Apple Releases Studio Display 16.4 Firmware Beta

[AndiG]

How is DPI? Is it retina with true 2,5k work area? Does it have 10Gbps USB-C rear ports? no thanks, enjoy your display (which I like) but Studio display is another thing.

5 and 6K panels are spreading right now, you do not need a complex firmware and Apple silicon chips to drive a simple display. Apple is on the wrong track with its hardware designs.

 

[Hyperchaotic]

What could they change or fix?

It has a webcam, so anything with how it captures the video and manipulates it, communications protocols, tweaking power save modes, how it boots, updates to the microphone array and beamforming algorithms, changes to the speaker system/spacial audio, dolby atmos, truetone, display modes, etc. etc.

 

[Jorbanead]

I think you may have misinterpreted the original poster’s point—or perhaps I have.

I took the post to mean that it’s wild that a monitor has an SoC and an OS to run at all—not that it should be running macOS in lieu of iOS.

How many monitors in your lifetime have you used that had their own SoC + OS—of any kind—installed?

I was thinking more the other direction, why does a monitor need a full SoC and iOS at all.

I think most monitors have some sort of SoC and OS on them. It was likely that using older iPhone chips was more cost-effective and easier to use than using off the shelf SoC parts like most monitors use. Their chips and OS already support everything the monitor needs and can better integrate into their ecosystem.

If the rumors are true and that the Studio Display is a failed attempt at building an Apple Silicon 27” iMac Pro, then it makes total sense. From the inner workings, it looks like an iMac, only with the motherboard replaced with a lesser SoC. It’s thought that the “iMac” could run the M1 Max and M1 Ultra, but I suspect they couldn’t cool the Ultra and aborted, hence the Mac Studio was born with humongous fans and heat sink. But the Mac Studio needed a monitor to go with it, so Apple repurposed the “iMac” and turned it into a monitor. Rather than tear out the guts and start over, they did the easy thing: they stuck in a cheaper SoC while leaving the rest the same.

It explains why it has 64GB of storage on it even though it’s only using about 2GB. If it had started life as a monitor, Apple would have customized a motherboard for it, but starting life as an iMac, they had to improvise and get something out the door to match the Mac Studio’s release date. They used an SoC and motherboard that they were already making. Two versions of iPhones were running the same A13 and storage configuration, so they just stole parts from other products. 64GB was the smallest configuration they already had on hand. It also explains why Ross Young kept changing his mind on whether Apple was coming out with a 27” monitor or 27” iMac.

This is exactly what I think too. The internals of the studio display are just too over engineered for what it is. It’s using the same display apple has been using for what? A decade now? With speakers and a webcam. Surely that doesn’t need a beefy power supply, fans, huge mobo, all that storage. Something seemed off about this display from the start. And the price too? You used to be able to get a full 27” iMac (with the exact same screen) for close to the same price. Surely the manufacturing costs of that screen have gone down too?

I fully agree. Studio Display was supposed to be 27” iMac but Apple couldn’t support the chips inside. Chip design starts ~3 years before release, so they were working on the Ultra chip back in 2019. I think around 2021 they realized they couldn’t put this in an iMac and changed gears.

 

[DrumApple]

My Studio Display connected to my Mac Pro is always wonky. When I wake from sleep it wakes at a downscaled size and takes a split second to properly size up, buggy. Sometimes all my app windows will remain at the downsized resolution, usually not but sometimes it happens. Other issue is that it seems like it consumes a lot of resources being plugged into the Studio Display vs my slightly smaller Dell monitor I came from. The webcam quality is also mediocre quality at best. It's just ok quality overall, too expensive to not have the best quality. Definitely gaps to improve.

 

[MRrainer]

It seems the anti-glare nano-coating is really, really great - but apart from that, I cannot imagine spending that much money on such an - otherwise - inferior - IMHO - display.

I got five years warranty out-of-the-box with my 32" Eizos. Their only downside is that I cannot turn them 90° - I'd probably have to look elsewhere for a display that can do that (Dell probably) - and buy the five-year warranty.

 

[GLTirebiter]

Being able to adjust zoom and centering on the webcam would be good.

