I agree that it isn't possible with the MacBook Air/Pro, but it should be possible with the Studio Display.
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 Unveils $1,599 27-Inch 5K 'Studio Display' External Monitor
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed, and I find it a little weird that is not there. (If indeed the hardware is missing.)
Perhaps Apple is saving it for whatever replaces the XDR?
Or they, don't want to have different identification methods for different Macs to avoid confusion? I guess this is reasonable from Apple's perspective since you practically always put your hands on a keyboard to use a Mac, but it excludes everyone that for whatever reason prefers a keyboard not made by Apple. (Personally, I still use my Extended Keyboard II for typing, and have been very close to replacing my Magic Keyboard with something backlit.)
I am very tempted by the Studio Display, but have decided to wait. This is the kind of monitor one could easily keep in service for 10+ years and the fact that it's using 2014-era display panel tech (60Hz refresh, LED backlight) gives me pause. Gonna wait for an update to a more modern panel and stick with my 27" 4K LG for now.
(And yes, I can clearly see the difference in text sharpness at 27" 5K vs 4K running both at 2560x1440 HiDPI/Retina resolution. ?)
(And yes, I can clearly see the difference in text sharpness at 27" 5K vs 4K running both at 2560x1440 HiDPI/Retina resolution. ?)
Good decision. I am not completely sold on the monitor either, but I have decided to purchase it and give it a try during the 2 week-no-questions-asked return policy that Apple has in place. If I believe that the $2k+ that I spent on the monitor (1500 for the monitor + 400 for the tilt+height adjustable stand + tax) isn't worth the price, I will return it and get a refund.
Like you, if I am not satisfied with the Studio Display, I will wait for the "XDR" version.
Pricing of this display (considering what it has to offer) is just ridiculous; it costs couple hundred dollars less then a base 27 inch iMac (actual all-in-one computer with processor, rams, motherboard and exactly the same display). Sure, they popped a better front camera on it, but that hardly justifies the price.
True. But you have to understand that there is demand for this panel - 27-inch 5K panel and there are literally no other manufacturers of this display panel, only LG. Thus, LG/Apple can charge whatever they want for it and there will be people who buy it.
I use my LG UltraFine 5K with both my work Windows PC and my MacBook Pro. Microsoft’s own apps are OK, but some apps still present tiny text or inconsistent dialog boxes. And if I have a window that spans between my 1080p notebook screen and the 5K display it tries to scale it to the smaller resolution display with weird results (gargantuan text unscaled on the high-res monitor). MacOS detects this and displays the window on only one screen at a time in these instances.
Kind of a letdown that Apple went with this price range. Now they sell an expensive display and an even more expensive display. I used to have an Apple Cinema Display and loved how it looked on my desk. Years ago I upgraded to an LG Ultrafine 4k that I bought on sale as a refurbished model for $250 or so. It's not great and I've been wanting to replace it but I was waiting on Apple hoping they would come out with something in the $800-1200 price range. $2k for the cheapest model with height adjustment is just too high - especially when it's functionally basically the same as my LG Ultrafine. I LOL'd during the presentation when they highlighted the 1x Thunderbolt 4 port and 3x USB-C ports... exactly like the LG Ultrafine. And P3 color! Like every display for how many years now?
If you genuinely see a significant difference it. is. not. because. of. pixel. density. It's because of any number of other factors specific to your display and/or you. Such as a poor quality(or defective) matte layer and/or the physical size of elements on one display don't match the other(did you ever bother to check this?) and/or differences in brightness/contrast and/or incorrect/mismatched sharpness settings and/or your vision isn't what you think it is etc...
I guess it's possible for something like a really crappy matte layer to create a significant difference, but I've never personally seen one that bad, and I've used dozens of brands over the years. But this is mostly besides the point and I am still essentially right.
If you run perfect 1440p@2x on the 5K display and equivalent 'looks like 1440p' scaling on a 4K display, MacOS renders the exact same amount of pixels; 5120x2880. The only difference on the 4K display is that 25% of resolution is lost to downscaling.
The overwhelming majority of fonts you see in documents, apps, websites etc are all 'typical' sizes. Eg the letter 'e' on this page is ~15x18 pixels at 5K resolution. On a 4K display it's downscaled to ~11x13. The aliased edges of fonts(the part that determines the sharpness of text) are usually only a single pixel wide and the rest is the actual font body and empty space. So most of the additional resolution is literally only one or two extra pixels to the font body. The physical size of one pixel on a 4K display(assuming 27") is 155 microns(0.155mm). On a 5K display it's 116 microns(0.116mm). That's only a difference of 39 microns(0.039mm). So only 39 micron reduction in width to the aliasing edges and maybe 39-78 micron increase in density to the font body. The difference between 185 vs 218ppi is even smaller than that.
