Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple should almost never create products that works like those from other companies or mimics them. There are hundreds of displays out there from other companies ranging from decent to insanely great.

If there are 50 great 4K monitors out there, we don't need Apple to create the 51st. Just buy one of the 50 existing monitors.

As Tim Cook has said several times, Apple should only create products if they feel they can improve on the situation or make something which separates it from the competition. It usually means doing things which are niche and specific.

A lot of Apple products, including their displays, are optimised for very specific use cases and often with integration with their other products. If you fall outside those very specific use cases, the product from Apple is usually ill-suited for you. It's very often Apple's way or it sucks really bad.

If there are 1 billion PC and Mac users there, 99% of them would be better served with a non-Apple display, but that still leaves out 10 million users who might be served well by the Apple Studio Display. And. may only 0.1 or 0.2% will end up buying it.

Apple does specific computing and if you are into versatile computing, you will often be unhappy with Apple.
This is a great comment, thank you.

One thing I will take issue with, however, is the idea that this precludes Apple from designing, say, a 24" or 27" mid-level monitor that would fit in the sub-$900 category and would fit the needs of 90% or so of Mac users. It wouldn't need to be "2x scaled" or even be "retina", but it would still interface with Apple's OS and fit Apple's design language.

There are a ton of Mac users who want something like this, and to be honest, that sector of Mac users feel like Apple is giving them the Italian salute by over-engineering a display that adds a bunch of features that add nothing to their workflow, but that they nonetheless have to pay for just to get Apple's build quality and OS integration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane
System requirements doesn't need justifications. They are axiomatic. It's the privilege of the manufacture to set them for whatever reasons they want or no reason at all.

I don't understand why some people need justification for such things. Just accept them and act accordingly. If you don't like the system requirements, don't buy the product.
This logic reeks of "sheep" 'just accept it and don't ask any questions'. I don't think so buddy.
 
It's something Ste ve Jobs imprinted on Apple's culture:

"It's really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them." -Steve Jobs, Business Week, 1998
Exactly. If Henry Ford asked his customers what they wanted they would have said “ a faster horse”
 
This is a 100% Apple-created problem. How many displays have you seen on the market where 1) they shipped on day one with a software defect, hindering a major feature that the manufacturer touted as a selling point for that display, and then 2) were so tied to not only a specific operating system, but a specific version of said operating system, that said software defect cannot be fixed for some recent purchasers of that display, unless they buy a new computer or at the very least, upgrade their operating system?

Not too many displays on the market right now where "using with unsupported systems" is even a thing people have to worry about.

I gotta say, someone else put it very well - that $1700 monitor is looking less and less like a good value every time someone writes about their experience with it.
Lots. I have one of them, the Samsung Odyssey G9, the 240Hz 49” ultrawide monitor. It was so bad when it came out with physical problems, such as leaking light, frame that detached from the screen, and other serious QC problems that Samsung pulled the display from market, recalled the ones they had already sold, and reissued it several months later. When the next version came out, its main feature was broken for Nvidia cards, which was limited to only 120Hz because DSC was busted. It took them a few firmware revisions to finally fix the problem. If you want a disastrous release, that monitor is a great example. The Apple monitor, by comparison, was a smooth release with only a single software problem, and at that, the feature worked. It just had a somewhat poor picture. I bought the G9 because its second release came with a huge price cut.

I finally broke down and bought the Studio Display since I couldn’t care less what the webcam looks like. As long as it works, it’s good. Nobody expects a great webcam, which is why it didn’t matter, since most people still webcam with 720p potato cams. Everyone always looks awful in conference calls. If Apple fixes it, great. If they don’t, I don’t care. It’s not broken, just noisy. If I were using the camera to take photos for my permanent scrapbook, I’d care, but as a webcam? Meh.

The rest of the monitor is excellent. The sound is awesome. The picture is second to none. The best feature of all is instant wake. With PC’s or Macs, I’ve had problems waking up monitors of all kinds, sometimes having to reboot or unplug/replug the monitor. That is frustrating to no end when your monitor won’t wake up. It’s not just the Mac. It happens on Windows as well. The Studio Display has never failed to wake up. And it wakes up in less than a second. With this feature alone, I rate this monitor as the best on the market because it actually wakes up when I want it to, every time.

There are literally no monitors that look better, short of buying Apple’s $5000 monitor, which I would never do. The build quality is also top notch. It is the best monitor I’ve ever had. I currently have three: the Samsung Odyssey, an LG 38” ultrawide, and now the Apple Studio, plus a couple others in storage. If you like a crisp screen with very sharp text there are no better options on the market, period. Since I’ve had multiple eye surgeries and suffer from glaucoma, this monitor is a godsend.
 