 

[KPOM]

If the rumors are true and that the Studio Display is a failed attempt at building an Apple Silicon 27” iMac Pro, then it makes total sense. From the inner workings, it looks like an iMac, only with the motherboard replaced with a lesser SoC. It’s thought that the “iMac” could run the M1 Max and M1 Ultra, but I suspect they couldn’t cool the Ultra and aborted, hence the Mac Studio was born with humongous fans and heat sink. But the Mac Studio needed a monitor to go with it, so Apple repurposed the “iMac” and turned it into a monitor. Rather than tear out the guts and start over, they did the easy thing: they stuck in a cheaper SoC while leaving the rest the same.

It explains why it has 64GB of storage on it even though it’s only using about 2GB. If it had started life as a monitor, Apple would have customized a motherboard for it, but starting life as an iMac, they had to improvise and get something out the door to match the Mac Studio’s release date. They used an SoC and motherboard that they were already making. Two versions of iPhones were running the same A13 and storage configuration, so they just stole parts from other products. 64GB was the smallest configuration they already had on hand. It also explains why Ross Young kept changing his mind on whether Apple was coming out with a 27” monitor or 27” iMac.

They could have easily put in an M1 or M1 Pro and marketed it as a larger consumer-oriented iMac.

 

[threesixty360]

They could have easily put in an M1 or M1 Pro and marketed it as a larger consumer-oriented iMac.

If the rumors are true and that the Studio Display is a failed attempt at building an Apple Silicon 27” iMac Pro, then it makes total sense. From the inner workings, it looks like an iMac, only with the motherboard replaced with a lesser SoC. It’s thought that the “iMac” could run the M1 Max and M1 Ultra, but I suspect they couldn’t cool the Ultra and aborted, hence the Mac Studio was born with humongous fans and heat sink. But the Mac Studio needed a monitor to go with it, so Apple repurposed the “iMac” and turned it into a monitor. Rather than tear out the guts and start over, they did the easy thing: they stuck in a cheaper SoC while leaving the rest the same.

It explains why it has 64GB of storage on it even though it’s only using about 2GB. If it had started life as a monitor, Apple would have customized a motherboard for it, but starting life as an iMac, they had to improvise and get something out the door to match the Mac Studio’s release date. They used an SoC and motherboard that they were already making. Two versions of iPhones were running the same A13 and storage configuration, so they just stole parts from other products. 64GB was the smallest configuration they already had on hand. It also explains why Ross Young kept changing his mind on whether Apple was coming out with a 27” monitor or 27” iMac.

The old iMac were just laptop chips stuck in a monitor. The iMac Pro was just something they did because they didn’t have a Mac Pro ready. So the same principle applies, they could have just put a Mac mini soc in the monitor without any cooling and had a 27 inch imac.

I think they deliberately stopped it because they were worried that the Mac Studio wouldn’t sell if they had an imac 27 with m1 in it.

The problem with the m chips is that each core runs at the same speed at every class level. It’s just you have more cores in some and maybe some extra processing stuff for video (prores etc).

I think that causes a big marketing problem because the only real way they are differentiating things is by form factor. An iMac 27 messes that all up as it has everything already that a Mac Studio would have and run at similar power. And it would have to start at a minimum of 3k. Which is way more than the last 27 inch mac started at. I just think it didn’t make sense for them marketing wise to have a Mac Studio and iMac 27 in the lineup price wise.

So they split the monitor and the machine into studio / studio monitor to keep the price point high. I think they would have made decision early on though, not last minute. As the pricing thing would have been obvious.

I also think apple are never going to price anything lower than their direct competitor. As they take the premium brand position. So if LG are selling a 5k monitor for 1100 apple must be 20/30% more. Mac Studio would have needed the monitor and that monitor has to come in at 1500 at least.
So where does an iMac 27 sit?

I suppose that means it could only be an iMac Pro level machine but that was a stop gap machine originally, not a real part of the product line.

On the whole it makes me feel like we will
Never see an iMac 27 unless the low end Mac Studio disappears and we just have the £4,000 max studio only.

 

[Jorbanead]

They could have easily put in an M1 or M1 Pro and marketed it as a larger consumer-oriented iMac.

They could have - but Apple only creates products for demographics when they know they’re going to sell several million units to justify the cost of RnD and manufacturing.

