Apple is Finally Making a Cheaper Display: What We Know

[fgengineer]

Most of the recent items released by Apply have mini LEDS. I don't seen any display in the market with FALD or mini LEDS that are less than $1000. The 4k ones tend to be more like $2000.

I think if Apple releases a 27" display it will be FALD or mini LED and will probably be at least $2000, but more like $2500 for Apple preferred margins.

I do want to upgrade in size so I do want to go for the 32" display. Hopefully, Apple updates the XDR display too, but I don't see any reduction in price for that one. Actually, I think the price will go up by 1k, but hopefully the resolution goes up by 1K too to 7K.

 

[jdb8167]

Nah..

I had an HP z27q for a bit - (5k monitor)

It was matte and looked fantastic

HP says that display is 2560x1440, not 5K.

Sorry, the one I found was the HP z27q G3. Stupid naming conventions there. Carry on.

 

[mrdogcat]

If it were bigger than 27" (or heck, if it were ultra-wide) I would consider upgrading, but $/£2000+ for just a resolution upgrade I think I'll sadly once again pass and carry on with my good old thunderbolt display.

When shelling out that much money for an upgrade I expect a size AND resolution increase.

 

[Lammers]

If it were bigger than 27" (or heck, if it were ultra-wide) I would consider upgrading, but $/£2000+ for just a resolution upgrade I think I'll sadly once again pass and carry on with my good old thunderbolt display.

When shelling out that much money for an upgrade I expect a size AND resolution increase.

Interesting that you see it as “just” a resolution upgrade. Switching from a non-retina screen (e.g. 27” QHD) to a retina screen (e.g. 27” 5K) is one of the most impactful upgrades you can do for your computing experience.

 

[Lammers]

Then “they’d be all over you”?.
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

$100-200 over the LG 5K? I don’t think that’s enough of a gap. The LG 5K at $1300 sets a baseline in the market, but it’s a fairly mediocre product - I expect Apple would want to clearly differentiate a new screen from the LG, with a substantially better product and at a correspondingly substantially higher price.

Those resolutions don’t make sense IMHO. Apple has specific ideas about pixels per inch and what constitutes a Retina display in different product types. Any new 24” would be 4.5K, a 27” would be 5K and 32” would be 6K, IMHO. I don’t see any reason why Apple would increase the resolution at those screen sizes.

 

[hardwickj]

$100-200 over the LG 5K? I don’t think that’s enough of a gap. The LG 5K at $1300 sets a baseline in the market, but it’s a fairly mediocre product - I expect Apple would want to clearly differentiate a new screen from the LG, with a substantially better product and at a correspondingly substantially higher price.

Those resolutions don’t make sense IMHO. Apple has specific ideas about pixels per inch and what constitutes a Retina display in different product types. Any new 24” would be 4.5K, a 27” would be 5K and 32” would be 6K, IMHO. I don’t see any reason why Apple would increase the resolution at those screen sizes.

I'm not so sure about the resolutions part. A common complaint w/ the XDR is that @ 2x Retina everything is just too big. And when the XDR was released, I'm not sure anything greater than 6k would have been practical given IO + GPU constraints. Too many products would have struggled to drive it correctly. That's no longer the case however.

I'm not sure what the compute requirements are to apply DSC to an 8k source, but I have to imagine rendering 8k and then compressing it on top of that would have ruled out the majority of Apple's computers at that time, especially the MacBook's.

 

[Lammers]

I'm not so sure about the resolutions part. A common complaint w/ the XDR is that @ 2x Retina everything is just too big. And when the XDR was released, I'm not sure anything greater than 6k would have been practical given IO + GPU constraints. Too many products would have struggled to drive it correctly. That's no longer the case however.

I'm not sure what the compute requirements are to apply DSC to an 8k source, but I have to imagine rendering 8k and then compressing it on top of that would have ruled out the majority of Apple's computers at that time, especially the MacBook's.

