Apple Studio Display Reviews: 'A Confounding Miss'

[UK-MacAddict]

Choosing a monitor with 1/3 less pixels and half as bright, doesn't make it any more reasonable, you are just willing to sacrifice features you don't feel you need in order to cut corners.

I'd bet the profit margins on a $799 4k/144hz Dell are probably far higher than the ASD, because it doesn't have a processor, doesn't have a CNC'd chassis, doesn't have a fancy speaker array, doesn't have a decent webcam and uses the same bulk display that hundreds of other computer makers use.

That doesn't mean they aren't decent displays but if you want better than "decent", you pay a premium.

Apple products are rarely cheaper than their nearest competitor, never have been, never will, but they'll look nicer, have far better build quality and most of the time perform better.

Third party monitors which have 1K less pixels is hardly cutting corners. Like I said majority of people won't even notice the difference. Compared side by side the iMac 27 display looks identical to the XDR display in performance.

If you take your example it is Apple who are cutting corners by not including Pro Motion and HDR. Two features which should be first on a spec sheet in 2022. Difference is other manufacturers without these technologies will price them lower accordingly. Apple goes the other way and sends out a monitor at £1499 missing basic features which should be present in today's monitors.

The processor inside is just a gimmick judging from reviews it doesn't even perform as it should do because the webcam has been reported to be poor. A £600 LG monitor will have 4K HDR and 144Hz take in to account the aluminium chassis and the speakers etc the Studio Display is a £999 monitor including the obligatory Apple tax not £1499. The Studio Display doesn't have a fancy proprietary panel from what I have read, its likely the same LG panel they have been using in the iMac for the last 6-7 years.

Apple build quality has seen a downward trend over the past 10 years. Need I remind you of the butterfly keyboard, peeling MacBooks screens, bending phones and iPads etc. In terms of their displays, the iMacs that I have purchased since 2013 have all had to have their screens replaced after the corners started to exhibit screen burn.

 

[ric22]

Third party monitors which have 1K less pixels is hardly cutting corners. Like I said majority of people won't even notice the difference. Compared side by side the iMac 27 display looks identical to the XDR display in performance.

If you take your example it is Apple who are cutting corners by not including Pro Motion and HDR. Two features which should be first on a spec sheet in 2022. Difference is other manufacturers without these technologies will price them lower accordingly. Apple goes the other way and sends out a monitor at £1499 missing basic features which should be present in today's monitors.

The processor inside is just a gimmick judging from reviews it doesn't even perform as it should do because the webcam has been reported to be poor. A £600 LG monitor will have 4K HDR and 144Hz take in to account the aluminium chassis and the speakers etc the Studio Display is a £999 monitor including the obligatory Apple tax not £1499. The Studio Display doesn't have a fancy proprietary panel from what I have read, its likely the same LG panel they have been using in the iMac for the last 6-7 years.

Apple build quality has seen a downward trend over the past 10 years. Need I remind you of the butterfly keyboard, peeling MacBooks screens, bending phones and iPads etc. In terms of their displays, the iMacs that I have purchased since 2013 have all had to have their screens replaced after the corners started to exhibit screen burn.

I think they're struggling to put out good mini led screens, to achieve the HDR. When the 14" and 16" MacBook Pros came out I intended to get one of them, and went to the Apple store to compare them... the edge shadow issue bugged the hell out of me. I'd rather have a MacBook Pro 13" or Air 13" screen without that flaw. You can't un-see it.

 

[deevey]

the Studio Display is a £999 monitor including the obligatory Apple tax not £1499. The Studio Display doesn't have a fancy proprietary panel from what I have read, its likely the same LG panel they have been using in the iMac for the last 6-7 years.

So LG are also over-charging @ $1300 for the cheap wobbly plastic variant of the ASD with a worse webcam and speakers. Gotcha.

Lower volume of a bigger pixel count display is going to increase costs.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

a lot of these are going to be bought as PO requests by folks to their employer’s purchasing depts, and thus they wont see that caveat on the purchase page

That’s even LESS of a problem! If the employee doesn’t look up what they want ahead of time and make sure it’s what they want, that’s on them. If it’s not what they want, they won’t be placing an order with anyone. And, we’re back to it only being a problem for folks that don’t want it.