It’s possible Apple has internal data showing that an M1 27” iMac wouldn’t sell very well. Just a theory. They’d know this based on intel iMac sales looking at i5 vs i7 or i9 sales. Maybe they sold a considerable amount of i7 and i9 iMacs and that would translate to the M1 Pro and M1 Max chips. but they could also be trying to replace iMac Pro too which would be an M1 Ultra chip. Hard to say!

 

[KPOM]

The old iMac were just laptop chips stuck in a monitor. The iMac Pro was just something they did because they didn’t have a Mac Pro ready. So the same principle applies, they could have just put a Mac mini soc in the monitor without any cooling and had a 27 inch imac.

I think they deliberately stopped it because they were worried that the Mac Studio wouldn’t sell if they had an imac 27 with m1 in it.

The problem with the m chips is that each core runs at the same speed at every class level. It’s just you have more cores in some and maybe some extra processing stuff for video (prores etc).

I think that causes a big marketing problem because the only real way they are differentiating things is by form factor. An iMac 27 messes that all up as it has everything already that a Mac Studio would have and run at similar power. And it would have to start at a minimum of 3k. Which is way more than the last 27 inch mac started at. I just think it didn’t make sense for them marketing wise to have a Mac Studio and iMac 27 in the lineup price wise.

So they split the monitor and the machine into studio / studio monitor to keep the price point high. I think they would have made decision early on though, not last minute. As the pricing thing would have been obvious.

I also think apple are never going to price anything lower than their direct competitor. As they take the premium brand position. So if LG are selling a 5k monitor for 1100 apple must be 20/30% more. Mac Studio would have needed the monitor and that monitor has to come in at 1500 at least.
So where does an iMac 27 sit?

I suppose that means it could only be an iMac Pro level machine but that was a stop gap machine originally, not a real part of the product line.

On the whole it makes me feel like we will
Never see an iMac 27 unless the low end Mac Studio disappears and we just have the £4,000 max studio only.

The Mac Studio is essentially the “trash can” Mac Pro, hence the rumors that Apple might not give it an M2 Ultra if they release an actual “Mac Pro” with that chip. They waited until now to give the mini the Pro chip. For many the M2 Pro mini plus the ASD could be a replacement for the 27” iMac.

I don’t think we will see an iMac Pro again. All-in-one makes more sense for the consumer market anyway. When the Mac Studio and/or mini are upgraded again, you can just replace it without also having to replace the monitor. Or if Apple releases a higher end 27” monitor you can keep your existing Mac and just replace or add the display.

 

[Luki1979]

I like when people that doesn’t own this monitor complain here. I had all kinds 4k, 5k2k, 1440p from various brands. This is the first monitor I can have close, run it in full resolution and see the text properly. I’m a software developer so it’s important. I don’t need external camera or thunderbolt dock. It’s like a iMac to me but I can update the Mac driving it. I have zero issues with that thing. Just works

 

[tobybrut]

They could have easily put in an M1 or M1 Pro and marketed it as a larger consumer-oriented iMac.

They could have, but that would have left the M1 Ultra out to dry. The Mac Studio right now is the only computer that has that chip. Apple strategizes about computers that fill particular slots and they needed one for the Max/Ultra. The MacBook Pros already filled the Pro/Max and the Mac mini currently fills the M2/Pro position. Remember that the rumors were that Apple was shooting to replace both the iMac and iMac Pro with a single machine. The 24” iMac already sits in the M1 role. An iMac as you say wouldn’t fit with their strategy slots, but the Mac Studio does.

The M1 Ultra would have had no home without the Mac Studio, which if rumors are correct, was a pivot when they couldn’t make it work in the iMac chassis, hence why the Mac Studio came out a year after the M1 iMac. It isn’t often that Apple didn’t release a small and large iMac at the same time, so why the year difference?

The Mac Pro was supposed to fill the spot above the 27” iMac with the Ultra/Extreme. Lack of projected demand and probably difficulty with sticking four chips together into one has apparently canceled the Extreme. Note how Apple overlaps things:

M1 iMac/M2 MacBook Air and M2 MacBook Pro -> M2/M2 Pro Mac mini -> M2 Pro/M2 Max MacBook Pro -> M1 Max/Ultra Mac Studio.

There’d be an empty slot if they went with just a 27” M1 Pro iMac.

