11pt is the key reason. In my experience, 16pt is the smallest acceptable text size on an iMac screen. Anything smaller, and I often start using zoom from accessibility features without even thinking about it. (I just noticed I did it while writing this, even though the font size is probably 16pt.)
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 is Finally Making a Cheaper Display: What We Know
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And a high quality 24 inch is going to cost a lot more than a low quality 24 inch, pal.
400cd/m² Brightness on the Dell vs. 500 cd/m² Brightness on the 27" iMac. If you are a graphic designer and using the Dell as a second monitor you will certainly notice the difference.
I've read through the entire 14 pages of comments on this post, and I'm baffled. There's so much discussion happening here on price and what is (and is not) reasonable. The challenge is everyone will have their different take on this based on their own use-case & finances - including Apple - so the discussion seems moot. I think the bigger question here is:
When can we expect these monitors?
Gurman said they started working on them in 2019, and rumors like this article have been flying ever since. To-date, there hasn't been a lot of talk amongst other experts of when we'll actually see these, and MacRumor's actually published a very similar article as this all-the-way-back in January 2021. This article doesn't provide much new to that, so the question remains: is this just a pipe-dream with a lot of sound & fury but signifying nothing?
When can we expect these monitors?
Gurman said they started working on them in 2019, and rumors like this article have been flying ever since. To-date, there hasn't been a lot of talk amongst other experts of when we'll actually see these, and MacRumor's actually published a very similar article as this all-the-way-back in January 2021. This article doesn't provide much new to that, so the question remains: is this just a pipe-dream with a lot of sound & fury but signifying nothing?
@forrestwhite
And only Apple seems to need literally YEARS and YEARS to simply put out some external displays.
So frustrating.
I'm sure whatever they are doing, it involves massive over engineering and complication of something that should be simple.
And only Apple seems to need literally YEARS and YEARS to simply put out some external displays.
So frustrating.
I'm sure whatever they are doing, it involves massive over engineering and complication of something that should be simple.
Good point. The apple "puck" mouse was released in 1998 and hated by most, but the next Apple mouse (the Pro Mouse) wasn't released until 2005. So 7 years for the development of a relatively simple thing like a mouse.
Putting that into context, we're only 3 years into when Apple supposedly kicked of development of their new monitor line that's discussed in this article. If the R&D timelines remains similar we might not see these new monitors for another few years. All smoke, no fire.
Off topic but the Apple Pro Mouse came out in 2000. So 2 years, not 7.
I disagree, for the simple fact that support for external displays is a complete mess at the moment on M1-based Mac's. This may be mostly due to the fact that the underlying display subsystem is based off iOS's, but I'm willing to bet Apple won't spend the time necessary to fix that until the release of their own displays. And with a new Mac mini and Mac Pro rumored around the corner, they're going to need better support for external monitors.
And isn't Apple's new 27" monitor going to sell for a thousand more than Dell's top-end?
My point is Apple's pricing is out of control - and my point stands.
I hope you're right! Time will tell. The only question now is.. how much time.
Very possible, but you're completely missing the fact that Dell doesn't sell a 27" with 5k+ resolution. They *used* to sell the UP2715K, but guess how much that cost when they sold it? $2500.
The nearest thing they sell to "5K' is their U4021Q for $2000+ and it's not even 5K. Do you get the point yet?
Last edited:
That did release 7 years ago though (2015)
5k resolution was quite a major leap forward at the time.
Something like that model today (5k60hz) should be half that at most
Correct, nobody makes 5K displays anymore except for Apple. There's also no mouse that you have to charge upside-down except the Magic Mouse. Apple has always gone to the beat of their own drum. They just used to charge more reasonable prices - that's my point. The first Apple keyboard I bought was $29, I remember it - it was just called the Apple Keyboard and it used to come with the eMac. Their cheapest keyboard today is $99.
Dell's $1,600 27 inch monitor isn't even retina, it's not even gonna be close.
The point is, I'm not going to pay the price of a high equip MBP16 for a beautiful 5K monitor. It should not exceed $1300 for the best version.
This makes even less sense and proves you are speaking from assumptions. If there is such a "massive difference" to you and your eye strain is truly that bad, why do you continue to use a display that causes such eye strain when you know things like the 5K Ultrafine exist? Why not buy a non-matte(you know semi-gloss exists right?) 4k 27" display, or increase your font size, or reduce the scaling mode? You can't claim it's because you need the extra screen realestate, you said you have 3 identical displays. You can't claim it's because of cost either, you work 50+ hrs a week as a developer...
I resisted a glossy display for quite a while waiting for a new standalone from Apple. But I eventually needed both a new computer and display so I broke down and got an iMac w/ the glossy retina display, assuming the gloss would drive me nuts. But to my surprise, once I got it, the gloss wasn't an issue as long as there's no window behind me. Probably a bigger issue for laptop where you can't always control your environment as easy. I don't think I'd go back the old matte display type. Perhaps the nano thing is the best option, but not for the price they charge, at least on the XDR.
I think that a matte display becomes a problem with the high resolution displays where the matter coating can make the display look more blurred. It was less of a problem back when the dot pitch of screen was much coarser.
I could see that being the case. The sharpness of the 5K was quite a jump up in the user experience category. (For the first time, seeing designs go from the monitor to print was kind of a let down.) A matte coating taking any of that away would kinda suck.
Glossy also tends to make color to “shining pop out”, if you like the look.
Then “they’d be all over you”?.I agree — we could get 3
But does 24" for 1k and 27" for 2.5k even seem realistic? It sounds way off to me.
I agree, unless there are major improvements over the LG Ultrafine, I would expect a $100-200 price increase over current offer. On the other hand 120Hz and doing 24”@5k; 27@@6k could “justify” 24@@$1k; 27”@$1.9k
Yeah, a bigger iPad would be cool, if it had a stand. How big could Apple make an iPad, that still charges by USBC and has battery? It would only need a low power A12 chip, to Universal Control over to a M2 Mac with battery.