The XDR is the same pixels-per-inch as the 27” 5K, which is the same pixels-per-inch as the new 24” iMac, which is the same pixels-per-inch as the 21” 4K iMac. Apple clearly has a strong opinion on what the right PPI is for a desktop display. This ship has sailed, IMHO.

 

[420ravens]

$2500 isn’t a consumer-oriented display. There is absolutely no technical or cost related reason why they couldn’t give us a 27” display in the $1200-$1500 price range with speakers, a camera, usb-c hub, power for MacBooks etc. The entry iMac 27” is $1799 and is often sold for much less.

This. And that's going to be the interesting part. Trying to sell a monitor the same as in an iMac for more than the iMac is a hard sell. Putting 'Pro' on it isn't really going to fly either because pros can use Eizo for colour accuracy and Eizo would be cheaper or just buy an LG or their new OLED tech. Apple may have to insult early adopters of the PRO XDR because they need to improve the tech and lower the price. Apple haven't been shy to cannibalize old product in the past. $2500 for 27" monitor- good luck. I spent £400 on a 4k Dell 27" 7 years ago and it's fantastic and still going strong as ever. Pro Mac Mini and great quality monitor and you're way way better future proofed, very old iMacs are junked. Gunna be interesting but £1000 would be my limit if I did go for it and it'd have to be at least 5k, and have something special to be worth the upgrade.

 

[tcphoto1]

I will not be spending $2500 on a 27" display unless it spits out $100 dollars bills when I turn it on. I use my MBP in clamshell mode and an old Apple Cinema Display, I am looking for a replacement so I'll have to look elsewhere.

 

[fgengineer]

The XDR is the same pixels-per-inch as the 27” 5K, which is the same pixels-per-inch as the new 24” iMac, which is the same pixels-per-inch as the 21” 4K iMac. Apple clearly has a strong opinion on what the right PPI is for a desktop display. This ship has sailed, IMHO.

Actually, the ship had sailed until recently. The new MacBook Pro’s did increase the PPI so there is a small chance of an increase.

 

[Boil]

Gonna say it again (since folks be throwing around some silly resolution speculation), Apple will most likely stick with the iMac panels for their stand-alone Apple-branded displays:

• 24" 4.5K
• 27" 5K
• 32" 6K

Now, Apple could move the Pro Display XDR (32" 6K) to an 8K panel, this would give us a 280dpi panel...

 

[turbineseaplane]

Gonna say it again (since folks be throwing around some silly resolution speculation), Apple will most likely stick with the iMac panels for their stand-alone Apple-branded displays:

• 24" 4.5K
• 27" 5K
• 32" 6K

Now, Apple could move the Pro Display XDR (32" 6K) to an 8K panel, this would give us a 280dpi panel...

Agreed

What are your pricing thoughts?

 

[Boil]

Agreed

What are your pricing thoughts?

Apple is Finally Making a Cheaper Display: What We Know

Apple-branded displays: 24" 4.5K - $799 27" 5K - $1199 32" 6K - $1799 Features: Thunderbolt 4 Mini LED / IPS 120Hz ProMotion 1080p webcam Six-speaker array Three-mic array 3.5mm headphone jack (auto-switching high/low impedance) (2) USB 3.1 Gen2 (USB-A) ports Gigabit Ethernet (RJ45) port

forums.macrumors.com

 

[turbineseaplane]

Apple is Finally Making a Cheaper Display: What We Know

Apple-branded displays: 24" 4.5K - $799 27" 5K - $1199 32" 6K - $1799 Features: Thunderbolt 4 Mini LED / IPS 120Hz ProMotion 1080p webcam Six-speaker array Three-mic array 3.5mm headphone jack (auto-switching high/low impedance) (2) USB 3.1 Gen2 (USB-A) ports Gigabit Ethernet (RJ45) port

forums.macrumors.com

I like the prices, but I really really doubt they'd be that low if ProMotion is involved

Panels at this pixel density, with the color accuracy and technologies Apple will want/use, simply cost way too much to think Apple would price the offerings as you laid out (with ProMotion)

Maybe PM would be an upgrade?
Or perhaps just on certain models/sizes?

