Apple is Finally Making a Cheaper Display: What We Know

[DEMinSoCAL]

first unboxing, really nice!

Might want to look at the Samsung S80A series:

SAMSUNG S80A Computer Monitor, 27 Inch 4K , Vertical , USB C , HDR10 (1 Billion Colors), Built-in Speakers (LS27A800UNNXZA),Black

Samsung 27 Inch Hi-Res UHD Computer Monitor with IPS Panel features innovative displays that power your performance. Get four times the resolution of 1080p monitor to make small text easy to read, while details in photos, illustrations, and videos are easier to work with and see. It delivers supe...

www.amazon.com

Ticks all the boxes, including 90W PD charging of your MacBook, speakers (very loud and clear) and HDR10, height stand, pivot, etc. Next to my MBP 14 M1 Pro, I can hardly tell the difference in colors and brightness. It does come set to "dim" out of the box (energy savings) but a couple quick settings changes restores the brightness and it is truly nice. Especially at $300.

 

[Tagbert]

I think that Apple would rather have consumers buy an iMac and a MacBook or iPad. I think thats why they added Sidecar, AirPlay and Universal control to macOS. Now your iMac has become the home docking station for your MacBook or your iPad. As far as a display for the Mac mini is concerned, its a matter of display update path. If I spend $899 on a display and then lets say I purchase the base Mac mini for $699, I most likely won't need a new display when I want to upgrade my Mac mini a few years down the line so I only spend $699 on a Mac mini. If I buy the iMac, I can't upgrade just the computer, I have to spend a minimum of $1299 on a whole new computer. I still believe that the iMac is the consumer display.

You can dismiss the mini owners but what about the laptops? Apple sells many more laptops than iMacs and many of those laptop owners need a monitor. Not many will get both an MacBook Pro and an iMac. An iPad is too small to replace a full-site monitor and SideCar has too much latency for a primary display.

 

[Tagbert]

Perhaps this has been mentioned, but I think Apple is too stupid to make a ultra wide monitor. Just about everyone I know who has a higher end monitor has a ultra wide.

If Apple was smart they would make a ultra wide Pro monitor that was 7680 x 3200, 40"-42" and a lower end one that was 3840x1600, 35-37". But Apple isn't smart about monitors so here we are.

I have yet to see an ultra-wide monitor with enough vertical resolution to be useful and most of them are not very sharp displays. Our office got Samsung wide-angle monitors for all of us but it is difficult using them as the image quality is inadequate.

 

[satchmo]

Also remember who’s the CEO…Mr. Big Margin Cook.

He’s guided by profits and shareholder value.
Selling one display for $2500 likely costs Apple less than making three display selling at $800 each.
Follow the money.

 

[Mr.PT]

It's $1000+ for their high-end phone. Their phones start at $400.

And, same for headphones: EarPods are $19, and AirPods start at $129. Not $500.

$400 for a phone is still pricier than the low end, but it's perfectly in the mid range. $1000 for a monitor is very high.

For Apple PPI maybe not so high, $800 would be good.

 

[Mr.PT]

This illustrates quite well just how insane a $2500 or even a $1500 price point would be. Unfortunately I think Tim Apple is actually insane in this regard. Apple should obviously not lose money on any products they sell, but if they sell a standalone iMac-like display for over $500 they are obviously not making a display targeted for mid-/high-end private consumers.

24/27” Targeted for low/mid Pro’s. 32” for high Pro’s. Pro’s with graphic/visual requirements. A lot tend to be Mac users.

 

[hardwickj]

Might want to look at the Samsung S80A series:

SAMSUNG S80A Computer Monitor, 27 Inch 4K , Vertical , USB C , HDR10 (1 Billion Colors), Built-in Speakers (LS27A800UNNXZA),Black

Samsung 27 Inch Hi-Res UHD Computer Monitor with IPS Panel features innovative displays that power your performance. Get four times the resolution of 1080p monitor to make small text easy to read, while details in photos, illustrations, and videos are easier to work with and see. It delivers supe...

www.amazon.com

Ticks all the boxes, including 90W PD charging of your MacBook, speakers (very loud and clear) and HDR10, height stand, pivot, etc. Next to my MBP 14 M1 Pro, I can hardly tell the difference in colors and brightness. It does come set to "dim" out of the box (energy savings) but a couple quick settings changes restores the brightness and it is truly nice. Especially at $300.

