Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I'm using two LG 32UN880-B monitors and the combination costs less than the Studio Display. While they don't have built-in webcams, I've got a discrete webcam that offers the same functionality and is more flexible. It's not hard to imagine this being a good fit for some people, but they must have very specific needs if they haven't found a good alternative to what Apple includes in this package.
 
Didn't the read the reviews? Unless they fix it in software, the webcam is a disaster.

I dont think they will mis-out such an obvious thing and they have acknowledged and said they it should fix with future update. And i still say its a great display, but not at $1600, for that price is way outdated.
 
Gruber’s review. He too complains about the camera and is skeptical software alone will fix it. Still says he’s going to buy one.

I saw the example images he posted (I hadn’t watched any of the youtube videos) and I was expecting… like… potato quality based on how bad folks were saying it was. Aside from the blowout from sitting in direct sunlight, I really couldn’t see it as all that bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rich2Putt
Easily the lowest quality apple product

Not true. It's just more classic apple (overpriced for what it is) than modern day apple. It isn't a true stinker. Don't they currently sell some super old version of the Apple Watch as a budget option that is nearly unusable for some reason?
 
That camera looks pretty damn good to me @7.40 ... is it a Facecam? No, but it's built into a chassis less than an inch thick and still better than virtually all other webcams out there.


I'm kind of surprised, but not really, that they did not offer a matching display for the iMac. It would be the ideal machine for many (myself included).

I guess they figure if you are in the market for dual/triple screens you will be going for the Studio or Mini rather than an AIO.
Apple should make a 24in 4.5K native resolution display packaged and equipped similarly to the Studio Display. My guess is that would still be a $999 USD display though and probably 1299 w/ height adjustable stand.

It seems like what the rumors suggest Apple is actually doing is making a step between the Studio and Pro Displays.

Leaning on a recent Marques Brownlee video - I believe it was his iPad Air review - Apple is a master of stair stepping their product lines such that it gets a customer to spend more money than they otherwise would have spent.

In a low volume segment like displays, they’re probably playing for higher margins per sell. So would it make more sense for Apple to establish a still pricy but approachable floor w/ a 24in 4.5K display - OR - make a 27in 5K Studio Display Pro with a bunch of appreciably better features than the base model that sits between the Pro Display XDR and Studio Studio Display? My bet is for Apple to pick the latter and the rumors seem to suggest that is just the case.

Apple does pick the “great product at a great price” tract but it is almost always for high volume products where they can afford the lower range of the margin thresholds they expect their products to fall within. The entry level flagship phone, the macbook air, or air pods. Yeah, those things get a pretty competitive price all things considered. Niche prosumer stuff like displays and towers? Yeah, you’re getting the ”Apple Tax” as we all know it from the generations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neander
I dont think they will mis-out such an obvious thing and they have acknowledged and said they it should fix with future update. And i still say its a great display, but not at $1600, for that price is way outdated.
Is it much of an improvement on the outgoing 27" iMac, though? There doesn't seem to be much in it. If it's the same, it's very good, it's just not worth that sum.
 
Are there better displays out there with better specs and features at this price?

The Apple Studio Display's main draw is that it features a collection of USPs that you won't find anywhere else. If you happen to be attracted by all these USPs at once it might be a very interesting purchase. My guess here is that these people aren't that numerous.

Unfortunately the display itself other than its resolution is quite uninteresting. You won't find something "better" elsewhere in every way, but you'll find plenty of alternatives that may be more or less better suited to the task you'll use it for. I would actually argue that for some of the "creatives" Apple seemed to market the Studio combo to, the Studio Display isn't a great buy in 2022.

All of the following provide better specs in one or multiple ways over the Studio Display (and worse in others), for a similar-ish or cheaper price (well TBD for one of them, but given what the price the TVs using the same panel will be at...) :
(that one should quell the idea that the XDR's backlighting is anything to write home about in 2022, although I'm quite skeptical about the algorithm)

Displays are about to experience a transition just as significant as what happened with higher PPI displays, and I'm personally a little bit disappointed to see that Apple wasn't able to be as agressive in that regard with their dedicated display as with their mobile devices. It seems that LG's new IPS black technology is fairly inexpensive to implement, at the very least I'd have liked to see that.

More worrisome to me is that at this price I'd expect low tolerances and great screen uniformity from a standard IPS display, and yet I'm fairly certain that QC won't be any better than the LG's or the iMac's : https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...e-monitor-where-5k-doesnt-describe-the-price/
 
You've got one I suppose ? ?

Care to explain ?

It’s a iMac screen. iMac screen is good, but not ‘studio’ good. It’s a poor product given who it’s marketed to.

The poorest apple product, IMO. Still better than most rivals, but poor by their standards.
 
Whatever “comps” getting mentioned may have some features you prefer to the Studio Display but there are different kinds of users out there. If you want great color coverage on a screen that can do pixel doubled ”retina” 1440p, your only options are the LG UltraFine 5K and Apple Studio Display.

Define "great" colour coverage :D.
The Studio Display's coverage of Adobe RGB isn't anything spectacular : https://www.dpreview.com/news/85970...ay-2022-an-excellent-monitor-at-a-steep-price
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane
That camera looks pretty damn good to me @7.40 ... is it a Facecam? No, but it's built into a chassis less than an inch thick, has a smaller lens, and it's still better than virtually all other webcams out there.


I'm kind of surprised, but not really, that they did not offer a matching display for the iMac. It would be the ideal machine for many (myself included).
Agreed.

Get a 16gb/512gb iMac and the matching display, slap them on some VESA arms (so you can pull the iMac easily front and center for video calls). Super clean setup.
 
I still find it funny that the words “led” and “backlit” were never mentioned in the keynote nor are they listed anywhere on the product page. A lot of people are going to be disappointed when they realize that this monitor can’t display perfect blacks.
Anyone listening for led or backlit would also have been listening for OLED or miniled. Anyone REALLY concerned about perfect blacks aren’t going to be surprised by this monitor.
 
Screen Shot 2022-03-18 at 5.32.30 am.png
 
I dont think they will mis-out such an obvious thing and they have acknowledged and said they it should fix with future update. And i still say its a great display, but not at $1600, for that price is way outdated.

It really does seem like it has to be a software issue. It's not like they don't have the off the shelf parts to do a great webcam.
 

Why would 99% coverage of DCI-P3 but poorer coverage of Adobe RGB be better than the opposite ?
Some people at the production company I work at would definitely prefer the latter (and others the former) - it's all dependent on the application, that's all.
And you can get displays that cover both quite well - that would be my own definition of "great" colour coverage in 2022 :D.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rgwebb
Dang! Tim Cook, snake oil salesman. Ouch!
Yeah, that's a bit harsh...but he had it coming!
Had it coming long time ago. 🎯

Remember when Apple started to charge us $999.99 for an iPhone X. He said iPhone X was a steal. It's pretty interesting. What a time to be alive.

Picture.jpg




Check out the interview below. This was the beginning...

 
Perhaps this will teach you a lesson: just because it has an Apple logo on it and is also expensive doesn't mean that it's actually the best product in the field.

It's an expensive lesson, for certain, but eventually you had to learn it.

Huh? What lesson? It can be returned.
Hopefully Apple learned a lesson from this. An expensive lesson, for certain, but eventually they had to learn it.
Yeah, what are you talking about?
I have appreciated previous displays made by Apple and this may suit me perfectly. And I can return it if not. You know not all people are sheep right?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.