The coating is making more of the difference. One is glossy and the other satin. The anti-glare coating on the LG will lower the text clarity.
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 Rumored to Launch 27-Inch Mini-LED Display in Q1 2023
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There have been rumors of a 7K display so the XDR could move to that. The XDR is really kind of a different market anyway focusing on being a reference monitor. Maybe if they could bring the price down it would be more useful as a high volume general purpose monitor. I think that there is still room in there for a 27-32” prosumer monitor.
Last edited:
You can get (a) at almost any price point. What does price point have to do with that?
And (b) is not technically possible. thunderbolt 4 doesnt have the bandwidth to drive 2 x 5K.
The issue Apple bakes in a ton of things you don't need. Why is there no option for a display without a iPhone 11 CPU, 64 gb storage, webcam and speakers built in?
If Apple could just release a monitor with a couple physical buttons, removable cord, no webcam, no speakers, no iOS chip, no internal storage it would fly off the shelves because not only would Apple users buy it but then Windows and Linux users would as well.
Instead Apple does what Apple does and bakes everything in so that the OS has to control the monitor and it has things you don't need so they are upselling you everything. Apple's own marketing shows 3 monitors. Why on earth would someone need to buy 3 webcams, 3 sets of speakers and 3 A13 Bionic chips, 3 sets of 64gb storage? Just complete waste to spend close to 5 grand for three 27" displays. $3K would be reasonable.
Ummm…. If Apple made a monitor like you described no one would buy it because it wouldn’t be the slightest bit different to all the crappy Windows monitors.
If that’s what you want why don’t you just buy one of those? Some of us want and have been waiting for years for what Apple puts into their monitors that no one else includes.
Nope. They make monitors for the people like me who hate the crap put out by the companies who make monitors for the masses.
Some of us get productive value from the higher resolution, extras built in, higher brightness, clarity (glossy not fuzzy matte), software controls, integration, etc. that few or no other companies include in their monitors.
Luckily for you there’s a bazillion other monitors from pretty much every other company that make what works for you then. And luckily for me Apple now makes things like this.
PS. If you want KVM functionality why don’t you just get a KVM Switch? Why does it have to be built into the monitor, adding unnecessary cost for the vast majority of Mac users who will never use it? No thanks.
Last edited:
Or you could buy … you know … a smart TV…
… except, umm… battery? In a desktop monitor? Or a tv for that matter?
Methinks you were making a joke, right?
It’s time for a portable desktop-size smart monitor. It would be a new product. It’d be like a big iPad on a stand, but maybe without the touchscreen). It’ll be so nice to be able to pick it up and move from office to picnic table, like a laptop, but a big screen and without ugly keyboard and the hot throttled cpu burning inside.
Outdated and overpriced? Name any other display with at least the resolution, dpi, brightness and build quality of the studio display (even putting aside the camera, mics, speakers, etc) that is cheaper. Or exists even. Or anything that even comes close that is significantly cheaper. No 4K isn’t close. Neither is 350 nits.
Last edited:
Well actually I’d like something like that. Who makes them? Where are they?
Well that makes more sense. I’d agree with that. The display in the M1 iMac, without the Mac, and battery powered is something I would buy.
Yep. Lot of complaints about how overpriced it is for what it is but no answers when asked for anything nearly as good for less… or at all.
Gotta wonder where these people are getting their ideas of what things are worth.
I guess I and many others here have the eyes of a falcon?
I don’t have great eyes but I can’t understand how anyone with half decent eye sight can fail to see the difference between 165ppi (27”4K) and 220ppi (27”5K). To me the difference with the 4K is almost painful.
I think most people don’t give a rats ass about all the marketing jargon used to compare the quality of these monitors, and Apple seems to think they have the best “baffle them with BS” therefore they can charge the ridiculous prices they do for their branded displays… which BTW are actually designed and made by Samsung.
When people see them powered up and next to another monitor thats priced at a fraction of the cost of an Apple display, they come to the conclusion Apple is over priced… and all that fancy, complicated marketing jargon means nothing… what they see with their own eyes does mean something…. And if they don’t see a difference that justifies a $1000+ price increase for the Apple logo, well, people tend to form a lasting opinion… I know I have, and won’t ever consider an Apple display… there are too many out there that i couldn’t see any significant difference in whats being displayed…
So my answer to the no answers comments is go to a video wall in one of the big box stores that sell these things and have a look at all the different models side by side - its a subjective view point unique to each individual. You may think that “5K2K Nano IPS Monitor” with the “DCI-P3 color gamut, that offers vibrant color reproduction with the support of HDR10” Is important info… to me thats a word salad and all that matters is how well the images look on the display compared to one and other “in my eyes”…
Lets face it, Apple has rightfully earned a reputation for over charging for their branded displays… I think that $6000 one that they then charge $400 for a stand for, separately, and then an additional install charge, kind of sealed that deal for them.
Hope that answers your question about how people come to the conclusion of what something is worth… or more aptly put, not worth.
