Apple Studio Display Reviews: 'A Confounding Miss'

[Absrnd]

This Samsung M8 monitor looks sharp and a good price to boot.

SAMSUNG 32" M80B UHD HDR Smart Computer Monitor Screen with Streaming TV, Slimfit Camera Included, Wireless Remote PC Access, Alexa Built-in (LS32BM801UNXGO)

Everything you need is right in your screen. Watch, work and chat - all without connecting a separate PC - with the Smart Monitor. Your favorite content, productivity and video call apps are built-in for a simpler and more stylish desk setup that’s a joy to use every time.

www.amazon.com

Watch an unboxing and setup video of this monitor, and see the amount of cheap plastic, and the wobblyness,
then you would even find this price too much for this Aliexpress Studio Display/iMac clone

 

[ct2k7]

Watch an unboxing and setup video of this monitor, and see the amount of cheap plastic, and the wobblyness,
then you would even find this price too much for this Aliexpress Studio Display/iMac clone

I must be the only one in this thread that doesn’t give a damn what the casing or housing looks like. I’ve used 2 LG Ultrafines that costed around £700 each and they are VESA mounted. Not once have I felt the need to complain about the build quality. They haven’t died on me yet.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The issue with the Samsung M8 is the VA panel

Dreadful viewing angles and really hard to enjoy if you're used to IPS, OLED or even Plasma screens

 

[deevey]

Yes and it's practically a very small step up from the high dpi 4K 27” display.

There are 6 reasons why Apple want to release extra variant of 27” studio display with around $1000-$1200 and drop the price of early 2022 model.

#1 The trend of moving beyond 27” monitor without costing over $1000 is not a problem for most OEM such as Samsung or LG

#2 There are plenty of monitors with 32” 4K display that sell from $700 to $1200 with HDR10 support, 120Hz support.

Sure ... with crappy cameras (if any) and crappy speakers. Most have MUCH lower brightness levels as well.

4k also has 33% less pixels than 5k ... thats not an insignificant amount.

#3 Apple Studio Display price at $1599 is too expensive for most mac users planning to upgrade from the $1799 5K 27” iMac

Agreed, and most will buy a 4k monitor instead if they feel the ASD not worthwhile.

#4 The 27” iMac with 5K display is not a new technology and it was released roughly more than 7 years ago.

It's not an iMac.

#5 Therefore, producing just the monitor of previous generation 27” iMac with 5K display is a lot less expensive than ever before.

1. You don't know that LG has dropped the wholesale price of 5k panels to Apple (their only customer for 5k).
2. The price of electronic componants has increased industry wide the past couple of years.

#6 The screen size of 27” Apple Studio Display is more than a decade old and it's a regression in price value that loses to Samsung and LG

But it doesn't lose .. as no one execpt LG makes a 5k and they still sell a $1300 creaky plastic version with lower brightness.

”Is it possible to expect a $1000-1200 27” Apple Studio Display? The answer is a resounding YES”

”Is it possible to want a $1000-1200 27” Display? The answer is a resounding YES”

”Is it possible to expect a $1000-1200 27” Apple Studio Display? The answer is a resounding no”

The question should be: "Could Apple produce a 4k display at $1000-1200?"

The answer to that is "YES", but they won't, as it's not optimal for THEIR OS and they aren't going to sell a monitor that isn't optimal, it would also be competing in an already flooded 4k market and Apple will NOT be the cheaper option.

A "lite" version of this monitor would certainly be desirable for multi-monitor setups. One without the camera or speakers. That might get the price down to the $1300 mark, but anyone with that budget is likely to pay the extra $300 anyhow, so why bother re-tooling.

 

[ric22]

It's not an iMac.

It isn't. But only because Apple put a slower processor in. For all intents and purposes it's an iMac that's been artificially limited by Apple, so that they'll earn a lot more money from us, the consumers. It's another $1,000ish to buy a MacMini with keyboard and mouse, and that only has an M1, rather than the M1 Pro that a larger iMac would certainly justify.

 

[HandITOVER]

It isn't. But only because Apple put a slower processor in. For all intents and purposes it's an iMac that's been artificially limited by Apple, so that they'll earn a lot more money from us, the consumers. It's another $1,000ish to buy a MacMini with keyboard and mouse, and that only has an M1, rather than the M1 Pro that a larger iMac would certainly justify.

