Apple Updates Studio Display With Thunderbolt 5 and More

[macpro2000]

What are the chances of Apple releasing an improved 32" XDR when the new Studios are released? If that were to happen, there would be a ton of pissed off people that already bought the 27" one.

 

[amancalledsun]

What are the chances of Apple releasing an improved 32" XDR when the new Studios are released? If that were to happen, there would be a ton of pissed off people that already bought the 27" one.

The naming convention is interesting. Studio Display XDR vs Pro Display XDR. There is currently no Pro display...

 

[Sir_Macs_A_Lot]

Guess I'll stick with my 27" Thunderbolt Displays for yet another year.

 

[ErneX]

The comments in here are very funny and just shows how people are not understading how a comparison should be done.
So they say there is much cheaper 4k monitors that does 120Hz, great. XDR does 5K in 120Hz. Then they do say other cheaper monitors, can do this, can do that. But everything mentinoed is only 1 or 2 feature. seperately, not combined.

Could somebody (please) sum up all the features what these monitors do and compare to an equally featured product. like 5K, P3, 60 or 120Hz whatever you pick, TB5, etc etc.
When you say, that is cheaper but doesnt have that, this is cheaper doesnt have that is just juvenile. Yes you can compare a Fiat to a Porsche. They both have 4 wheels, a steering wheel, an engine but completely different cars.

That also applies to the Apple displays, they are good at some things, terrible or not able at all other things which some people find necessary.

 

[fatihayoglu]

That also applies to the Apple displays, they are good at some things, terrible or not able at all other things which some people find necessary.

That’s why I’m asking, if we could we do a proper features comparison as a package not individually picked. I mean there are monitors for $250 as well, so what. Like there is an Eizo CG319 monitor which is £5K which seems very similar to Apple. dR in the paper but that is even 4K with lower NiTS and contrast. So maybe a high quality monitor is not cheap

 

[ErneX]

That’s why I’m asking, if we could we do a proper features comparison as a package not individually picked. I mean there are monitors for $250 as well, so what. Like there is an Eizo CG319 monitor which is £5K which seems very similar to Apple. dR in the paper but that is even 4K with lower NiTS and contrast. So maybe a high quality monitor is not cheap

Personally since I use two computers having a monitor with multiple inputs is a must. This is a basic feature found on many monitors, even the lowest tier ones. Also being able to share devices like the keyboard and mouse.

Don’t get me wrong though, the Apple Displays are excellent, great materials, sound, image quality. But for me they are missing those features.

 

[Ivabign]

I was kinda bummed I just bought an open box Studio Display with tilt and height stand for $1399 with warranty until December 2026 as I thought I should have waited when I heard about the update - now I am kind of OK with it.

I was not in the market for a $3299 version and can live without T5 - my Studio has 6 of those. Sometimes things work out for the best.

 

[walkin]

I'll take a stab at Apple's hidden marketing-speak meaning for you. They wanted a nice big % change to highlight. Since they don't publish the frequency range of the monitor's audio (or that of the predecessor), legitimately they could claim 30% deeper bass by expanding the low frequency support down from 30Hz to 20Hz, or 36Hz down to 24Hz. It is unclear, though, whether that is the correct interpretation. Perhaps they mean that the audio output at the lowest frequencies is 30% louder (which is measurable), which would also be no small accomplishment, as power requirements increase tremendously to increase low frequency output. It is completely unclear which interpretation is correct, though, as you note. I think the key word in the marketing copy is "deeper", which likely means improved response at lower frequencies than were previously supported. Just a guess.

The accepted way to market something like this is to publish measurements.

They also claim it's the "the highest‑fidelity speaker system ever created for Mac," which is a highly doubtful claim.

 

[amancalledsun]

The accepted way to market something like this is to publish measurements.

They also claim it's the "the highest‑fidelity speaker system ever created for Mac," which is a highly doubtful claim.

Agreed, for an audio company. Apple has often not published hard measurements for their marketing claims. However, I actually wouldn’t be surprised if this has better frequency response curve than anything Apple has yet created specifically for Mac. Keyword being Mac.

 

[dumastudetto]

Agreed, for an audio company. Apple has often not published hard measurements for their marketing claims. However, I actually wouldn’t be surprised if this has better frequency response curve than anything Apple has yet created specifically for Mac. Keyword being Mac.

The internal speaker in the Mac Mini is incredible. If they beat that, then wow.

 

[Big_D]

Well, I finally pulled the trigger and bought the BenQ with TB4 hub, it is a great little monitor. The only downside is the USB ports for the peripherals (keyboard, in my case) sticks out of the bottom of the screen, which detracts from its neatness, other than that is is a great little display.

 

[jakey rolling]

The comments in here are very funny and just shows how people are not understading how a comparison should be done.