 

[bobmepp]

I'm interested in the M1 Max because it is finally a Mac (long delayed!) at a reasonable price with about the right amount of power for what I do, but the Studio Display seemed ridiculously over priced even before I read these reviews. I have a bias against expensive monitors. I'm actually perfectly happy with my two manually calibrated matte screened 1920x1080 monitors that are both several years old. I'm sure the M1 Max will drive them as well as my current late 2013 Pro now does. I do all my own printing of digital art and photographs and as long as I get a reasonably good idea of how my print will look I'm satisfied. If I decide to get a higher res monitor it will surely be something far less expensive than the Studio Display. I'm afraid Apple will have a hard time selling these things as these reviews are read by potential buyers.

 

[bobmepp]

Sorry, accidentally double posted...

 

[PostApple2016BrainWash]

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.

That's a great point and it cost more to buy a $699 Mac Mini + $1599 Apple studio display = $2299 than the 27” iMac which cost less expensive at $1799

No wonder why people are angry because it is $500 more expensive than the previous package of mac.

However, a reduction of 40% thickness in the display can save cost quite a lot for Apple and therefore it can relaunch another model of 27” apple studio display that cost 40% less than before with around $1000-$1200 as you just mentioned.

 

[WLSON]

The display is obviously targeting previous iMac users, but I think that speakers, webcam, and microphones are a mistake. These make it stupid to buy more than one of these, and many people wouldn’t even use them on a single display. I have a set of bookshelf speakers at my desk, and wouldn’t use the speakers once. Built in peripherals make sense for an all in one, but not a display. Apple should have released a screen with no camera, microphone, speakers, or A13 chip for $750-999. Or at least one like that along side this.

They sold the 27" iMac at $1799, that's just $200 more than the studio display, so you can rest assured they could've easily sold this Studio display with everything you list at $1000. Selling it for $1599 is pure greed, plain and simple.

 

[WLSON]

That's a great point and it cost more to buy a $699 Mac Mini + $1599 Apple studio display = $2299 than the 27” iMac which cost less expensive at $1799

No wonder why people are angry because it is $500 more expensive than the previous package of mac.

However, a reduction of 40% thickness in the display can save cost quite a lot for Apple and therefore it can relaunch another model of 27” apple studio display that cost 40% less than before with around $1000-$1200 as you just mentioned.

Actually the price difference is $700 because the 27" iMac came with mouse and keyboard ($200 value).

 

[Steve121178]

$1599 for a non HDR or ProMotion display is a sin.

Yeah, I naturally assumed it was HDR, but having just watched a review online, I can't believe Apple gimped it like this.

Imagine pairing this expensive dud with your brand new shiny Mac Studio... Baffling.

 

[trhoffmann]

Apple need to stop paying out dividends to its shareholders like they did before and go back to storing all that cash for future products.

Apple spent $85B on share buybacks in FY21. That is 6 times more than they spent paying dividends.

 

[Schismz]

So LG are also over-charging @ $1300 for the cheap wobbly plastic variant of the ASD with a worse webcam and speakers. Gotcha.

They sold the 27" iMac at $1799, that's just $200 more than the studio display, so you can rest assured they could've easily sold this Studio display with everything you list at $1000. Selling it for $1599 is pure greed, plain and simple.

Right... but, what exactly are the 5k monitor competitors with those specs? That'd be the $1300 LG which is identical display in a crappier case (which will quite probably just vanish sometime soon because the sole market for these things are Apple customers). So Apple sprinkled magical pixie dust on it, added speakers which are good, a webcam which doesn't quite work correctly yet, an old iPhone chip, and slapped it into a much better case.

It's not exactly world-changing, it's just a step sideways and Apple is finally selling a consumer monitor again after a very long pause. Perhaps they'll start making printers again, ImageWriter 2023 <holding breath>.

Seriously... it's okay. It has very high margins, but what is it that you expect from Apple? I'm sure they wanted to do better than the same iMac screen from 2014, but there was the flu, what was it called, oh ya right, COVID, which seems to be all over China at the moment, supply constraints, WW III starting, a variety of distractions, which probably made it harder for Apple to deliver liQuiD r3tin4 Display 27! Planet Earth is experiencing technical difficulties, please stand by.

