I think all that is true, but the question is whether the addressable market for that screen, at that price point, is big enough to be worthwhile to Apple. How many people are really prepared to spend $1,500-$2,000 on a 27” monitor? I suspect not many. And I think that’s why we haven’t seen that product.
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' With 7K Resolution Reportedly in Development
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It maybe that Apple can’t make the margin they want down there… even at $1-1.5… as they’d need a lot of increased quality and cost to justify (and a 2-3x the price for nominally better appealing to the core Apple faithful isn’t a large enough market for them)… just spitballing (and hoping I’m one of those that’ll will jump on any < $2k Apple monitor)
Great buy. ?
My every day workhorse since 2011 has been the 27" Apple LED Cinema Display. Weighs a ton, can't adjust the height up or down, needs an adapter to make it work on Thunderbolt, but it is still a great monitor for colour work.
Wildcard prediction but could this end up being the "iMac Pro" refresh that some have talked about?
The upcoming iMac 27" refresh could end up being a blown up 24" with M1X Pro/Max internals, chin and all, which I don't think would satisfy that niche "pro" market (or at least the YouTube content creators who insist on thinking they need more to make their single shot + occasional B roll commentary videos)
Idk, I can't think of any other reason why a monitor would need a dedicated Apple Silicon chip. Assuming it'd be modeled after the Pro Display XDR, you'd get that industrial no-bezel/chin design with a powerful all-in-one computer package. Could honestly see something like this taking the $4999 price slot whereas the other Mac mini Pro "Studio" that's also rumored will be the in-between pro product.
The upcoming iMac 27" refresh could end up being a blown up 24" with M1X Pro/Max internals, chin and all, which I don't think would satisfy that niche "pro" market (or at least the YouTube content creators who insist on thinking they need more to make their single shot + occasional B roll commentary videos)
Idk, I can't think of any other reason why a monitor would need a dedicated Apple Silicon chip. Assuming it'd be modeled after the Pro Display XDR, you'd get that industrial no-bezel/chin design with a powerful all-in-one computer package. Could honestly see something like this taking the $4999 price slot whereas the other Mac mini Pro "Studio" that's also rumored will be the in-between pro product.
Why can't they just sell the 5K iMac screen without the Mac?
You misunderstand the rumors, 7k is the price not the resolution. ?
The 27" iMac is 5K so you can edit 4K video at full resolution and still have one side and top/bottom control panels, but 7K makes no sense... it's 7K, why? So you can edit 6K video?!?
Almost nothing is broadcast in 4K live, and 4K streaming is all compressed 4K, which isn't the same quality as full 4K... the reason companies are selling 8K TV's is that it's easier to pack more pixels in a screen than it is to make panels with brighter / darker pictures, faster refresh rate, and no burn-in or image retention, so they sell you the lowest common denominator and label it as 'the most amazing thing ever'.
Another issue with 8K (side that no content exists for it, as you mentioned), is that large 8K TV's display traditional 480i / 480p horribly, even with the best upconversion software on earth. Essentially, almost all of the TV content that has ever existed looks really bad on an 8K TV, compared to a 4K TV.
They concentrate on making their base products, their bread and butter products, affordable. There's an iPhone for every budget. There are affordable Macs. The products they can move in volume are affordable. They don't sell displays in volume. The most popular Macs are laptops with built in screens, after all. If they're not going to sell them in volume, why work so hard to make them "affordable?" Why not just make them HALO products?
Apple doesn't cater to the MacRumors crowd--they already got us!
No, the 27" iMac is 5K because a "retina" equivalent of the previous 27" display is double the number of pixels in each dimension, so instead of the display being 2560x1440 (QHD resolution) it's 5120x2880, and the "5120" is the "5K". It has nothing to do with video editing.
A hypothetical 7K display will, in all likelihood, have the same pixel density, it will just be bigger than 32".
Sigh. 162 Comments so far. Do people on Macrumors actually follow Apple hardware?
Apple has moved their MacBook Pro Display from their usual ~220 PPI which they have been using since the Retina Notebook era in 2012 to ~255PPI. It is only natural to move Desktop Display to 255PPI as well. These panel are shared by their iPad line and many others across the industry. Unlike the ~220PPi which is practically Apple only. So despite being a higher PPI panel, they are actually cheaper.