 

[tobybrut]

The old iMac were just laptop chips stuck in a monitor. The iMac Pro was just something they did because they didn’t have a Mac Pro ready. So the same principle applies, they could have just put a Mac mini soc in the monitor without any cooling and had a 27 inch imac.

I think they deliberately stopped it because they were worried that the Mac Studio wouldn’t sell if they had an imac 27 with m1 in it.

The problem with the m chips is that each core runs at the same speed at every class level. It’s just you have more cores in some and maybe some extra processing stuff for video (prores etc).

I think that causes a big marketing problem because the only real way they are differentiating things is by form factor. An iMac 27 messes that all up as it has everything already that a Mac Studio would have and run at similar power. And it would have to start at a minimum of 3k. Which is way more than the last 27 inch mac started at. I just think it didn’t make sense for them marketing wise to have a Mac Studio and iMac 27 in the lineup price wise.

So they split the monitor and the machine into studio / studio monitor to keep the price point high. I think they would have made decision early on though, not last minute. As the pricing thing would have been obvious.

I also think apple are never going to price anything lower than their direct competitor. As they take the premium brand position. So if LG are selling a 5k monitor for 1100 apple must be 20/30% more. Mac Studio would have needed the monitor and that monitor has to come in at 1500 at least.
So where does an iMac 27 sit?

I suppose that means it could only be an iMac Pro level machine but that was a stop gap machine originally, not a real part of the product line.

On the whole it makes me feel like we will
Never see an iMac 27 unless the low end Mac Studio disappears and we just have the £4,000 max studio only.

I seriously doubt this. Reason? Just take a look at the M1 Mac mini and M1 iMac. They have the same CPU and different form factors The mini is literally an iMac in a smaller box. Apple didn’t worry about this high volume market and one cannibalizing the other. Why would they worry about the M1 Max iMac cannibalizing a Mac Studio?

I think the theory that Apple worries about cannibalizing sales of its own gear needs to stop. They do it all the time with the prime example of the iPhone killing the cash cow iPod. Apple’s now working on stuff that could kill the iPhone by replacing it. You can point to the iPad Air cannibalizing the iPad Pro because they overlap. If sales estimates are correct, Mac Studio only makes up 4% of Apple’s Mac sales, so there really isn’t a whole lot to cannibalize anyway. I still think the Mac Studio exists only because they couldn’t make the iMac work with an M1 Ultra. There wouldn’t have been a Mac Studio to cannibalize.

 

[Jorbanead]

I think the theory that Apple worries about cannibalizing sales of its own gear needs to stop. They do it all the time.

Thank you! Agreed. Moreover, Apple wants you in on their ecosystem. Apple wants you to be a long-term customer. Apple doesn’t care if you buy a large iMac or a Mac Studio - they want you to buy Apple.

I think this grand conspiracy that apple purposeful dumped the large iMac and created the studio+display instead to somehow make more money needs to stop. The logic doesn’t make sense.

If my budget for a 27” iMac is $2,000, but now I have to buy something else, I’m not going to magically add another $1,600 for a display. I’m likely going to spend LESS on a Mac, and then be forced to buy a 3rd party display that’s cheaper in order to stay within my $2,000 budget (give or take a few hundred). Apple does try to up sell, but not THAT much.

Needless to say I could also buy 2 4K displays for the same price as the studio display.

 

[King_Kimbo]

Am I the only person on the planet who has no problem whatsoever with any of my kit?

Bought the Mac Studio and Studio Display on day 1 and never had an issue. Both of these have helped me immensely in creating and implementing brand new ideas and new artwork...

 

[tobybrut]

Am I the only person on the planet who has no problem whatsoever with any of my kit?

My Studio Display works flawlessly. The best feature any monitor has is the ability to reliably turn on instantly. I haven’t yet found another monitor that doesn’t have wake up problems. The Studio Display turns on instantly every time. With other monitors, regardless of whether I’m using a Mac or PC, they often fail to turn on, requiring reboots or turning on/off the monitors to wake them up.

 

[GraXXoR]

It’s weird that you have to update your monitor

It’s becoming the norm for “edgy” monitors, i feel.

I have a Samsung G9 Odyssey 49” curved monitor and it still doesn’t work properly on version 16 of its firmware.