Yes. It's not a fallacy that at $1599 is overpriced in 2022 but not if release in 2015.

The pundits are right about it and Apple can do it better without exceeding $1000-$1200 in 2022

 

[deevey]

Yes. It's not a fallacy that at $1599 is overpriced in 2022 but not if release in 2015.

The pundits are right about it and Apple can do it better without exceeding $1000-$1200 in 2022

I don't doubt Apple could do a basic 5k monitor for $1200. But thats not whats on offer.

What they are offering is a slick aluminum chassis, high end webcam, tight OS integration and by all accounts, one of the best built in monitor speaker systems ever.

Apple don't complete in the "basic" market, it was always going to be more expensive than the closest competition (LG)

 

[ric22]

I don't doubt Apple could do a basic 5k monitor for $1200. But thats not whats on offer.

What they are offering is a slick aluminum chassis, high end webcam, tight OS integration and by all accounts, one of the best built in monitor speaker systems ever.

Apple don't complete in the "basic" market, it was always going to be more expensive than the closest competition (LG)

Don't you find it strange they built the new 27" iMac and then decided to sell it as a monitor, though?

 

[deevey]

Don't you find it strange they built the new 27" iMac and then decided to sell it as a monitor, though?

Did they ?

There's not nearly enough cooling for it to be an iMac, regardless of what flavour of M1 is inside. However I do think they should have added wifi/BT and run tvOS.

 

[ric22]

Did they? There's not nearly enough cooling for it to be an iMac, regardless of what flavour of M1 is inside.

You're saying a teeny tiny iPad Air has a greater capacity to cool an M1 chip than this thing does? Riiiiiight...

 

[deevey]

You're saying a teeny tiny iPad Air has a greater capacity to cool an M1 chip than this thing does? Riiiiiight...

Along with that massive INTERNAL PSU ?

Clearly this is not a display aimed at folk who actually wanted (and didn't get) a cheaper iMac 27 replacement. It's for folk who require a display like the LG 5k it replaces in the Apple Store, or those where money is no barrier to buying new gadgets.

 

[ric22]

Along with that massive INTERNAL PSU ?.

So an internal PSU, which no all-in-one has ever had before, right? And the M1 is a much hotter running chip than every Intel chip in previous iMacs, right, and simply couldn't be cooled?

If this wasn't April fools day I'd have to assume I was just being trolled.

 

[zevrix]

I have a 27" iMac 5k and also a Mac Mini with a 27" LG 4K monitor and notice no difference in everyday usage aside from the fact that the LG is matte and the iMac glossy

Interesting... I'm really curious about the difference (if any) between 5K and 4K displays. I also have iMac 27" 5K and now need a display for Mac Studio (already ordered).

Do you mean that when you compare your iMac 5K and LG 4K displays side by side you don't see any difference at all, under the same resolution? Sharpness, color, and all other qualities?

 

[wornish]

Just replaced my 2017 27" iMac with a Mac Studio and Studio display.
Everything is great EXCEPT the inbuilt webcam. It's a big disappointment and much worse than the one in my iMac.
Certainly needs a fix. No detail and gives a blurry/noisy image.

 

[theluggage]

Do you mean that when you compare your iMac 5K and LG 4K displays side by side you don't see any difference at all, under the same resolution? Sharpness, color, and all other qualities?

Colour, contrast etc. will depend on what model of 4k display you choose. Lets be realistic here - if you go shopping for displays for professional colour photo work you can spend the price of a Studio Display, or more, on a mere 2560x1440 display...

As for sharpness - guess what: 5k is sharper than 4k (given the same screen size), and if you do a close, side-by-side comparison you'll easily see it. The question (which was what I think @usagora was saying) is whether that is going to be so noticeable to you in day-to-day use that it's worth spending twice the price of a decent 4k display just to get that magic 5k.

I have a cheap Dell 28" 4k next to my 5k iMac and - if I put them both into "looks like 2560x1440" (which is a misnomer) mode - the closest you'll get to the same resolution - "best for display" on the 5k and "scaled" on the 4k:

* The iMac blows the cheap TN-panel Dell away on colour and contrast. Try to contain the surprise.
* Small text etc. on the Dell is really good but slightly grey and "soft" compared to the 5k, which is black and pin-sharp by comparison - but at regular arms-length viewing distances the difference is very subtle and you're certainly not seeing pixels unless you have very good vision.

