It is typically MORE noticeable and valuable on larger screens than it is on smaller screens. When it first came to the iPad it was more noticeable on the 12.9” than the 11”.
The problem with high refresh rate is that it doubles the data rate needed to drive it. That may or may not be worth the extra benefit at this time.
At this point, 7K with a 60Hz refresh rate should be more than adequate for the actual target market of buyers and not the endless spec chasers that plague this website forum.
That view would lead to many things not changing. 60Hz refresh was more than adequate on iPhones, iPads and MacBook Pros too but Apple still introduced ProMotion to them. And it’s not about chasing specs either. It’s about nicer experience.
I might be wrong, but I don’t think anyone is suggesting things will not change. What we’re suggesting is that it’s just likely not feasible in the short term. And that perhaps the demand, from the segment that is most likely to spend several thousands of dollars on a display, may not justify the increase in cost right now either. I wouldn’t assume that, just because they can sell an iPad Pro with a 12.9“ miniLED screen and high refresh rate for not substantially more than prior models that didn’t have those features, that it’s similarly feasible to do on a much much larger size display. My understanding is that yields go down quite a bit the larger the display gets.
There is no really reason to increase the ppi. It is based on the typical viewing distance. A phone‘s viewing distance in around 12”, a laptop is around 18”, and a desktop monitor is around 24-30”. Apple chooses ppi values that mean that a pixel is too small to distinguish at the corresponding viewing distance. Giving a desktop monitor the same ppi as a laptop would be just a waste of pixels.
Yes, ProMotion is a nicer experience for some, although I only have a single ProMotion device (2017 iPad Pro) and I don’t notice it enough to get upset when a device doesn’t have it. My argument is that the lack of technical knowledge around here leads to a lot of people crapping on a product because it doesn’t tick a box on a spec sheet. My iPhone XR is a wonderful device, but all I heard about here was what a piece of crap it was because Apple chose not to give it a 1080p display. There’s just a lot of tech snobs here who visit the tech specs and then proceed to thrash a product that they have never touched, have no intention to buy or simply dislike because it says Apple on it because a box in their mind didn’t get ticked.
Interesting. I have mixed thoughts on this one. I do agree a 36” display could be pretty massive and that it seems more likely Apple would stick with the 32” size; however I do question bumping the ppi up to 256 and what benefit that would provide at the distance it will be viewed at. I guess we’ll see if this thing is even real
What kind of user do you think would upgrade from 6k to 7k at the same physical size? (Mostly I’m wondering what the second-hand market will look like for those 6K XDRs, haha.) Though I guess it wouldn’t be just the number of pixels that are rumored to go up, but also dimming zones / miniLEDs, etc, right?If the 7K rumor is true, it would certainly be aimed at at least a 32” size, otherwise it would be pretty much wasted resolution in a 27” size. I think it would be the 3 displays you mention above, though I’m not sure what the marketing is for a promotion 27” display if it is at the price points that have been mentioned. Is that videographers, gamers, or someone else?Interesting. I have mixed thoughts on this one. I do agree a 36” display could be pretty massive and that it seems more likely Apple would stick with the 32” size; however I do question bumping the ppi up to 256 and what benefit that would provide at the distance it will be viewed at. I guess we’ll see if this thing is even real
I really don’t know what to expect at this point. These high ppl displays are already pretty niche; I have a hard time imagining Apple having more than 2 displays — Studio Display, a Studio Display XDR (27“ 5k but with miniLED etc), and a Pro Display XDR). I guess I’m hoping they continue to have a 32”+ screen and don’t replace the current XDR with a 27” version.
Well, what's the reason for the increase to 7K that thereby has a side benefit when restricted to a 32" physical size? That's what I'm trying to wrap my head around. In what way was 6k falling short @ 32", or what justifies the undoubted increase in cost for a higher density 7K at the same physical size?
I think Apple did 5k for two reasons: First, they wanted to offer a standard-size large monitor (27"). And 27" with a Retina pixel density (220 ppi) requires 5k.
At 254 ppi, the UI would be about 15% smaller than on the 220 ppi displays (for the same integer scaling). Next time I'm at the Apple store I'll need to take a look at the MBP's to see if I think that's too small for me. I'm actually comfortable with the UI size on my 27" 4k at 2X scaling. I wonder if Apple would offer 3X scaling on a 32" 7k, since that would give the nearly the same UI size I see now (27" 4k @ 2X scaling = 82 ppi; 32" 7k @ 3X scaling = 84 ppi).
So right now I have a 21.5" 4k (LG) display above my 2021 16" MBP, and today's the first time I noticed how the interface is sized based on the higher ppi of the MacBook Pro display (UI elements are noticeably smaller), which does make me question whether they'd make things smaller on a 32" 7k display.
Yes, I'm using default for display, and I'm referring to that as 2X scaling.
