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 Studio Display Reviews: 'A Confounding Miss'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Came here to basically post this, the price just doesn't add up especially when compared to the 27" iMac.
The 2020 27" iMac has *basically* the same screen. The only differences are 100 nits of extra brightness, better camera, and slightly better speakers. The entry level iMac in 2020 cost $1800. That's only a $200 difference and the iMac came with a pretty decent computer. Not to mention that the general 5k Retina screen is mostly unchanged since 2014, which was 8 years ago now.
The screen just simply isn't worth $1600. However, as others have mentioned finding a well priced 5k screen outside of apple is rare, especially one that is color accurate out of the box with a P3-wide gamut. This is probably why they are pricing it high where in reality in my opinion it should really be more around $1000-1200.
I completely agree with all of what you are saying.
What many who advocate for 5k are leaving out is that the only reason 5k is relevant is because Apple did not give macOS the ability to do non-integer scaling well. Windows is not tied to integer scaling so 4k works fine for that ecosystem. Since the vast majority of Macs that are sold come with a screen, there was no real market for 5k monitors.
I disagree with this evaluation. The entire proposition has changed.
I suspect a lot of people who will be buying this are plugging it into a MacBook Pro. I know I am.
The M1 working model is different to the Intel model. Historically I’d have a hefty iMac at home and a power efficient MacBook and all the sync issues to contend with. Now I have one MacBook which is both a laptop and a 27” iMac.
I spent on one decent quality computer and one decent quality monitor. This is overall cheaper and a hell of a lot more convenient.
Depends on the colour space you're looking for. P3 ? Adobe RGB ? Etc. The Adobe RGB coverage of the Studio Display seems rather run of the mill according to DPreview's results, so for printing applications it's not the most optimal choice.
Quality control / uniformity will be better on the Eizo for example, if Apple hasn't been able to improve on the iMacs or LGs (and they probably haven't, cf. ArsTechnica's review, one of these two samples would have gone straight back to Apple in less than five minutes if I had received it). If so you might be better off buying three samples of the cheaper 27" Dell above, keep the better one and return the others, and spend the difference on better calibration tools and / or practices.
Nope and that is a compromise I'm personally ready to make to derive other benefits out of it, but I can totally understand that 5K is a pretty significant advantage for some applications.
Well, yes because it just looks bad. macOS way of scaling is much better. Just google for an article of Ars Technical that explains the reasons. Windows doesn’t use scaling good.
I don't need a laptop. So why do I buy 2 screens and a much more expensive computer because it is portable (MBP)?
Personally I could care less about power efficiency and all the left coast thinking in regards to computer design.
If MacOS ran on generic PC hardware I would just build my own. I switched to Mac in 2005 to get rid of Microsoft and Windows.
Scaling aside, the boatload of 4K displays (3840x2160px) on the market are ~163ppi for 27" displays and worse for the newer 32" displays (~137ppi). There is value in 218ppi to many people and aside from the LG UltraFine 5K, there is no other display on the market that works this well with a Mac and has this high of a pixel density.
Rarity and pent up demand comes at a cost. If you aren't willing to bear that cost, there are plenty of black plastic 4K displays available for you and you don't need to buy this one.
I tried googling for an ars article and did not immediately come across anything. I will say that macOS is notorious for being terrible at non-integer scaling. Just peruse the accessories forum here to see people struggling to find an acceptable monitor. This is not an issue for Windows users.
I have mentioned this many times to people here who dismiss it, but I may as well try once again. At 27" 4k resolution vs 5k is imperceptible at any distance further than 21". So unless you are sitting abnormally close to a display, the raw resolution makes no difference. Now, how the scaling to that resolution is handled may make a difference, but with proper scaling, they will be indistinguishable unless you sit very close or have exceptional vision. As far as working well with a Mac, that is the wonderful world of Apple lock in. Apple is the reason why Macs do not work well with monitors.
Also, I do not agree with the "just move on" sentiment. I do not think we should let Apple off the hook when they are overcharging for a 6 year old panel.
The 24 inch iMac can be purchases for 1299 and it comes with a Magic Mouse, Keyboard and an actual computer lol. I think this perfectly explains why people want a 27 inch iMac. Just from the price standpoint alone.
Just one question though. Does it look and perform as well as the iMac's 27" 5K screen?
I've been shopping for secondary monitor to smoothly compliment the iMac's 5K for years now, and the $5000 - $6000 32" was just way more than what I need. Price-wise, spec-wise, and at the proclaimed quality, the Studio Display seems to be better than anything I've seen in years of searching.
I've been shopping for secondary monitor to smoothly compliment the iMac's 5K for years now, and the $5000 - $6000 32" was just way more than what I need. Price-wise, spec-wise, and at the proclaimed quality, the Studio Display seems to be better than anything I've seen in years of searching.
Most of the reviews say the display panel itself is nearly indistinguishable from the LG 5k UltraFine. Which would apply to the 27" 5k iMac then as well.
The LG 5K sells for $1299, so let’s quit this silly game of Apple should sell things cheap because you said so. A $999-$1299 range is more a reasonable price, especially if they fix any valid issues that are found by reviewers. Keep your pricing skills to crisps or something not out of your depth.
How many times I gotta tell you people. iJustine and Rene Ritchie. aren't reviewers, they're entertainers.
There are plenty of folks buying this specific monitor that does NOT allow a mount change… that will THEN want to change the mount? Again, on a monitor where the mount doesn’t change? No, not plenty of people.
I agree that, for those that aren’t buying one, it’s a nice handy complaint point. But, I have to concede that it’s not a problem for those that are ACTUALLY buying it.
To be honest, I noticed that when checking out and then removed it from my cart.
The problem with that being that some people need that display for a computer other than the M1 iMac. I agree that the 27in iMac’s discontinuation is perplexing because it was a better buy for a low-intensity user that wanted a nice, large screen.
It isn’t as perplexing when you consider that they want you to buy a Mac Mini + Studio Display if you are a low intensity user that wants a nice, large display. In other words, they want you spend more money in the Apple Store. That’s a sensible move from a capitalist perspective albeit kinda sorry for the consumer who had a better option but a few days prior.
I’m glad to see that Apple’s communication on this is clear enough!
And, that’s actually the point I make. For those that are ACTUALLY buying it, it’s not a problem due to the fact that they… you know… are buying it.
Well, yeah, I never said it’s not an overpriced crap product. I just said that, for people buying the overpriced crap product, they don’t care that it’s an overpriced crap product.