This is just incorrect. See my post above. To me the difference is very significant. Same with laptops. Except for the latest MBPs (higher ppi), All Apple’s retina Mac displays since 2012, from the 12” MacBook to the 6K XDR are 220-ish ppi. That’s the sweet spot - where 20/20 vision can’t normally discern the pixels. I can’t, no matter how close I look. Anything higher than that and I can’t seem to tell any difference — evidenced by not seeing any consciously noticeable difference between my 220ppi 2019 16” MBP and my 254ppi 2021 16” MBP. Which means 8K 27” (330ppi) will probably not look noticeably better to me.
On the other hand the 165ppi of a 27” 4K is noticeably fuzzy to me and I can most certainly see the pixels.
Others’ mileage may vary, but that’s certainly my experience… and… according to Apple I’m in the majority.
Last edited:
Well… thanks for the explanation.
I don’t really consider myself particularly special. But as I’ve alluded to above, to me, 5K vs 4K is night and day. And even more potentially literally, 300 nits vs 500 or 600 nits is night and day to me also. Those two factors alone justify an extra $1K for me from a productivity stand point.
If the difference is not apparent to others then fine. What grinds my gears is people saying Apple’s stuff is overpriced just because they can’t see the difference.
The specs are distinctly different. Whether someone can see the difference or not, 5K is almost twice as many pixels as 4K. And 600 vs 300 is twice the nits. And that’s before the added camera, speakers, center stage features, and other stuff. So it’s not marketing BS. It’s genuine technical differences. So there should be no question as to whether those specs cost more.
In other words with significantly higher tangible technical differences, a higher price should be expected. Why is that so incomprehensible to people?
Now of course then there’s the question of whether those technical differences make any difference to any given person. That’s a legitimate question. To some, including me and some others here, the differences are experientially significant and therefore worth something. To others those technical differences don’t provide a better experience, so those technical differences aren’t worth their cost to those people. And that’s fair enough. But that doesn’t mean Apple’s higher specced monitors are overpriced for what they are. They’re just not for everyone. And that’s fine by Apple. Apple doesn’t make products for “everyone”.
And so then what I really don’t get is why people are clamoring for Apple to make a monitor but then when Apple makes something different to what every other monitor maker makes then they’re complaining it’s overpriced etc. Why? Why do these people want Apple to make just another low spec monitor like everyone else’s when everyone else is already making them?
None of it makes any sense… to me at least. But again, thanks for your efforts to explain.
Last edited:
Not going to happen. A 30" display at 5K is no longer 'retina' according to Apple's current standards. What's considered retina depends on the viewing distance from the device. All Apple's desktop panels (iMac 24, Studio Display and the Pro Display XDR) have exactly the same pixel density of 218ppi. Go below it and you see pixels. I don't see Apple ever downgrading such an important specification.
As someone who owns both the LG 5K and a Dell 27" 4K, I can't disagree more. The difference is significant and instantly noticeable. Every time I work from home with my 4K it's like "another day of pixels".
Last edited:
The vast majority of people in Apple’s target market don’t even know what a KVM switch is nor would even fathom the idea of the problem it solves. They don’t have any desire to plug multiple computers into one monitor. Yes there are some extra techie people who would use it, but they are a small fraction of Apple’s target market.
Meanwhile, high resolution, high brightness, high resolution camera, high quality speakers, integration features, etc, are all features very much used by Apple’s target market.
That’s the difference.
Perhaps you’ll argue I’m being arbitrary or something. So be it. But I’ve followed Apple closely since the early 1980’s and I’ve worked there in high tier roles twice. I think I know a thing or two about their target market, etc. Of course, you’re free to disagree if you wish.
Every few years since forums were a thing say 25 years ago, people have been saying Apple is doomed, Apple has lost its way, Apple is doing everything wrong when they used to do it right. Etc etc. but they just keep going from strength to strength. When Apple don’t see many people in their target market using KVM switches and they do see them using A/V features etc, and they build their products accordingly, I think they know what they’re doing.
All that said, I agree there’s a big enough market for a monitor with the same panel and brightness specs as the ASD without any of the other features… as secondary displays to a main ASD if nothing else, and I don’t know why Apple wouldn’t cater to that. I think they should. maybe it’s coming. Idk.
Last edited:
Well, I am using an Eizo CS2740.
In my view, this is a selfish and short-term way of thinking.
As long as you only use one Mac and it stays that way, it all fits. But if it should happen otherwise, then you are limited.
I did not ask for KVM functionality. I only demanded that you should be able to connect more than one Mac to a monitor.
Actually, any monitor can do that, if the monitor is not from Apple.
That's lame, offering only one input. So that the user is locked into the Apple ecosystem? So that the user has to buy a second monitor if he uses more than one Mac? Because the second or third input messes up the optics (= wrong priority).
Moreover, the Apple monitor is not completely usable with other operating systems. So you lock yourself into the Apple ecosystem.
(By the way, my Eizo has KVM functionality.)
True, there is no display like this is packaged.
But with that price, I was expecting 120hz. A closed design, not holes drilled everywhere for it to suck up all the dust, and that too it's on the top. My Thunderbolt display doesn't have top vents, I was expecting this to run cooler compared to TD which was released in 2011. The Thunderbolt port is not pass-through. Thunderbolt Display has a pass-through Thunderbolt port.