That is a particularly arrogant take, my man. Most people here understand perfectly well how a comparison "should be done". You seem to think that a comparison should start with the list of features highlighted by the manufacturer of a particular product and then take those features at face value and compare them to other manufacturers. That is a brand loyalists way of thinking and is absolutely the wrong way to do a comparison.

The first step in any useful comparison is to decide what features are important to you, what benefit they provide, and to compare those features between products. Where there is a very clear price-gap between products, the second step is to decide what features are critical enough to pay extra for and which features you would be okay with compromising.

So they say there is much cheaper 4k monitors that does 120Hz, great. XDR does 5K in 120Hz. Then they do say other cheaper monitors, can do this, can do that. But everything mentinoed is only 1 or 2 feature. seperately, not combined.

Yes. Because cheaper in this sense is often less than half the price. And many people are willing to make that compromise because the benefit of going from 4k to 5k is nowhere near worth the difference in price. 90% of that benefit is just overcoming an artificial scaling limitation in MacOS (lack of fractional scaling) that doesn't exist in other operating systems.

Could somebody (please) sum up all the features what these monitors do and compare to an equally featured product. like 5K, P3, 60 or 120Hz whatever you pick, TB5, etc etc.
When you say, that is cheaper but doesnt have that, this is cheaper doesnt have that is just juvenile. Yes you can compare a Fiat to a Porsche. They both have 4 wheels, a steering wheel, an engine but completely different cars.

Soon as you can sum up all of the features that Apple monitors provide for an equally featured product. Like a built-in KVM, multiple inputs, full compatibility with all devices (Macs, PCs, and consoles), 16:10 or 16:18 aspect ratio. Oh wait, none of Apple's monitors do any of this.

And herein lies the issue with "comparisons" in the way you want them to be: you fall into a marketing trap if all you want to compare are the specs that a manufacturer highlights.

I'm a consultant who does coding, spreadsheets, online meetings, and play the occasional game. I only need reasonably good colour calibration (for formatting company logos on external printable reports), but real screen real estate and clear text is critical to my use-case. For coding, nothing beats the LG Dual-up I have as my right-hand monitor. For most of my other other uses, my Dell 27" 4k Ultrafine is incredible. For keeping notes and time entries, the nearly decade-old BenQ 1440p monitor I have on my left works perfectly. For the price of all three monitors plus the Ergotron arms that they are mounted to, I can get one Pro Display XDR, which will just match my Dell in terms of refresh rate and provide few other very marginal benefits.

And the biggest point of all this - far more computer users have use-cases that line up with my requirements than line up with Apple's. Most of us don't need a Porsche. In my case, a pickup truck will cost less and do more.

 

[fatihayoglu]

double entry - post deleted

 

[fatihayoglu]

That is a particularly arrogant take, my man. Most people here understand perfectly well how a comparison "should be done". You seem to think that a comparison should start with the list of features highlighted by the manufacturer of a particular product and then take those features at face value and compare them to other manufacturers. That is a brand loyalists way of thinking and is absolutely the wrong way to do a comparison.

The first step in any useful comparison is to decide what features are important to you, what benefit they provide, and to compare those features between products. Where there is a very clear price-gap between products, the second step is to decide what features are critical enough to pay extra for and which features you would be okay with compromising.


Yes. Because cheaper in this sense is often less than half the price. And many people are willing to make that compromise because the benefit of going from 4k to 5k is nowhere near worth the difference in price. 90% of that benefit is just overcoming an artificial scaling limitation in MacOS (lack of fractional scaling) that doesn't exist in other operating systems.


Soon as you can sum up all of the features that Apple monitors provide for an equally featured product. Like a built-in KVM, multiple inputs, full compatibility with all devices (Macs, PCs, and consoles), 16:10 or 16:18 aspect ratio. Oh wait, none of Apple's monitors do any of this.

And herein lies the issue with "comparisons" in the way you want them to be: you fall into a marketing trap if all you want to compare are the specs that a manufacturer highlights.

I'm a consultant who does coding, spreadsheets, online meetings, and play the occasional game. I only need reasonably good colour calibration (for formatting company logos on external printable reports), but real screen real estate and clear text is critical to my use-case. For coding, nothing beats the LG Dual-up I have as my right-hand monitor. For most of my other other uses, my Dell 27" 4k Ultrafine is incredible. For keeping notes and time entries, the nearly decade-old BenQ 1440p monitor I have on my left works perfectly. For the price of all three monitors plus the Ergotron arms that they are mounted to, I can get one Pro Display XDR, which will just match my Dell in terms of refresh rate and provide few other very marginal benefits.

And the biggest point of all this - far more computer users have use-cases that line up with my requirements than line up with Apple's. Most of us don't need a Porsche. In my case, a pickup truck will cost less and do more.

