Apple Rumored to Launch 27-Inch Mini-LED Display in Q1 2023

[Detnator]

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.

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.

You're the one who said 'no one would buy this monitor because it wouldn’t be the slightest bit different to all the crappy Windows monitors'.

If it's not the slightest bit different to all the crappy Windows monitors then tell me which Windows monitors replicate the Mac Studio Display?

I think you've got me on the wrong side. My entire point is all the crappy Windows monitors DON'T replicate the Studio Display. Where did I say they do? My "...the slightest bit different..." is not referring to the Studio Display, it's referring to the monitor you first described.

You asked: "Why is there no option for a display without a iPhone 11 CPU, 64 gb storage, webcam and speakers built in? ... a monitor with a couple physical buttons, removable cord, no webcam, no speakers, no iOS chip, no internal storage..."

My response: because everyone else makes that, and Apple has no need or desire to compete in that market. If Apple is going to make a monitor it's going to be better. And those of us that have been hanging on to the hope Apple would make such a thing (instead of nothing, or another one like everyone else's) are happy they did.

Perhaps the confusion is here: Neither of us mentioned 5K, so maybe the monitor you're describing you want is one that is a 5K panel and nothing else. Meanwhile, in the context of all the other naysayers here saying 5K is a useless feature and 4K is plenty, I assumed you felt that also (perhaps a false assumption since you didn't mention it, and if so I apologize).

If the reason for your desire is price, keeping the 5K and removing everything else is unlikely to help the cost much. The 5K resolution is arguably the most expensive feature. Why do I believe that? Because a couple of reasons, mainly that every other monitor with more than 4K resolution is also expensive. The LG 5K isn't much less (albeit with cheap crapppy webcam and speakers in it as well, but its build quality sucks). Dell made a 5K monitor that was more $2500 I think, and more expensive than Apple's 5K iMac at the time, and it was lower brightness. Their replacement for that now is 8K at 400nits and about $4500 retail. I believe the 5K iMac was likely cheaper because of economies of scale that no standalone 5K monitor will share. From my research in recent years two other companies make obscure unknown 5K monitors that I could find in the past (can't seem to find them now). They're also over $2K.

High resolutions are expensive. Apple reasons that if they're going to make an expensive 5K monitor, they might as well add a few nice extras for not much more, because most of Apple's target market for these appreciates those things.

I could be wrong, but that's what it looks like to me.

 

[Damian83]

I think you've got me on the wrong side. My entire point is all the crappy Windows monitors DON'T replicate the Studio Display. Where did I say they do? My "...the slightest bit different..." is not referring to the Studio Display, it's referring to the monitor you first described.

You asked: "Why is there no option for a display without a iPhone 11 CPU, 64 gb storage, webcam and speakers built in? ... a monitor with a couple physical buttons, removable cord, no webcam, no speakers, no iOS chip, no internal storage..."

My response: because everyone else makes that, and Apple has no need or desire to compete in that market. If Apple is going to make a monitor it's going to be better. And those of us that have been hanging on to the hope Apple would make such a thing (instead of nothing, or another one like everyone else's) are happy they did.

Perhaps the confusion is here: Neither of us mentioned 5K, so maybe the monitor you're describing you want is one that is a 5K panel and nothing else. Meanwhile, in the context of all the other naysayers here saying 5K is a useless feature and 4K is plenty, I assumed you felt that also (perhaps a false assumption since you didn't mention it, and if so I apologize).

If the reason for your desire is price, keeping the 5K and removing everything else is unlikely to help the cost much. The 5K resolution is arguably the most expensive feature. Why do I believe that? Because a couple of reasons, mainly that every other monitor with more than 4K resolution is also expensive. The LG 5K isn't much less (albeit with cheap crapppy webcam and speakers in it as well, but its build quality sucks). Dell made a 5K monitor that was more $2500 I think, and more expensive than Apple's 5K iMac at the time, and it was lower brightness. Their replacement for that now is 8K at 400nits and about $4500 retail. I believe the 5K iMac was likely cheaper because of economies of scale that no standalone 5K monitor will share. From my research in recent years two other companies make obscure unknown 5K monitors that I could find in the past (can't seem to find them now). They're also over $2K.

High resolutions are expensive. Apple reasons that if they're going to make an expensive 5K monitor, they might as well add a few nice extras for not much more, because most of Apple's target market for these appreciates those things.

I could be wrong, but that's what it looks like to me.

tell whatever u want, however an imac 27" gives u a mac studio display PLUS a pc inside. now considering the price apple charges just for the pc part, u basically get a 5k 27" for free (or viceversa). paying almost same price for just a monitor, when u can get a full pc for same price its a joke.

 

[Tagbert]

tell whatever u want, however an imac 27" gives u a mac studio display PLUS a pc inside. now considering the price apple charges just for the pc part, u basically get a 5k 27" for free (or viceversa). paying almost same price for just a monitor, when u can get a full pc for same price its a joke.

The base model 27” iMac was about $2000. A base model Mac Mini + a Studio Display is about $400-500 more. That’s not outrageously more expensive.

 

[Damian83]

The base model 37” iMac was about $2000. A base model Mac Mini + a Studio Display is about $400-500 more. That’s not outrageously more expensive.

lets say 1000 more considering:
1) even the base 27" imacs are far more powerful than a base mac mini
2) u get mouse + keyboard


not mentioning u can buy imacs from other stores for lower prices. i paid 1600€ (standard price 2000€) for my base imac 27" 2019 on amazon. while u cant find such discounts on studio display. so spending 1300 for just the monitor its a theft, considering for 300 more i got a full pc

 

[fathergll]

Perhaps the confusion is here: Neither of us mentioned 5K

My post was responding to another user specifically about the current 5k Studio Display hence I was talking about the 5k Studio display. The other user was complaining that the current 5k Studio Display costs too much and I noted it's loaded up with things you are not using....in other words the 5k Mac Studio is almost like a 2021 Apple 4k TV. "Studio Display has better specifications than the second-generation Apple TV 4K, which sports an A12 Bionic chip and a base storage configuration of just 32GB."