 

[turbineseaplane]

One thing everyone has to keep in mind here..

Apple is not going to make these and not get their usual huge margins.

In fact, I think they find standalone displays to be a major PITA and will likely charge even more than expected partially due to that.

They will not make these with a goal to make them "accessible to everyone"
It's going to be a pricey upgrade to go first party monitor with Apple.



(btw: I would line up to bash myself and eat so much crow if wrong -- I am literally dying to be wrong on this. Under Tim Cook's Apple, I don't think I will be wrong.)

 

[jdb8167]

I'm not so sure about the resolutions part. A common complaint w/ the XDR is that @ 2x Retina everything is just too big. And when the XDR was released, I'm not sure anything greater than 6k would have been practical given IO + GPU constraints. Too many products would have struggled to drive it correctly. That's no longer the case however.

I'm not sure what the compute requirements are to apply DSC to an 8k source, but I have to imagine rendering 8k and then compressing it on top of that would have ruled out the majority of Apple's computers at that time, especially the MacBook's.

8K (7680x4320) @ 40” is 220 PPI. Just about exactly Apple’s normal dpi preference. I could see Apple switching the next XDR from a 32” 6K to a 35”-40” 8K. Also, the PPI on the 14” and 16” MBP IS 254 PPI. So an 8K XDR would be the same pixel density at about 34.5”.

 

[Mr.PT]

$100-200 over the LG 5K? I don’t think that’s enough of a gap. The LG 5K at $1300 sets a baseline in the market, but it’s a fairly mediocre product - I expect Apple would want to clearly differentiate a new screen from the LG, with a substantially better product and at a correspondingly substantially higher price.

Those resolutions don’t make sense IMHO. Apple has specific ideas about pixels per inch and what constitutes a Retina display in different product types. Any new 24” would be 4.5K, a 27” would be 5K and 32” would be 6K, IMHO. I don’t see any reason why Apple would increase the resolution at those screen sizes.

I don’t expect Apple to release a Display inferior to 14/16” MBP@254ppi or 12.9”iPad Pro@ 264ppi XDR liquid retinas.
It would feel awkwardly unpleasant to get your machine hooked to an inferior display.
So 27”@254ppi=3363*5976;
24”@254ppi=2989*5313.
Hopefully higher production could enable “reasonable” prices, as going over $2k would hinder the volume sales which Apple could get from this.
PS: IMHO Spec wise LG Ultrafine 5k is not mediocre.Just isn’t an Apple display with matching built quality and design.Also needs a refreshment update, hence the most welcomed Apple Display rumours.?

 

[Lammers]

I don’t expect Apple to release a Display inferior to 14/16” MBP@254ppi or 12.9”iPad Pro@ 264ppi XDR liquid retinas.
It would feel awkwardly unpleasant to get your machine hooked to an inferior display.
So 27”@254ppi=3363*5976;
24”@254ppi=2989*5313.
Hopefully higher production could enable “reasonable” prices, as going over $2k would hinder the volume sales which Apple could get from this.
PS: IMHO Spec wise LG Ultrafine 5k is not mediocre.Just isn’t an Apple display with matching built quality and design.Also needs a refreshment update, hence the most welcomed Apple Display rumours.?

“awkwardly unpleasant”?!? Sorry but that’s completely untrue. How is a 218ppi display, which has long been widely accepted as the benchmark for “retina” on an external display, ever going to be “awkwardly unpleasant”?!? How many of the reviews of the 14” or 16” MBP have mentioned any such thing about their use with 218 PPI external displays?

I use a new 16” MacBook Pro with two LG 5K displays every day. There is no noticeable difference in resolution between the internal display and the external displays.

On the point about “volume sales”, that’s not how Apple operates.

 

[Lammers]

Actually, the ship had sailed until recently. The new MacBook Pro’s did increase the PPI so there is a small chance of an increase.

You’re right. But Apple does have different PPI for different device types, driven by typical viewing distances from the screen. So a desktop monitor might not warrant that same uplift. And I think the new iMac sticking with 218 suggests that, but you’re right that it might happen.

