The Studio monitor is very disappointing. No fast refresh, poor resolution, 7 year old technology....all for $1599!!! A M1 Mac mini with a Dell Ultrasharp 32 is more than $800 less for better tech, 4K (which is fine, no its not 5K but who cares), and slightly less bright but again who cares. The Studio monitor is a dud for 1600 bucks in my opinion. I held out for the new 27....silly me.
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.
Apple Discontinues 27-Inch iMac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What does the Studio display have exactly that makes it worth $1600?? Little speakers that will sound far worse that an external set? Crappy refresh rate? Its got alot of nits so its bright. Much brighter than the people that will buy it.
I have done the same. I am thinking the wait was in vain. I do not really need the power of the Studio version. So will go M1 Mac mini with upgraded RAM. Will use either with the excellent Dell Ultrasharp 32. Would have loved to stay with Apple for the monitor but I find the Studio monitor completely underwhelming for the price.
Gruber is almost never wrong. Apple then gave a brief statement to 9to5mac basically confirming what Gruber said.
If you don’t need all the horsepower of the studio machine now, think of it as an investment that will last for years and years into the future. Eventually you will need that horsepower to drive the applications of the future, and you’ll already have the technology you need. You’ll grow into it.
Curiously, while all indications from Apple are that the 27" iMac is history, there has been no indication from them that there won't be a larger-than-27" version of the iMac. 30-32" maybe? Is this what they are referring to when they talk about a "Mac Pro"? Apple is known for playing on words regarding their marketing, it would be like them to imply that the larger iMac is dead and gone, which obviously it is for the moment, to get people to migrate to the Studio/Display and then come out with a larger version of the iMac and labeling it something other than iMac. Just spitballing here, but as it has already been noted, it's a pretty big jump from the current 24" to the Studio w/Display, particularly for those that prefer an all in one. Am I being too cynical???
I'm not implying he's wrong on the demise of the 27" iMac.
I'm saying he's wrong that the Mac Studio & Studio Display are the perfect replacement for it.
But the next time you need to update after that, you won’t need a new monitor. etc.
So 5k is poor resolution when it’s in an apple monitor, but 4k is just fine when it’s in a Dell monitor.
Got it.
Please show me ANY ~220 ppi alternative. Seriously, please, I’ll cancel my order and buy it instead.
For me, coming from a couple of 2011 27" Thunderbolt displays that I have paid $1000 each when it first sold 11 years ago - this upgraded 27" Studio Display is hands down the best upgrade and worth the price!
For $1600, IMO Apple has maintained the same price as the 2011 display of $1000 with over 11 years of inflation...
Better webcam, speakers and 5K for the "same" price I paid for the 2011 TB display is great bargain to me.
I am sitting on a 2017 iMac 27 and its time to get a new one, I would get the Mac Studio if it wasn't so expensive!
You still have the M1 based 24" iMac as a option as well as buying a refurb 2020 27" intel iMac. Another alternate is to go with a 2021 14" or 16" MBP that uses either a M1 pro or M1 Max and use an external display, your mouse and keyboard from the 2017 is likely perfectly usable. Yes Apple makes this decision more challenging then it should be.
The 27” is replaced by a MacMini and the Studio display not the Studio and Studio displa. Either way even with the most basic MacMini it will be a 50% price hike.
I think that is Apples strategy and from a green point of view it seems sound. It also leave the option of upgrading an option whereas people probably hang on to their 27 in iMacs. Having said that we have mod-2011 iMacs that I was waiting to upgrade in my office and the screens are shot so even if we had separate screens and computers screens do not last forever.
I think that the issue is simply that the Studio display is over priced or over spec’d. If the screen were $400 cheaper the problem would largely go away because a mini plus display and keyboard would be a marginal increase in price for a much better machine.
We are comparing the 27” iMac that came with a display, keyboard, and mouse with Mac Studio that comes with nothing is the problem. Even if Apple had priced a iMac at $3000 with a M1 max it would have been way cheaper then a $2000 Mac Studio base model, with $1600 display, and $300 for keyboard mouse. That’s $3900 not including tax. Even if the screen was $400 less that is still $3500, which is price of a 16” M1 Max laptop with 36 core GPU. If you want that in the Studio it’s another $200.
Doesn’t take a brain surgeon to recognize that Apple is really making people pay a lot more for the Mac Studio setup.
Yeah, even getting the cheapest possible config Mac mini, Studio Display, Magic Mouse and Magic Keyboard comes to $2476, and that doesn't even include Touch ID on the keyboard.
For almost $700 more you get the same 256 GB of storage, the same RAM (arguably less since it is now shared with graphics, the base iMac had an additional 4 GB on the Radeon Pro 5300) and the lowest-end M1 chip available in a desktop Mac.
This is at best a lateral movement from Intel to AS. Had a new 5K iMac been introduced with these specs and this price increase it would not have been well-received. Even with specs that you'd reasonably expect from an iMac update the 42% price hike would be difficult to stomach.
Put another way, buying a Studio Display leaves you only $200 to add back everything that the iMac offered beyond the panel, speakers and camera.
It stings more than a little that I sold my 64 GB / 2 TB SSD iMac and had to add $300 to what I got for it to buy back exactly the same screen with better speakers but no computer.
I am glad that this option exists, and for me it is fine that it replaces the iMac although I appreciate that others prefer an all-in-one. However, I do think the Studio Display should have been priced (or made available in an even less pro configuration) to match the price of the iMac it replaces.
Last edited:
Correct it is the result of the over priced screen. If the screen was $400 cheaper it would all make more sense.
Last edited:
Considering Apple's BTO storage prices, the 64GB onboard is probably $100 of the price alone.
Apple Studio Display Contains 64GB of Storage, But Only 2GB Used
Apple's Studio Display contains 64GB of onboard storage, but only 2GB are actually used by the display, a developer has discovered. As...
www.macrumors.com
And for the record, it has 64GB because that is the minimum that is paired with an A13 SoC.
And as to why the screen is "overpriced", it's because the people most-likely to buy it have been bitching at Apple for years to release it and they all said they'd pay more than what LG was charging for the UltraFine 5K to get it.
So Apple obliged them - on both counts.
I upgraded my late 2013 27" iMac to 32GB of RAM from Crucial for under $200 when I first purchased the computer new. It has served me well with no issues. Apple's RAM upgrades have always been overpriced.
I thought I read somewhere recently that the 24" wasn't getting an upgrade until 2023???
"For now I'm going to hold on until WWDC and see if any of these options become available because the cost of a Mac Studio + Studio Display is just too high."
My sentiments precisely.