If the reason for your desire is price, keeping the 5K and removing everything else is unlikely to help the cost much. The 5K resolution is arguably the most expensive feature. Why do I believe that? Because a couple of reasons, mainly that every other monitor with more than 4K resolution is also expensive. The LG 5K isn't much less (albeit with cheap crapppy webcam and speakers in it as well, but its build quality sucks). Dell made a 5K monitor that was more $2500 I think, and more expensive than Apple's 5K iMac at the time, and it was lower brightness. Their replacement for that now is 8K at 400nits and about $4500 retail. I believe the 5K iMac was likely cheaper because of economies of scale that no standalone 5K monitor will share. From my research in recent years two other companies make obscure unknown 5K monitors that I could find in the past (can't seem to find them now). They're also over $2K.

Dell monitor was from what....2014?

The replacement panel for a 27" 5k iMac is about $500 from an authorized Apple dealer. Yes most expensive part for Studio Display but there's a massive mark up on what LG and Apple is charging and LG isn't some mercenary company trying to undersell Apple here. LG 5K Display was created in partnership with Apple. It's even in fall 2016 Apple keynote


In fact when they launched it back in 2016 they immediately ran a 2 month sale taking $300 off. That display has always been marked up high and LG still has it marked up to this day. To put things into perspective a base 2019 27" 5k iMac is cheaper than the current Studio Display with the nano option and not that much more that the regular Studio Display.

I don't believe for a second that Apple isn't marketing up the price more because of the 12mp webcam, 6 speakers, three-mic array, A13 Bionic chip and 64gb storage. Same company charging a extra $300 for the nano coating on the Studio Display is giving something that resembles a Apple TV for nothing? Doesn't make sense all of these things are being given away for basically nothing. It's like when people act like MacOS is free not accounting for the fact that Apple uses software to sell more expensive hardware. You're paying for it somewhere.

I'm not against the Studio Display as it is even with the current price. My issue is that I believe that all those goodies absolutely mark up the price Apple is charging and that they have no option for users who want to run extended display setups besides pay for multiple monitors with things you do not need and they market it this way. The litmus test to me is how few people I've seen on the forums here even running multiple Studio Displays. Few people have(i recall an Optometrist with a bunch of them because he has that cash to burn) but for the most part its one display at most and they run it with other displays if they have multiple displays.

 

[Tagbert]

lets say 1000 more considering:
1) even the base 27" imacs are far more powerful than a base mac mini
2) u get mouse + keyboard


not mentioning u can buy imacs from other stores for lower prices. i paid 1600€ (standard price 2000€) for my base imac 27" 2019 on amazon. while u cant find such discounts on studio display. so spending 1300 for just the monitor its a theft, considering for 300 more i got a full pc

The M1 Mac Mini is fast in most cases than the base i5 iMac 27”.
Comparing discounted prices, especially on used models is not a fair comparison.

 

[Damian83]

The M1 Mac Mini is fast in most cases than the base i5 iMac 27”.
Comparing discounted prices, especially on used models is not a fair comparison.

I intend a mac mini and an imac of the same cpu-gen of course. if u look at the "high-end" i5 mac mini still available, it has lower specs than my base 2019 imac.
But even if u want to compare m1 to the i5, well, apart of benchmarks, in most real cases its slower. yes its more efficient, but far from being faster than an i5. and i talk from experience...
An hypothetical M1 imac 27 released today will not certainly mount the same M1 u find on the mac mini

And yes i compare discounted prices if those prices are real. the discount ive got, ok its maybe too much extreme (it was new btw, not used/refurbished), however u can find ANY mac/iphone/ipad outside apple store, with a 5-10% discount almost immediately after official release. while u cant find such discounts on the studio display because its too niche.

In fact, ill not say what i think of people buying non-custom devices from apple store, because ill be immediately banned....

 

[fontman]

Apple is planning to launch an external monitor with a 27-inch mini-LED display in the first quarter of 2023, according to Display Supply Chain Consultants (DSCC) analyst Ross Young.

In a tweet shared with super followers, Young said that Apple had "pushed" the debut of the monitor to Q1 2023. Young is presumably talking about the first calendar quarter of 2023, aka the months from January to March.

Young was a guest on the MacRumors podcast in July where he said that Apple was planning to launch the mini-LED display sometime in early 2023. Young initially expected Apple to introduce the display in June at WWDC, but he said in May that the launch had to be delayed until October because of design delays. Apple is also unable to meet the October goal, and Young believes the company is now aiming for 2023.

Throughout 2022, Apple has been dealing with supply constraints across products that include Macs and its displays, which may be the reason for the delay.

Apple's upcoming display is said to feature mini-LED technology along with ProMotion support, allowing for up to a 120Hz refresh rate. The device is not expected to be a direct replacement for the Pro Display XDR, which is a larger, 6K display. It will instead be similar to the Apple Studio Display, which is a 27-inch monitor.

With ProMotion support and mini-LED technology, the rumored 27-inch display is expected to be more expensive than the Studio Display, which is priced starting at $1,599.

Article Link: Apple Rumored to Launch 27-Inch Mini-LED Display in Q1 2023

DAm