"Looks like 1920x1080" mode on the 4k - which for modern retina-compatible software means no scaling artefacts is 100% usable. It's just that the system menu bars, icons, dialogs etc. are a bit larger than they would be in a perfect world - but certainly not unusably so, especially if you full-screen the app, and pretty irrelevant for the content you are viewing since most applications will let you zoom, select font sizes etc. to taste. Or, there's native 4k 1:1 mode, in which the menus/icons/etc. are very small and fiddly, but which would be usable at 28" if my eyeballs were 20 years younger...

Remember, "looks like 2560x1440" on 4k is effectively a full 5k screen downsampled to 4k, so it still carries far more detail than you'd get on an actual 2560x1440 screen - it's not like you're wasting your 4k by using it in 1440p mode. If you've ever used a standard-def display at anything other than it's native resolution using the display's built-in interpolation - just forget that experience, "scaled modes" on 4k are night and day better, and the display is always getting a true 4k signal. Yes, there's extra load on the GPU which might have been an issue on an old MacBook or Mini with Intel Integrated graphics, but really shouldn't bother a M1 Max.

Also - a 27" 4k display viewed from more than 21" meets the original definition of retina in that the angular size of the pixels at that distance is less than the typical resolution of the mk1 eyeball. That's only a rule of thumb - so your mileage (and eyesight) may vary - but what it does mean is that going above 4k on a 27" desktop display takes you into a realm of rapidly diminishing returns.

So, yes, a 5k display is still the perfect resolution for a 27" MacOS display - but the price of that is now $1600, and a 4k display costing half that might be perfectly good for your requirements. Plus, there are all sorts of alternatives to consider - maybe a pair of 24" 4k displays, or an ultra-wide display, or a 32"+ 4k screen that you could use in 1:1 mode, or a 4k primary screen and a domestic OLED or QLED TV for viewing HDR content....

 

[ric22]

Just replaced my 2017 27" iMac with a Mac Studio and Studio display.
Everything is great EXCEPT the inbuilt webcam. It's a big disappointment and much worse than the one in my iMac.
Certainly needs a fix. No detail and gives a blurry/noisy image.

Can't the Mac Studio be connected to the iMac? Or did you just feel like getting the same display again for the fun of it? Money to ?

 

[usagora]

Do you mean that when you compare your iMac 5K and LG 4K displays side by side you don't see any difference at all, under the same resolution? Sharpness, color, and all other qualities?

The computers are 20 miles apart (one at home, one at work), so I can't really do a side-by-side comparison. If I did, I'm sure their may be some noticeable differences, but not in terms of "wow, this one is sooo much better".

 

[palmor]

Can't the Mac Studio be connected to the iMac? Or did you just feel like getting the same display again for the fun of it? Money to ?

Nope, you can't use the 5k iMacs as an external display.

 

[ric22]

Nope, you can't use the 5k iMacs as an external display.

I googled it after I asked the question, and there's a few videos on how to do it... I watched one and it used a program on both devices to synch the two together. Looked easy and quick to do, though.

 

[palmor]

I googled it after I asked the question, and there's a few videos on how to do it... I watched one and it used a program on both devices to synch the two together. Looked easy and quick to do, though.

Luna display? Too many tradeoffs for me but I'm sure it works for some people. It would have to act like a true monitor, not a software based solution.

 

[wornish]

Can't the Mac Studio be connected to the iMac? Or did you just feel like getting the same display again for the fun of it? Money to ?

In a word no. The iMac cannot be used as an external display on a mac studio.

Certainly don't have $$'s or ££'s to burn.

 

[zedsdead]

Listen, I love my Studio Display. Is it a few years late, yes, but it is a fantastic display nonetheless (the camera isn't but Gruber is saying it will be fixed and his sources are 100% accurate). I have the LG5k Ultrafine and 4k Ultrafine at work that run off my MacBook Pro and all of the things have already been said about them. The Studio Display is expensive for what it is, but it is the only display for it's intended audience, which for many is simply an Apple branded, high quality display.

Regardless, I do want one with HDR and 120hz. Down the line that will likely come and I can repurpose this or sell it. I also feel that 27" should be the low limit and they need to expand the size.

Overall though, I do miss that the large iMac is gone. Hopefully Apple reconsiders.