I’m not quite sure why it is arrogant. I am not even saying I know better than you (in a sense of anybody in here) nor do I say Apple is better. But when you compare a 4K60Hz monitor to a 5K120Hz monitor and then say well 4K is cheaper, that’s doesn’t require too much effort to figure out. One can compare a 911 to a 458 and we can debate about it, but when you compare a Porsche to a Fiat, and then say well Fiat is cheaper and Porsche is crazy to sell that expensive cars, that’s just funny.
Now, one might not require a feature but that doesn’t make that monitor bad. We should also not forgot something; when technology reached to a point and you want a marginally better product, that jump might be too expensive simply because the manufacturing is too much, such as maybe (just maybe) a 5K120Hz P3 Adobe RGB 99% is way more expensive than a 4K120Hz P3 AdobeRGB 99% monitor. Maybe a HD camera on a standard monitor is much cheaper than a 4K camera in the monitor.
Also people are forgetting the fact that Apple is selling their accessory products to be used primarily by Apple users, such as keyboards, mouses, trackpads, monitors etc. They are not really worried if a Windows user will buy their mouse or monitor. That makes their production numbers much much smaller than the mainstream brands. This way of production makes their cost higher hence the selling price as well.
So what I am trying to say is, just because one doesn’t like the spec sheet of a monitor doesn’t make it a bad monitor or a stupid idea to sell a monitor at that price.
A case in point is, I have just checked a EIZO 319 monitor, that is 50% more expensive than Apple XDR. I know, EIZO is a good monitor and yes it is larger than XDR but lower resolution and refresh rate than XDR.
I am glad you have found a good match for your needs.
And I am not Apple loyalist, yes their products are nice, well built, last very long (so good investment for me) but if another compatible product is better, then well done to that company. One of the reason I purchase from Apple is the service I get when I need and the simplicity of working everything together.

 

[AbeLincoln1984]

Guess I'll stick with my 27" Thunderbolt Displays for yet another year.

People that use apple gear for long periods of time rock.

Just saying. I love it.

Say what you want about the prices but the longevity can be remarkable.

 

[fatihayoglu]

People that use apple gear for long periods of time rock.

Just saying. I love it.

Say what you want about the prices but the longevity can be remarkable.

I agree, I have a 2015 5K iMac. The only reason I’ll get a new computer is because the softwares I use doesn’t get updates anymore. Otherwise it works like the 1st day and hardly few windows based machines would be this stable and last long

 

[walkin]

Agreed, for an audio company. Apple has often not published hard measurements for their marketing claims. However, I actually wouldn’t be surprised if this has better frequency response curve than anything Apple has yet created specifically for Mac. Keyword being Mac.

"High fidelity" is unfortunately an entirely meaningless term. Are they talking about the frequency response curve? There's no way to know.

They publish the colour space coverage of the display. So why not the frequency response?

Also, "ever created for Mac" isn't the same as "anything we've ever created."

And even so, something needs to be shown here and not just asserted. One system that comes to mind…

 

[AbeLincoln1984]

I don't know if I'm allowed to share links but the Benq MA270S just dropped and it looks like it solves a handful of problems at a lower cost than the studio displays.

If I didn't have a studio display already I'd think about it, but given what I've seen from other mac friendly alternatives, I'd wait for some solid reviews first.

MA270S｜27" 5K Nano Gloss Monitor with Thunderbolt 4 for Mac Creators

BenQ MA270S shows Mac Colorsand brings your creative vision with 5K clarity, a vivid Nano Gloss panel, and a seamless Thunderbolt 4 connection, expanding how you create, connect, and see the world.

www.benq.com

 

[amancalledsun]

"High fidelity" is unfortunately an entirely meaningless term. Are they talking about the frequency response curve? There's no way to know.

They publish the colour space coverage of the display. So why not the frequency response?

Also, "ever created for Mac" isn't the same as "anything we've ever created."

And even so, something needs to be shown here and not just asserted. One system that comes to mind…

View attachment 2610825

Yes, you're just restating my post, and it's why I said the key word is Mac. Also the H/K set up is highly coloured. You can still buy them, btw, slightly updated and now with bluetooth.
https://www.harmankardon.com/home-audio/HK+SOUNDSTICKS+4.html

 

[walkin]

Yes, you're just restating my post, and it's why I said the key word is Mac. Also the H/K set up is highly coloured. You can still buy them, btw, slightly updated and now with bluetooth.
https://www.harmankardon.com/home-audio/HK+SOUNDSTICKS+4.html

No, I'm not restating your post, I'm responding to it. I can make my response more explicit for you so that it's clearer.

Agreed, for an audio company.

Audio companies frequently don't publish measurements, although they should, and it's often expected that they do. Instead, they often do what Apple is doing here, calling their product "high fidelity" and using other subjective terms. But that claim is meaningless here, as it is with audio companies when they make it.