BTW- the whole monitor vs. iMac conversation is approaching being a decade old at this point. The iMac was a beautiful monitor back in 2014, which came with a free computer. Now it comes with a free iPhone chip which will probably work correctly for the webcam after a few firmware updates.

 

[deevey]

Right... but, what exactly are the 5k monitor competitors with those specs? That'd be the $1300 LG which is identical display in a crappier case (which will quite probably just vanish sometime soon because the sole market for these things are Apple customers).

LG are re-releasing it, which if anything, makes the ASD look pretty reasonably priced for anyone who wants to get 100% display performance out of their Mac.

 

[GuruZac]

Yeah, I naturally assumed it was HDR, but having just watched a review online, I can't believe Apple gimped it like this.

Imagine pairing this expensive dud with your brand new shiny Mac Studio... Baffling.

I sincerely hope it completely flops for Apple. I hope everyone who ordered one sends it back And Apple is stuck with them. To ask $1600 for a non-HDR external monitor in 2022 isn’t just a rip off, it’s straight robbery. Shame on Apple.

 

[petvas]

I sincerely hope it completely flops for Apple. I hope everyone who ordered one sends it back And Apple is stuck with them. To ask $1600 for a non-HDR external monitor in 2022 isn’t just a rip off, it’s straight robbery. Shame on Apple.

You totally have the false perspective here and do not understand the value of the Studio Display for many Mac users.
There is a case to be made for a 27" HiDPI display that offers true Retina 2x scaling, which is really important for many many users, which appreciate the way HiDPI scaling in macOS works. 5K is the perfect resolution for such a display..
Many Mac users have been wanting such a display for many years...and the only option was the LG Ultrafine 27" display ,which has its fare share of problems...The LG display costs 1399$.
A comparison with other displays that do not fit this profile does not make sense. The target market for the Studio Display are Mac users who want a 5k 27" display, perfectly integrated with macOS, that fits the design language and build quality of Apple, and also offers very good loudspeakers and a good web camera.
For those people the Studio Display is almost perfect and the price difference from the LG Ultrafine is definitely worth it, considering all the extras and the quality of the display. (which is also 20% brighter than the LG display).
The discussion about ProMotion shows how people are just unaware of the technical limitations of Thunderbolt 3. ProMotion will certainly come in the future, but I wouldn't hold my breath that it will happen any time soon.
The other argument many people seem to make (including The Verge), is that there is no HDR support and no dimming zones. Well, Apple produces such a display and it costs 7000$. There was just no way that Apple could provide these features in a display under 2000$.
People that do not care about 5K, pixel density and general quality will of course rant, because they just lack the basic understanding of how Apple thinks and works. I would advise all these people to leave the Apple ecosystem and switch to Windows. Not everybody can understand or appreciate quality..
To sum it up, the Studio Display is the only choice for people that:

• Want a 5K 27" high quality display
• Want a perfect macOS integration
• Want great speakers integrated in the display
• Want a Web Camera integrated in the display
• Exclusively plan to use the display with Macs.

Everybody else should look elsewhere. This is not the display for you.
I also do not understand people that say that 4K resolution is enough for a 27" display. No, it's not if you want Retina quality. If you are used to bad or mediocre Windows displays and do not appreciate what macOS has to offer, then just look elsewhere. A 4K 27" display with 2x scaling is has just a 1080p usable resolution, which is just bad...

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Everybody else should look elsewhere. This is not the display for you.

But, but, it’s a thing Apple made that’s at a price more than I want to pay! That simply CAN NOT EXIST and I will go to my grave working to destroy Apple!

/s

 

[UK-MacAddict]

So LG are also over-charging @ $1300 for the cheap wobbly plastic variant of the ASD with a worse webcam and speakers. Gotcha.

Lower volume of a bigger pixel count display is going to increase costs.

Yes they are. LG are only charging that price because it was developed in collaboration with Apple. It’s essentially an Apple display with the LG branding. So they add the Apple tax too. I believe when it was initially released it was exclusive to Apple for a period.

 

[UK-MacAddict]

Apple spent $85B on share buybacks in FY21. That is 6 times more than they spent paying dividends.

The end result is the same. They do it to profit the investors. So, whether it’s dividends or buybacks it’s all about more money for shareholders.