See, this is exactly what I'm getting at. Too many of the people on this forum do not understand what they are buying in the slightest.

Sure, that monitor supports HDR10. It's going to look no better than SDR at 300cd/m2 brightness though. HDR on these monitors is worthless without more brightness. Don't believe me? Take TomsHardware's word for it:

It supports HDR10 and plays HDR content properly, but it doesn’t look much different than if we were watching it in SDR, partially thanks to the wide color gamut you already get in the monitor’s SDR picture modes.

In fact, a 4K HDR copy of Black Panther arguably looked better in SDR with the monitor’s default settings and the brightness cranked to 100% than with the default HDR mode

The Dell U2720Q's which I own suffer the same issue. Turning on HDR actually makes it look worse, and makes the monitor feel like it's at half brightness. With a max brightness of 300cd/m2 in SDR, that's just too dim.

This is why people are willing to pay the Apple Tax. Any monitor they release simply will not have these types of basic issues. Will they be perfect? Of course not. But they'll solve the problems of their most demanding (and most willing to pay) customers. And that's all we care about.

 

[schneeland]

None of the USB-C display on the market today offers built in camera or quality speaker. If apple can make a display that has these two features equivalent to the quality of the current iMac, I will pay at least $1k for it. I honestly don’t know why Samsung and LG and dell don’t make such product. I hate having to connect all these peripherals to my otherwise useful 34 inch curved ultra wide display.

That's not entirely correct - the Dell C3422W at least formally meets the requirements (I think I also have seen a few other screens in the same spirit recently, but that's the one I remember). Now there can be debate if the webcam and the speakers are really good, but the product exists.
What doesn't exist is a high-DPI version of it. This is where ideally Apple would offer something.

 

[TheWatchfulOne]

If you build it they will come.

Go the distance!

Ease his pain!

?

 

[-hh]

That's not entirely correct - the Dell C3422W at least formally meets the requirements (I think I also have seen a few other screens in the same spirit recently, but that's the one I remember). Now there can be debate if the webcam and the speakers are really good, but the product exists.
What doesn't exist is a high-DPI version of it. This is where ideally Apple would offer something.

That's a pretty interesting product .. a 32" widescreen with 4K resolution, built-In Webcam, Microphones & Speakers ...
and its under the magical $999 price point.

Granted, its not retina 220ppi ...

 

[russell_314]

To actually sell a decent volume of monitors? How is it going to be better? Apple displays are always a competitors display packaged in their own form factor/design. It will look better than the black plastic displays out there, but under the hood, will it actually be better? Aside from putting a graphics chip in it (which wouldn't be this consumer model most likely), you're paying for the logo and desktop curb appeal. At least with Macs, you could argue the user experience justified the Apple tax (When they were using Intel chips exclusively, which were often a year or more behind the current chip and still priced like they weren't). Apple's hardware is literally almost never better spec wise, just prettier. It's their software that gives them distinction. This is a monitor.

How it will be better is Apple will require certain specifications for the display panels. Just like they do on the iPhone. It’s not going to be a hologram or anything different than a standard monitor but when you buy the Apple monitor you’re going to be assured that it meets a certain quality standard and it will be backed by Apple support. You don’t get that with any other monitor.

 

[hardwickj]

That's a pretty interesting product .. a 32" widescreen with 4K resolution, built-In Webcam, Microphones & Speakers ...
and its under the magical $999 price point.

Granted, its not retina 220ppi ...

It's not 4k resolution. 3440x1440 vs. 3840x2160 of 4k. It's also 34", not 32". That'd make for a terrible display to look at all day.