So statements such as yours and those I quoted here being due to pixel density are patently false. It doesn't matter if you have perfect human vision, and eye disorder or anything in-between, the laws of physics of the universe in which we currently exist do not allow them to be true. If the physical size of elements on both displays match, there is no significant difference, unless you're running super tiny fonts everywhere all the time and sit ~25cm away like an idiot.
If you don't agree with any of this you can whip out a calculator and macro lens and check for yourself, or maybe try a 4K display that doesn't use wax paper as the cover layer.
@Lyoha please read conversations in their entirety before replying with the same incorrect assumptions at least two other people have already been corrected on.
So you decided to write a novel instead of admitting that you're wrong, as proven by the experience of multiple people who actually own these products. Cope and seethe, buddy.
Sauce so weak it could pass as water. Maybe if you didn't consider a few paragraphs as "a novel" you would understand things better. Thanks buddy.
For anyone looking for a 5K display with multiple inputs, you could always do what a bunch of us tinkerers have done here and build your own. Took some time but very worthwhile. I’ve been thoroughly enjoying it (with built-in webcam and speakers) connected to my M1 mini, Windows laptop, iPad Pro, and X-box Series X using its four inputs.
The studio display is great, for me, apple left out some possibilities: MagSafe charger in the base
Ethernet is a big omission, I believe. This (and possibly some USB-A ports) is the one thing that would still require a hub for use with a laptop.
Was trying to buy LG 5K 27" Ultrafine for last 18 months. Took one look at the Studio Display 5K 27" and ports are same so ordered and cancelled the LG. Studio Display is probably made by LG, hopefully better finish with a processor and Thunderbolt 4. The three USB-C and Thunderbolt mean I can power my MacBook Air M1 from the Studio and still have enough ports so may not need a dock.
Has WiFi for Ethernet plus Bluetooth so that should take care of HMI interfaces and no need for wired Ethernet. Can get USB-C to USB-A adapter ports for about £5 each for other peripherals. When my Studio Display arrives I can power the MacBook Air M1 from the Thunderbolt port and still have 3 x USB-C ports for other junk.
Love this minimalist design and looking forward to the 5K 27" display.
Not a replacement.
Of course I could have a 10GbE dongle hanging off the back. I just think an RJ45 port would have been nice.
Your post instantly caught my attention. I like my displays to set low too, so I bought the adjustable model so I could make the display lower. Are you positive that you are only able to raise the height of this? If so, I need to cancel and just order the tilt stand :/
WiFi is perfect a replacement for Ethernet as will handle the bandwidth and doesn't need unreliable electrical connections, and eliminates adapters, plus it is the future so get used to it, unless you prefer lots of cables.
I can think of many reasons, including speed, latency, robustness and security.
Personally, I have a hardwired network that is not connected to wifi or the Internet, and Ethernet is the only way to access it.
Also, look what happens with the latency to my router when I disconnect the Ethernet cable and the MacBook switches to wireless, through a WiFi 6 mesh node with Ethernet-connected backhaul directly to the router sitting very close to it:
Code:
am@mbp14 ~ % ping 10.0.0.1
PING 10.0.0.1 (10.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.875 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.031 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.945 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.678 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=1.122 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=1.059 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.725 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.829 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.876 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=1.102 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=1.074 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=1.218 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=0.953 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=0.896 ms
Request timeout for icmp_seq 14
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=5.216 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=4.018 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 time=4.741 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=4.279 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=4.021 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=5.997 msI think in 25+ years of dealing with RJ45 connectors on a near-daily basis I've experience a single fault.
Wait, what? You're claiming electrical (or fiber-optic) connections are LESS reliable than radio transmission?
I do prefer lots of cables, thank you very much, although they are perfectly hidden, so I do not have to see them.
Last edited:
Very much doubt this as RJ45 and similar phone connectors are specifically designed for a low connection frequency. I have had dozens of RJ45 connection failure, broken plastic clips and damaged receptacles. These connectors were never designed for heavy use and in lot of situations they are not fit for purpose. Really only intended for few connections. If you have never experienced a fault you don't need to change connections very often.
What are you going to do when you have no choice than to connect wirelessly?