Share buybacks boost a company’s stock price by reducing the supply of shares in the market. By boosting the share price in this way you are basically returning the money to the shareholders.

In the late 2000’s when Apple had like $100bn in cash in the bank Steve Jobs refused to initiate a share buyback scheme and chose to sit on the cash pile for future products or to fight Google and it’s Android OS.

This kept everyone focused on making products and prices were still high but to reasonable levels where you didn’t feel like you were being robbed in broad daylight.

On another note in terms of todays high prices, Apple keeps quoting environmental concerns etc for removing items like the plastic wrap on packaging and the power charger. They save billions by doing this, but do not pass this cost saving to customers. By removing those simple items they save on shipping, manufacturing, transport, manpower, the list goes on.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Yes they are. LG are only charging that price because it was developed in collaboration with Apple. It’s essentially an Apple display with the LG branding. So they add the Apple tax too. I believe when it was initially released it was exclusive to Apple for a period.

Well, we know it’s not an Apple display because Apple doesn’t make displays. LG does, though.

 

[deevey]

I sincerely hope it completely flops for Apple. I hope everyone who ordered one sends it back And Apple is stuck with them. To ask $1600 for a non-HDR external monitor in 2022 isn’t just a rip off, it’s straight robbery. Shame on Apple.

Post a couple of existing displays that you think this competes with in the sub $1300 range preferably with specs.

 

[petvas]

Well, we know it’s not an Apple display because Apple doesn’t make displays. LG does, though.

This just shows how you really don't understand how these things work. LG makes the panel, but everything else is from Apple, including the calibration.
I will give you another example where LG makes panels for others..I had an LD UltraHD TV (65E9) and bought a Sony 65A90J. Sony doesn't make the panels, LG does. The difference in picture quality in favor of the Sony TV is big. Sony makes the better TV despite using LG panels.
The panel is just a component..

 

[Unregistered 4U]

This just shows how you really don't understand how these things work. LG makes the panel, but everything else is from Apple, including the calibration.
I will give you another example where LG makes panels for others..I had an LD UltraHD TV (65E9) and bought a Sony 65A90J. Sony doesn't make the panels, LG does. The difference in picture quality in favor of the Sony TV is big. Sony makes the better TV despite using LG panels.
The panel is just a component..

You said it’s an Apple display with LG branding, however, Apple’s 5K display includes an A13 and LG’s does not. Apple and LG DID partner on the display, but the panel and circuitry is all LG’s. It’s priced where it is not because there’s anything Apple in it, it’s because it’s a niche market. Out of the entire computing market, a 5K 27” monitor is a MUST HAVE for very few... 4K monitors are “good enough” for the vast majority.

 

[UK-MacAddict]

Well, we know it’s not an Apple display because Apple doesn’t make displays. LG does, though.

You said it’s an Apple display with LG branding, however, Apple’s 5K display includes an A13 and LG’s does not. Apple and LG DID partner on the display, but the panel and circuitry is all LG’s. It’s priced where it is not because there’s anything Apple in it, it’s because it’s a niche market. Out of the entire computing market, a 5K 27” monitor is a MUST HAVE for very few... 4K monitors are “good enough” for the vast majority.

It’s priced as it is because back in 2016 or whenever it was released it was exclusive and made for the sole purpose of being a Mac display. They announced it during an Apple keynote. So they obviously felt able to charge Apple level prices.

Apple likely had a profit share scheme with LG and Apple being the greedy sods they are under Tim Cook helped determine the price.

 

[petvas]

You said it’s an Apple display with LG branding, however, Apple’s 5K display includes an A13 and LG’s does not. Apple and LG DID partner on the display, but the panel and circuitry is all LG’s. It’s priced where it is not because there’s anything Apple in it, it’s because it’s a niche market. Out of the entire computing market, a 5K 27” monitor is a MUST HAVE for very few... 4K monitors are “good enough” for the vast majority.

I never said that the LG display is an Apple display with LG branding. Good enough is mediocre, as the majority of people. I understand

 

[petvas]

For those of you thinking that the LG Ultrafine display is good, or that the Studio Display has the same panel, think again:

The difference is remarkable. The Studio Display is better than the Lg Ultrafine.