 

[russell_314]

You can dismiss the mini owners but what about the laptops? Apple sells many more laptops than iMacs and many of those laptop owners need a monitor. Not many will get both an MacBook Pro and an iMac. An iPad is too small to replace a full-site monitor and SideCar has too much latency for a primary display.

The problem with monitors and the reason why I think Apple isn’t more into that business is because a lot of people don’t consider a monitor as something they should spend money on. It’s like an afterthought. They buy a really nice computer and then get the cheapest monitor that has the resolution they want. To meet this demand for low prices manufacturers take display panels and put them into the cheapest plastic housing they can to undercut the competition. I used to be like that till I bought my 24 inch iMac with the 4.5K display. I could never go back to a cheap display.

You mentioned the Mac mini but that is Apple’s budget computer so most likely people buying that don’t want to spend a fortune on a monitor. I know people buy it for other purposes but one of the main attractions of the Mac mini is the price.

I think the reason why Apple is coming out with new monitors is because they’re coming out with a pro model of the Mac mini. They’re probably hoping that if someone spends 4K on a pro Mac mini they also might spend another 2K for a display.

 

[brofkand]

Can you connect 2 5K displays to the M1 mini or M1 MBP? It would hurt to pay so much but I guess there is not much of an option. I got 4K LG monitor but the 6 year old iMac has far better screen.

Apple is always good about detailing the resolutions their machines support. https://support.apple.com/kb/SP823?locale=en_US

 

[jayb3]

I cannot see pricing a 27" display even close to the cost of the 27" iMac. My simple logic says just pay a little more and get a whole computer. I don't even care if the display is "higher" quality. The iMac screen is simply good enough for maybe 95% of people.

My interest is a 32" display that is as good as the iMac screen. It doesn't need to be crazy XDR quality. I just want the slightly bigger screen. Now that gives me a little more value and I get an Apple logo on my display. I would pay $1,899 for that. *chef's kiss*

 

[SSDGUY]

As much as I'd love to own the current XDR display, my level of need for that uber-brightness, contrast, etc. simply doesn't make a cost effective decision for my business. (And yeah, that $1K stand still goads me.) But … a 32" Apple prosumer display and some sort of MacMini Pro just might move me out of iMac territory.??

 

[scottrngr]

I think the reason why Apple is coming out with new monitors is because they’re coming out with a pro model of the Mac mini. They’re probably hoping that if someone spends 4K on a pro Mac mini they also might spend another 2K for a display.

That would be me. I'd buy 2 $1500 monitors and upgrade the mini every 2-3 years. I don't think I'd spend $2k per display though, and the most I'd spend on a mini would be $2k. I would've got the blue m1 iMac, but knew I'd want to get rid of it when the first upgrade came out.

 

[ValueArb]

It's crazy that the cheapest 5K monitor is the LG sold by Apple for $1299. When I look on Amazon I see them selling for $1500, even Amazon's refurb is $1229. And what's crazier is that it's the only real 5k monitor for sale right now There is a bunch of crappy widescreens that are only 2,100 pixels high (instead of 2,800) that are being claimed as 5k even though their total resolution is way short.

My only other choices are the Pro XDR for $6k, or the half assed Dell 8k monitor at $4,500 that requires two displayport cables.

If I had known this would happen two years ago I would have bought two LGs and figured over time they'd be worth it. instead I've been limping along with two 4k Dells (27 and 30 inch) hating life. Please Apple give me something with XDR resolution and USB C ports for $2,500 so I can stop wearing computer glasses!

 

[sparkie7]

Apple is Finally Making a Cheaper Display​

I think:

Apple is Finally Making a Less Expensive Display

is more accurate.

 

[ValueArb]

$1000 for a 24 inch display is laughable. Apple has totally lost any sense of reality when it comes to their prices.

Dell sells 27 inch monitors for $250 to over $1,600. Methinks specs and capabilities matter.