The thing’s performance is a 💩 show when certain patterns are displayed.

 

[threesixty360]

I seriously doubt this. Reason? Just take a look at the M1 Mac mini and M1 iMac. They have the same CPU and different form factors The mini is literally an iMac in a smaller box. Apple didn’t worry about this high volume market and one cannibalizing the other. Why would they worry about the M1 Max iMac cannibalizing a Mac Studio?

I think the theory that Apple worries about cannibalizing sales of its own gear needs to stop. They do it all the time with the prime example of the iPhone killing the cash cow iPod. Apple’s now working on stuff that could kill the iPhone by replacing it. You can point to the iPad Air cannibalizing the iPad Pro because they overlap. If sales estimates are correct, Mac Studio only makes up 4% of Apple’s Mac sales, so there really isn’t a whole lot to cannibalize anyway. I still think the Mac Studio exists only because they couldn’t make the iMac work with an M1 Ultra. There wouldn’t have been a Mac Studio to cannibalize.

Cannibalising is more when you have a different product that does more or less the same as something else for better value. The Mac is one product range with several SKU's. If you hide the machine under your desk you cant tell when your using it what Mac your running. It could be Intel, m1, Mac Pro, MacBook attached to a monitor etc.. Its the same product.

I'm just saying that when you can sell to say 10% of all Mac buyers a 2K computer + 1.5k monitor and get those crazy margins from that, selling a powder blue iMac for 2.2K that does more or less the same thing is really going to impact the Mac Studio/apple studio sales.

That's a step beyond cannibalisation! For 1.3K cheaper you're doing pretty much the same thing.
The cost difference with base Mac-mini vs iMac 24 isn't that big when you factor in your own 24inch monitor and keyboard. But for macstudio + keyboard/mouse/studio displays that's a huge difference in price to what an equivalent iMac 27 would be.

It's also interesting that Apple have been slow to upgrade the existing iMac to m2 or any pro chips. Its not about cooling etc.. Its simply they will be losing money the higher end they go with these iMacs if they keep pace with m chips they have in their other devices.I feel like Apple thinks that iMacs are just too good a deal basically. Too many "pro's" were buying 27inch iMacs and getting a little too much value it seems.

 

[Dark-Signature]

It seems the anti-glare nano-coating is really, really great - but apart from that, I cannot imagine spending that much money on such an - otherwise - inferior - IMHO - display.

I got five years warranty out-of-the-box with my 32" Eizos. Their only downside is that I cannot turn them 90° - I'd probably have to look elsewhere for a display that can do that (Dell probably) - and buy the five-year warranty.

But you cannot compare an only 4K Eizo with any 5K Display. 4K has nearly half of the pixels than a 5K display has. And at 32" you only have around 160 PPI in comparision to 218 PPI of the ASD!

 

[satchmo]

Been looking at a refurbished Studio Display on Apple’s site.
But I’m also impatiently waiting for pricing and availability of Samsung’s ViewFinity S9 5K display.

 

[cicton]

Can anyone confirm if this fixes the ethernet bottleneck issue we're seeing when connecting a 10/100/1000 ethernet adapter thru the USB-C ports?

 

[ftf22]

How can I update this if I don’t have a Mac but only an iPad?

^^^This^^^. iPad Pro w/ Office 365 apps makes a credible laptop replacement when used w the monitor. Support of updates from iPad would be great. Support of the camera even better.

 

[ponzicoinbro]

I don't feel it needs a firmware update unless it is because of Ventura 13.3.

 

[azentropy]

My Studio Display connected to my Mac Pro is always wonky. When I wake from sleep it wakes at a downscaled size and takes a split second to properly size up, buggy. Sometimes all my app windows will remain at the downsized resolution, usually not but sometimes it happens. Other issue is that it seems like it consumes a lot of resources being plugged into the Studio Display vs my slightly smaller Dell monitor I came from. The webcam quality is also mediocre quality at best. It's just ok quality overall, too expensive to not have the best quality. Definitely gaps to improve.

Beta doesn't "fix" the first issue (at least on my 14" MBP and the Studio Display).

 

[lkrupp]

I feel like every time there’s a firmware upgrade, Apple takes away a feature or makes something worse.

Then why are you still on the platform? If I felt that way I be long gone.