There is only Apple "hate" (too strong a term, but you chose it) because it makes no sense to OS limit a monitor in this way. The parts inside don't justify or necessitate such a restriction.
I don’t think the monitor fails to work. It works on Windows machines and Linux machines, which last I checked weren’t running Monterey 12.3. The features such as Center Stage and Spatial audio do not work with any OS’es short of Monterey 12.3, which makes sense. Windows machines aren’t going to have Siri, Center Stage, or Spatial audio drivers, and neither are older Mac OS’es since Apple doesn’t update those anymore except for security updates. If you’re running an older version of Monterey, it won’t know what to do with those features either because the proper drivers aren’t present.

The monitor works as a monitor with ordinary speakers and ordinary webcam on any other OS, but opens up its special features for those running the required OS.

Why can’t you install the beta on any OS except the current beta? Because the feature is a beta. It sort of makes sense for a beta to be installed by a beta. It’s not available for anyone running Monterey 12.3 either… because the fix is still in beta. Once it’s out of beta, 12.3 users will probably be able to download the firmware update.

The reason why there’s an OS requirement is to tell users what is needed to run the full feature set of the monitor. If it were just an ordinary monitor with a regular webcam and ordinary stereo speakers, Apple probably wouldn’t even list an OS requirement. If they didn’t, they’d get huge complaints about why Center Stage isn’t working on High Sierra or Big Sur.
 
At least Rene will have content to spit out another 14 videos. I was getting worried.

Interesting they released it as beta. Seems a bit excessive. Maybe because it’s an iOS device I guess? ?‍♂️
Or perhaps they feel more is needed. This is their first cut. They’re probably asking for input from beta testers, which allows them to fine tune things more.
 
after the FW update my monitor no longer connects to MBP (16" M1 Max) unless its plugged into the left USB-C port closest to the power and MBP is open. When closing lid the monitor shuts off and cant get it back on unless I open lid. Previous to update it worked perfectly on any of the 3 USB-C ports even with MBP closed when initially connecting.

EDIT: RESTART FIXED ISSUE
 
Last edited:
How long do updates like this stay in beta? That is, when should I expect to be able to install the update on a machine not running the beta?
 
As an Mac user from 1987 I can only remain disappointed in the new Studio Display as another case of Apple hubris.
It seems too expensive, having a dated feature-set, with unspecified future utility of its on-board chip. Not even mentioning the webcam!

While the Apple Studio itself in its two flavors are indeed welcome improvements over Intel offerings, I find the large fan/heat sink configurations a bit mystifying. How does mac-mini and MacBook Air exist with near-Studio performance without them? Yes, I realize that the additional connectors require additional space, but the Studio seems a big, heavy fan-box!

All I want is a 27" iMac! Call it "Pro" or not, I really don't care. Give me a matte/semi-matte 27" 5K and reasonably fast Apple Silicon. That seems such a simple ask... and you'd sell a kazillion! You can even pack the "brain" in your existing big box if you can't fit it elegantly into the chin or behind the screen, though I'd really like it all-in-one.

I really don't know why you're so slow on this. My Intel iMac is getting old!
 
What confuses me the most about the Studio Display: It's not obvious what all that A13 junk is actually doing for the product.

Because .... All the M1 Macs, ranging from the MBA to the M1 Ultra Studio, have the hardware to do all the things the A13 is doing in the Studio Display. Yeah, I know, this way you can now enjoy some Apple Silicon gimmickery on your 2015 intel MacBook Pro. But is that actually a selling point for people? Isn't this trying to cater to an audience that isn't there? Plus it's the STUDIO display for the Mac STUDIO, but it ships with half an iPhone inside to just have Hey Siri on legacy hardware.

That's insane.

And no, it's not taking "CPU cycles" off your Mac. The signal processing and AI stuff wouldn't run on your CPU. Apple SoCs have dedicated hardware for that. Plus you M1 is plenty fast. It can handle a bit of audio processing.
 
What confuses me the most about the Studio Display: It's not obvious what all that A13 junk is actually doing for the product.

Because .... All the M1 Macs, ranging from the MBA to the M1 Ultra Studio, have the hardware to do all the things the A13 is doing in the Studio Display. Yeah, I know, this way you can now enjoy some Apple Silicon gimmickery on your 2015 intel MacBook Pro. But is that actually a selling point for people? Isn't this trying to cater to an audience that isn't there? Plus it's the STUDIO display for the Mac STUDIO, but it ships with half an iPhone inside to just have Hey Siri on legacy hardware.

That's insane.

And no, it's not taking "CPU cycles" off your Mac. The signal processing and AI stuff wouldn't run on your CPU. Apple SoCs have dedicated hardware for that. Plus you M1 is plenty fast. It can handle a bit of audio processing.
I few reviewers had commented on this, and through it was in part down to the chip shortage... and it was 'easier' for Apple to just re-purpose an A13 than it was to develop a new chip to control the monitor.

But I know exactly what you mean, over engineered... but that's why we love Apple :)
 
What confuses me the most about the Studio Display: It's not obvious what all that A13 junk is actually doing for the product.
As someone who tends to hang on to monitors for a bloody long time before passing them down - I shudder to think.