7136 x 4014 @ 32" = 255 PPI
Apple has moved their MacBook Pro Display from their usual ~220 PPI which they have been using since the Retina Notebook era in 2012 to ~255PPI. It is only natural to move Desktop Display to 255PPI as well. These panel are shared by their iPad line and many others across the industry. Unlike the ~220PPi which is practically Apple only. So despite being a higher PPI panel, they are actually cheaper.
7136 x 4014 @ 32" = 255 PPI
Last edited:
Yeah, and I’m guessing substantially higher, especially considering this would be the ONLY monitor of it’s type, for Apple would be $3000 at least.
Can you elaborate on this? My interpretation of the different PPIs was that Apple had a different view on the "right" PPI for displays typically viewed at different viewing distances. It hadn't occurred to me it might be a wider transition.
If Apple's Retina were really defined as Retina by viewing distance, you would have expect every different screen size devices to have different PPI. In reality Apple define them in categories. The iPhone has had Retina 326PPi even now on OLED ( ignoring iPhone Plus ), the 45x PPI is only for Green colour due to how OLED sub pixel matrix works.
MacBook Pro Retina, iMac and Pro XDR all had 220 PPi. That is Apple's definition of Retina on Mac Usage. And it has been consistent for a whole decade. Now the MacBook Pro all of a sudden moved "out" of the 220PPi standard to a new ~255PPi, you would expect the other Mac product to slowly transition to the same PPi as well. Again it isn't because of higher quality, Apple just get better economy of scale with these new PPI panels.
It is one of the greatest mysteries of the world.
Video/image processing for the webcam?
Audio processing for the speakers/mics?
Video/audio decoding in the display - possibly including (but not limited to) Display Stream Compression for DisplayPort 1.4?
Resampling/scaling/re-timing of input signals (e.g. 4/5/6k -> 7k)?
Auto brightness/colour control?
...then there's a whole lot of more exotic possibilities with the display acting more like an external GPU than a display.
Odds are that the Pro Display XDR already has an ARM processor of some type built in - they get everywhere as general purpose controllers. Most modern LCD/OLED/QLED/whatever TVs have them for picture scaling & optimisation as well as any "smart" features. Why wouldn't Apple use their own processors rather than buy them from Samsung or Qualcomm? An A-series or regular M1 processor would fit the bill.
Well, they basically did (do?) in the form of the LG Ultrafine. Yes, it is an LG-branded product, but it was clearly made in collaboration with Apple and everything except the case matches what you'd expect from an Apple 5k Thunderbolt display. Imagine exactly the same innards in an iMac-like enclosure and most of the aesthetic problems go away (including the iMac bezels hiding the hated 'forehead' that holds the webcam) - maybe even the EM interference problem they had with early models (thanks to the metal case). It's almost like Apple had a product in the pipeline and then axed it.
It's as if Apple really, really want you to buy an iMac. My guess is planned obsolescence - a good display goes on being useful for a decade or more (witness all the macrumorites still rocking 27" and 30" Cinema displays). Build in a Mac with limited expansion and it is obsolete after 5 years.
Sometimes things happen for more than one reason...
The number of times I've read this comment, through these 7 pages of comments so-far, is astonishing. If we're all thinking it, I have to believe Apple will address it.
People have been asking for that for 7 years and it hasn't happened yet.
To people saying "there are plenty of affordable monitors available: no, there aren't. What we're asking for is a "retina-level" display that matches the iMacs. Other than the LG Ultrafine 4K and 5K, there aren't any. Dell used to sell one but they won't provide tech support for macOS. HP used to sell one but they don't anymore.
What people want is A 27" 5K display (same panel as the iMac) that can charge a 16" MacBook Pro through Thunderbolt 3, and has a webcam, ethernet, and some USB-C and USB-A ports. The LG Ultrafine 5K comes close but doesn't have all of the ports, and the stand is wobbly, and has had build quality issues.
What people want is A 27" 5K display (same panel as the iMac) that can charge a 16" MacBook Pro through Thunderbolt 3, and has a webcam, ethernet, and some USB-C and USB-A ports. The LG Ultrafine 5K comes close but doesn't have all of the ports, and the stand is wobbly, and has had build quality issues.