 

[hardwickj]

It's crazy that the cheapest 5K monitor is the LG sold by Apple for $1299. When I look on Amazon I see them selling for $1500, even Amazon's refurb is $1229. And what's crazier is that it's the only real 5k monitor for sale right now There is a bunch of crappy widescreens that are only 2,100 pixels high (instead of 2,800) that are being claimed as 5k even though their total resolution is way short.

My only other choices are the Pro XDR for $6k, or the half assed Dell 8k monitor at $4,500 that requires two displayport cables.

If I had known this would happen two years ago I would have bought two LGs and figured over time they'd be worth it. instead I've been limping along with two 4k Dells (27 and 30 inch) hating life. Please Apple give me something with XDR resolution and USB C ports for $2,500 so I can stop wearing computer glasses!

That Dell 8K doesn't even work properly on macOS due to macOS's garbage tiling support.

 

[leicaman]

If you can buy iMacs with the same displays for what you get an iMac for, I think these prices mentioned are way out of whack. Also, the pro display is so good that I suspect these will be substantially less expensive, because they are not even close to competing with anything that costs 1/10 as much as the Pro XDrs competitors, which run $40,000 and up.

 

[AppelGeenyus]

I have 3x 2720Q's on my desk right now. Let me assure you, they are not remotely close to any display that Apple sells at the moment (iMac, XDR, or otherwise).

4k is ~8.3 million pixels.
5k is ~14.75 million pixels.
6k is ~20.4 million pixels

If you can't see the difference between 4k and 5k @ 27", then you're simply not the type of customer Apple is selling to.

On the contrary, the blurriness I see on my 2720q's due to them running at non-integer scaled Retina makes it harder for me to see text clearly unless I'm right up against them. The same is not true of glossy 5k's or XDR 6k because they are capable of running at true integer scaled Retina at semi-reasonable resolutions.

On the contrary, the reason it bothers me is *because* I have good eyesight. I can see the subtle blurriness because when I'm trying to run my 27" 4k scaled to 3008x1692, the scaling is a non-integer factor and therefore suboptimal. When trying to run at the native 4k, the matte coating of the screen causes it's own form of blurring which is all the more noticeable because of how small text is. Yes, I can still see it and read it, but honestly...it looks like sh*t.

If that's what you truly think, then you are wasting your time in this sub. Apple would never produce a display at the standards you deem acceptable, and there is a very good reason for that.

I really don't understand why people can't comprehend this. It feels like such an obvious thing, but apparently some people really cannot see a difference between true Retina and poorly scaled resolutions (or not scaled at all) resolutions. Such people are wasting their time if they think Apple will ever again release a low PPI display like that.

Unfortunately for you, I actually own both a 163ppi and 254ppi display. Here are photos of text on each, taken more than two times closer than typical viewing distance. One is 3008x1692 scaled on the 163ppi display, the other is perfect 2x scaling on the 254ppi display, and the physical size of the text on both displays is identical(I measured it to confirm). I'm not even going to label which is which. And if you want to roughly match their physical size on your screen, open them in preview then zoom out twice from 100%.

Yes one is better than the other, but the difference isn't anywhere close to what you describe, and your complaints of blurry text are almost entirely unfounded. At normal viewing distance it is very difficult to tell the displays apart. You can stop pretending you know what you're talking about now.

edit: ppi mistake.

 

[0924487]

When you say “we” it doesn’t include me because I wouldn’t assume this. Even $2500 is not slightly cheaper than $5000. It’s half the price so that is cheaper

100 billion or 50 billion don't make a difference for most people.

 

[Tagbert]

If you can buy iMacs with the same displays for what you get an iMac for, I think these prices mentioned are way out of whack. Also, the pro display is so good that I suspect these will be substantially less expensive, because they are not even close to competing with anything that costs 1/10 as much as the Pro XDrs competitors, which run $40,000 and up.

The speculation is that because this new 27” monitor uses mini-LEDs that Apple will choose to price it drastically higher than a regular LCD display like the current LG Ultrafine. This even though the same rumors suggest that the new display will only have 1000 dimming zones which is about a 10th of the zones in a MBP.