 

[AppelGeenyus]

“awkwardly unpleasant”?!? Sorry but that’s completely untrue. How is a 218ppi display, which has long been widely accepted as the benchmark for “retina” on an external display, ever going to be “awkwardly unpleasant”?!? How many of the reviews of the 14” or 16” MBP have mentioned any such thing about their use with 218 PPI external displays?

I use a new 16” MacBook Pro with two LG 5K displays every day. There is no noticeable difference in resolution between the internal display and the external displays.

On the point about “volume sales”, that’s not how Apple operates.

If all of Apples Mac displays were 350ppi some people here would complain that 254ppi is "too blurry".

 

[Mr.PT]

One thing everyone has to keep in mind here..

Apple is not going to make these and not get their usual huge margins.

In fact, I think they find standalone displays to be a major PITA and will likely charge even more than expected partially due to that.

They will not make these with a goal to make them "accessible to everyone"
It's going to be a pricey upgrade to go first party monitor with Apple.



(btw: I would line up to bash myself and eat so much crow if wrong -- I am literally dying to be wrong on this. Under Tim Cook's Apple, I don't think I will be wrong.)

They have all that covered already with 32” XDR and it’s anecdotal $1k stand. Repeating the same mistake and expecting a different outcome isn’t something I see Apple doing. The “reasonable” prices of 14/16” MBP seems to confirm this and given the delivery delays I suspect Apple was happily surprised by demand.So unless these are about reasonable priced 24/27” Apple specs and design displays, can’t see the point.

 

[LonestarOne]

Interesting that you see it as “just” a resolution upgrade. Switching from a non-retina screen (e.g. 27” QHD) to a retina screen (e.g. 27” 5K) is one of the most impactful upgrades you can do for your computing experience.

Especially for video editing, where it allows the display of a 4K video at full resolution while having tool windows open at the same time. That is a huge advantage over having 4K video on one monitor and tools on another.

 

[Mr.PT]

“awkwardly unpleasant”?!? Sorry but that’s completely untrue. How is a 218ppi display, which has long been widely accepted as the benchmark for “retina” on an external display, ever going to be “awkwardly unpleasant”?!? How many of the reviews of the 14” or 16” MBP have mentioned any such thing about their use with 218 PPI external displays?

I use a new 16” MacBook Pro with two LG 5K displays every day. There is no noticeable difference in resolution between the internal display and the external displays.

On the point about “volume sales”, that’s not how Apple operates.

I can tell you I do notice a difference between my 2018 MBP and my 12.9 iPad Pro displays. Obviously ppi and viewing distance are correlated. But the issue here is how and who Apple will be targeting with these “cheaper displays”.
$1k/$2.5k for 24”/27” current iMac Display is a total miss IMHO. So either these will be “higher spec” or price has to be around $100-$200 increase over LG current offer.
Not sure what you mean about how Apple operates regarding volume sales, but the demand for the reasonable priced 14/16” MBP vs the “showcase” 30” XDR display may suggest this time around Apple is seriously committed in increasing Mac sales and relevance.

 

[Mr.PT]

If all of Apples Mac displays were 350ppi some people here would complain that 254ppi is "too blurry".

Problem is not what you see is about what you can not “unsee”.

 

[rembert]

I do use my Macbook Pro 16 with a 27 4K display professionally. Both at home and at the office. I don't see what I'm missing out with my current LG 4K display (both bought at Black Friday sales, different years). Would like to see some side-by-side test with that new Apple display and the LG. It's not like I feel I'm missing something when working but maybe I am? So, Apple, do you have the guts to have such a LG 4K display at the Apple Store next to those fancy Apple displays?

To those guys here who were talking about their Apple ][ displays: mine was an discarded amber terminal screen for which I replaced some electronics so it could handle my Hercules graphics card. Being a student (social sciences) I couldn't afford a real monitor. And no, my Apple wasn't even a real one - I did solder a clone, with a copied Apple ROM.