your point that it's intended to be part of a multi-component Mac-specific system for a user. And I'm being a bit pedantic, but I think the reasoning is important.

That may be what Apple intends, but it's not the sole purpose from the perspective of many potential buyers, who must ask questions such as:

1.) Is it necessary it only be fully functional (e.g.: adjust settings) with a Mac (e.g.: also lack HDMI port, not straight forward to hook a game console to if I understand correctly, though the 60-Hz refresh rate might not suit some serious gamers)?

2.) Will this restricted range of function hamper usefulness to the customer?

Is there any reason Apple couldn't provide a software app. to let Windows or Linux users adjust the monitor's settings? If this is technically quite feasible and easy implemented at minimal cost, then the issue may be Apple deliberately withholding the functionality. They can, but it's not 'user friendly' to many who desire to do other things with it.

Will these restrictions hamper usefulness to buyers? In some cases, no. If you only have a Mac and/or only plan to use one with it, and bear strong confidence you won't change platforms for many years, it may not matter. But if you have a Mac and a Windows PC (and/or a gaming console), or there's a credible chance you might switch to a PC in years to come, then a monitor that only fully works with Macs isn't a good fit. A number of users have a Mac and a PC (e.g.: work notebook, gaming rig) and/or console. Someone plopping down down around $1,500 for what they see as a monitor may want it to work with the things most other (and much cheaper) monitors do.


That's because so many people want a broadly compatible monitor, like Apple's competitors put out.

I've never seen a post by anyone seeking a monitor listing a requirement as 'Only works right with a Mac, nothing else.'

You have to go a long way back to find an Apple display that had more than one input and was documented as PC-compatible, let alone something that could be easily connected to a game console. I think the last one was the blueberry 15" LCD Studio Display.

If you want that, stick with 3rd party.

Otherwise, Apple displays have tended to have better image quality, brightness and uniformity than other 3rd party displays, albeit at a higher price point.

 

[picpicmac]

That may be what Apple intends, but it's not the sole purpose from the perspective of many potential buyers

I've seen students in art classes use a planishing hammer to force something into shape. Not the right tool for the job, but people do it.

Some people want to cut a pizza with a butter knife. Can be done, but not the right tool for the job.

At the end of the day, the user either knows what they are doing or they do not.
Does that make said person bad, as in evil? Of course not.

Apple did not spell it out with careful wording read by an trained orator, but the fact that the ASD + Mac Studio appeared exactly as they eliminated the 27" iMac, and given the Apple STUDIO Display and the Mac STUDIO use the same wording, should be enough for anyone who can read a room.

The ASD is half a Mac. I for one consider the user interface (visual display, speakers, and input devices (keyboard, pointing tool, microphone) to be what matters in a computer for daily use. The box is just a box and frankly the M series iMac shows that a box isn't really necessary (as inside it is really, as people have commented, an iPad-on-a-stick.)