Apple has often not published hard measurements for their marketing claims.

But in other cases, including for this display, they do publish such measurements (or at least conformity with measurable standards). The example that I gave was the P3 colour space (and also Adobe RGB). Audio is being treated differently here.

However, I actually wouldn’t be surprised if this has better frequency response curve than anything Apple has yet created specifically for Mac.

It isn't clear if they're referring to a frequency response curve, and their claim isn't that this is better than anything Apple has yet created, but anything created for the Mac.

Keyword being Mac.

The Harman Kardon system designed by Jonny Ive was created by Harman Kardon for the Mac, not by Apple. So "Mac" isn't the keyword in your previous sentence, I would say. I would be surprised if built-in display speakers have a deeper bass extension than a dedicated subwoofer. The other claim Apple makes, besides that of the "highest fidelity" system ever, is about "30% deeper bass." If deeper bass is supposed to make it higher fidelity, something needs to be shown in measurements.

Not by you, of course. By Apple, ideally.

I don't think there's any disagreement between us here, but perhaps incomplete misunderstanding because I wasn't explicit enough in my response to you.

I don't mind if people think this reply is needlessly repetitive or pedantic, because Apple is playing fast and loose with marketing to creative professionals, and the details and precision of terms matter to those professionals.

It's a bit like when Apple marketed the Pro Display XDR as competitive with reference displays that cost tens of thousands of dollars. That was widely disputed, and Apple isn't making those claims for the display that is replacing it.

 

[amancalledsun]

No, I'm not restating your post, I'm responding to it. I can make my response more explicit for you so that it's clearer.


Audio companies frequently don't publish measurements, although they should, and it's often expected that they do. Instead, they often do what Apple is doing here, calling their product "high fidelity" and using other subjective terms. But that claim is meaningless here, as it is with audio companies when they make it.



But in other cases, including for this display, they do publish such measurements (or at least conformity with measurable standards). The example that I gave was the P3 colour space (and also Adobe RGB). Audio is being treated differently here.



It isn't clear if they're referring to a frequency response curve, and their claim isn't that this is better than anything Apple has yet created, but anything created for the Mac.



The Harman Kardon system designed by Jonny Ive was created by Harman Kardon for the Mac, not by Apple. So "Mac" isn't the keyword in your previous sentence, I would say. I would be surprised if built-in display speakers have a deeper bass extension than a dedicated subwoofer. The other claim Apple makes, besides that of the "highest fidelity" system ever, is about "30% deeper bass." If deeper bass is supposed to make it higher fidelity, something needs to be shown in measurements.

Not by you, of course. By Apple, ideally.

I don't think there's any disagreement between us here, but perhaps incomplete misunderstanding because I wasn't explicit enough in my response to you.

I don't mind if people think this reply is needlessly repetitive or pedantic, because Apple is playing fast and loose with marketing to creative professionals, and the details and precision of terms matter to those professionals.

It's a bit like when Apple marketed the Pro Display XDR as competitive with reference displays that cost tens of thousands of dollars. That was widely disputed, and Apple isn't making those claims for the display that is replacing it.

You’re needlessly trying to add unnecessary detail. When I said audio companies, I mean actual audio companies like Focusrite and AudioDyne, who publish detailed specs of all their equipment. H/K is a bit of a joke. Honestly no one cares that the original sound sticks were designed by Ive for Macs. You know as well as I do that I was referring to actual speakers in a Mac. Hilariously I have a half decent 1990’s era H/K amp in my garage still hooked up to an AirPort Express 🙃.

Obviously we agree that Apple should publish specs on everything. They don’t, unfortunately, and so some of us infer meaning to help other people who ask “what does X mean?”, which if you take a rewind, was the original context of my post.

 

[walkin]

You’re needlessly trying to add unnecessary detail. When I said audio companies, I mean actual audio companies like Focusrite and AudioDyne, who publish detailed specs of all their equipment. H/K is a bit of a joke. Honestly no one cares that the original sound sticks were designed by Ive for Macs. You know as well as I do that I was referring to actual speakers in a Mac. Hilariously I have a half decent 1990’s era H/K amp in my garage still hooked up to an AirPort Express 🙃.

Obviously we agree that Apple should publish specs on everything. They don’t, unfortunately, and so some of us infer meaning to help other people who ask “what does X mean?”, which if you take a rewind, was the original context of my post.

I have no beef with you, only with Apple.

 

[Ishimura]

Still can’t believe how little they’ve upgraded this.

 

[pprior]

Anyone have a comment on Linus’s take - he seemed pretty excited.

 

[Ishimura]

Can somebody please tell me what 4k/120hz/good image quality/good HDR monitor to buy for my M4 Air before I jump off a cliff?