Given Apple's history, I would be completely unsurprised to come into these forums sometime within the next five to seven years to hear news about Apple discontinuing support for "A13-based monitors" in whatever the latest Mac OS being released at that time will be. And no doubt, there will be plenty of Stockholm-syndromesque comments along the line of "you should have known when you bought this" when people rightly complain that their perfectly working monitor is no longer working as designed when they want to upgrade their Mac.

The A13 chip included in the monitor absolutely screams "planned obsolescence".
 
As someone who tends to hang on to monitors for a bloody long time before passing them down - I shudder to think.

Given Apple's history, I would be completely unsurprised to come into these forums sometime within the next five to seven years to hear news about Apple discontinuing support for "A13-based monitors" in whatever the latest Mac OS being released at that time will be. And no doubt, there will be plenty of Stockholm-syndromesque comments along the line of "you should have known when you bought this" when people rightly complain that their perfectly working monitor is no longer working as designed when they want to upgrade their Mac.

The A13 chip included in the monitor absolutely screams "planned obsolescence".
Actually, what it screams to me is failed iMac Pro. I think the reason the Studio Display looks like a computer inside is because it WAS a computer. I suspect Apple failed to make an iMac Pro due to some technical difficulty. Maybe it was an inability to cool an M1 Ultra in that chassis, not surprising given the size of the fans on the Mac Studio. The cooling system in the Studio Display is overkill since it doesn’t need fans that big to cool a standard LCD panel and the A13, both of which could have been passively cooled.

If Apple indeed failed to make a 27” iMac Pro, the natural thing to do would be to split it into two. The old chassis became a monitor and the Mac Studio became the computer. The A13 would have been necessary as a replacement for the removed M1 Max/Ultra that had been intended for the chassis. And since Apple was still making an iPhone 11 and SE 2, the A13 with 64GB was the least powerful A-series chip Apple was still making that could run Center Stage/Siri/Spatial Audio. It would have cost Apple more to bring a lesser A-series processor with less storage back into production than to just use what they were already making.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jakey rolling
How stable is 12.4b3 and is it worth it for the level of improvement on ASD? Besides Apple stuff, most of my day is on Microsoft Office and Zoom.
 
How stable is 12.4b3 and is it worth it for the level of improvement on ASD? Besides Apple stuff, most of my day is on Microsoft Office and Zoom.
Having seen the before and after comparisons of the ASD webcam fix, I would stay away from macOS 12.4b3.

The potential for trouble with beta macOS software outweighs the benefit of a slightly less aggressive webcam crop.
 
I few reviewers had commented on this, and through it was in part down to the chip shortage... and it was 'easier' for Apple to just re-purpose an A13 than it was to develop a new chip to control the monitor.

But I know exactly what you mean, over engineered... but that's why we love Apple :)
Frankly I don't love Apple for over-engineering their products. Quite frankly I like them because they aren't as horrible as the alternatives most of the time, and usually don't look like stuff cats puts in a litter box.

And equally frankly: throwing the A13 in there, running full iOS ... that actually screams under-engineering. I could get behind the chip shortage argument, but then you could still run tailor made software on that SoC. That it runs iOS and probably some hastily cobbled together applications really screams hack job.

I believe the Studio Display really is the repurposed new iMac and that for reasons unknown (thermal? marketing? Tim Apple idea?) they decided relatively late in the prototype stage to make it a monitor only, but wanted to retain the webcam and speaker features, however then came to the conclusion that Apple customers would rip them a new one if they only worked on Apple Silicon chips, so instead of just wiring up the hardware to a "dumb" Thunderbolt controller they threw the A13 in there (which, as of now, is discontinued in all iPhones except the 11), and since they then had hardly time to do a decent job on the software that thing is running full iOS.

So, I guess, since we're already in the era of software that's launched now, finished later, we kinda see the dawn of the same with hardware now. Still, I believe Apple will "update" this model in less than two years, and that it will be one of the shorter-lived things Apple is currently selling. The fact that this monitor could just become unuseable if Apple decides to no longer support it in MacOS is just the tip of the ice berg with this.

No, I'm not buying.
 
Lol, The camera on monitor firmwares below 15.5 sucks, so if you’re using this display with Big Sur or Catalina or iPad or Windows or Linux, the camera will suck, period. This necessitates a firmware update if you want a good camera experience.

I get that firmware updates won’t work in linux and windows… but not on Big Sur? Some macs support Big Sur but not Monterey. So you mean to tell me that you have to have a Mac with Monterey to use a monitor ???? For some people that means needing to buy a new Mac.
If your mac cant be updated to monterey then you probably dont nabe the display. No one buys 1600$ monitor for their 200$ macbook
 
Cany anyone confirm that the Studio Display firmware update popped up in software update after joining the beta program?

Or was the studio display firmware update included inside the 12.4 Beta 3 Update ?
it's not included in the actual beta 3 update but is a separate downloadable update; however that download is "checked" by default so if you don't want it, be sure to uncheck that update choice before installing the 12.4.3 update.

It's not clear what would happen if you did install it (say on an external portable drive) and then re-booted into 12.3.1 OS.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.