Apple's New Standalone Monitor Could Be Around Half the Price of the Pro Display XDR

[foobarbaz]

Man. Apple are really missing the mark if $2500 is the price point. We all just want an iMac screen without the Mac inside, so make it cheeper than your iMacs. Ten's of thousands of employees and they can't get this right. I feel like I am taking crazy pills this is so ridiculous.

This is the 27-inch model. It will be cheaper than the iMacs, because the 27-inch iMacs (Pro) will be even more expensive.

But if the other rumors are true, there will be also a 24-inch display, essentially the 24-inch iMac screen. It should be around 800-1000 bucks. (Calculated by taking an 24-inch iMac and subtracting a Mac mini with the same internals.)

 

[lcseds]

Oh my gosh that's expensive. I can tell I won't be able to afford the new larger iMac now either. There are a lot of people like me, that use and enjoy Apple products that aren't Pro users. They are slowly leaving us behind on price point and will seemingly only bed with the wealthy, IMO. $2500 is out of the question for me.

 

[deevey]

Man. Apple are really missing the mark if $2500 is the price point. We all just want an iMac screen without the Mac inside, so make it cheeper than your iMacs. Ten's of thousands of employees and they can't get this right. I feel like I am taking crazy pills this is so ridiculous.

I want the same thing, but I understand (to a point) why they don't.

It'd be hitting the same market segment as $500-900 LG/Samsung displays with exactly the same features.... but @ $800-1500 (because it's Apple).

At which point it will be the laughing stock of reviewers and hard for anyone to justify based on performance.

 

[krspkbl]

lmao imagine being able to spend a few thousand on a monitor and thinking the current display is too expensive and that this is good news because it’s only $2500. If you have that kind of money to spend on a monitor you can probably afford the $5000 one.

 

[twistedpixel8]

Apple, if you're listening…

Apple: ?

 

[alpi123]

I disagree. Apple traditionally tends to stay away from markets that are well served by other brands, and this is one of them ( the lower-end, not the high-end). There are quite a few good looking monitors, that look almost like a copy of a flatter iMac.
Here is an example, that looks exactly like something Apple would have designed :

The front? Sure. This monitor is 99% plastic though, cannot be compared to the XDR. And the Pro Display's cheese grater design is quite unique and reduces weight, while allowing for passive cooling (since it's miniLED it needs to be cooled)

 

[alpi123]

I'm amazed people still think the XDR is supposed to be a display for the regular consumer, and even the $2500 one.
Use your $250 one and don't think about Apple.

 

[H2SO4]

Man. Apple are really missing the mark if $2500 is the price point. We all just want an iMac screen without the Mac inside, so make it cheeper than your iMacs. Ten's of thousands of employees and they can't get this right. I feel like I am taking crazy pills this is so ridiculous.

You forget that in most instances Apple have the marketing might and brand cachet to be able to do things like this. I went from the 20, through 23 and finally the 30" display, (that I still have but don't use), before switching because it took too long for then to update the ACD.
My new monitor looks every bit as good as the Apple ones, (even though it doesn't match), and is more versatile in absolute terms.
Now I'd never pay that much for an Apple branded monitor. Even if it was better I don't need it. Plenty of 'good enough' monitors around for far less.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I really hope is somewhere 32".... At 27" ... nope.

 

[Sitti]

Samsung announced 32" 4K 240hz 2000nit monitor. I don't know it's detail spec, but this interests me more

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

To be fair there are very few decent sub £/$1,000 monitors out there that feature 4 / 5K displays, good quality speakers and a microphone, a good quality webcam and accurate colour. And even those that do have some of those features tend not to have the best compatibility.

But then it all depends on the user's needs. Some just want the display itself, others want all the extras that make it an iMac minus the compute-unit.

I think the real question here is where the compromises are being made if indeed Apple (allegedly) is valuing this new display at $2,499. Apple may look on things like a built-in webcam and speakers as being more consumer orientated.

My guess is that it will be 27-inches max, will have a stand fitted (pivot-type, not XDR type) and will have very similar display specs as the Pro Display XDR. I can't say for certain if will have the extras such as a camera or speakers, as at that point the value would be too great compared to the XDR.

Also, where does this leave the iMac 27"? If that does indeed bring back the Pro variant, then there's a hint that it could be another workstation class computer in that $4-5,000 price range.

 

[MayaUser]

Too much $$$ for me. I was hoping for more than one option, with one of them coming in around $750 - 1000.

probably the smaller one will be around $1000

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Still very expensive.

 

[TechRunner]

probably the smaller one will be around $1000

I have my fingers crossed on that!

 

[miketcool]

I can edit 8K content on a Mac Mini but can’t see how it will look because my current screen resolution maxes out at 5k. This isn’t an Apple-esque mid-range display that is being made for the masses. This is a niche product that is meant to elevate Apple further as a high-end brand for designers, creatives, and scientists.

 

[Bonte]

I can edit 8K content on a Mac Mini but can’t see how it will look because my current screen resolution maxes out at 5k. This isn’t an Apple-esque mid-range display that is being made for the masses. This is a niche product that is meant to elevate Apple further as a high-end brand for designers, creatives, and scientists.

Then the monitor should be 8K, right?

 

[MayaUser]

Samsung announced 32" 4K 240hz 2000nit monitor. I don't know it's detail spec, but this interests me more

wrong topic..or wrong site
And still 4k instead of 5k for 32"...and this is meant for gaming, and its very hard to game at 4k@240fps...you need a very strong gpu..only few can...at production 5k@120hz is far more useful

 

[BootsWalking]

Halve the price again and we'll have a competitive option to consider.

 

[Jazmodo]

We need to wait to see the specs I guess.

If it has the following, it'll fully justify a 2.5k price tag:

• 5k (to match the old iMac resolution I guess, but I'm sure 4k would suit most looking at this monitor too)
• 120hz (even 60Hz would be ok edit: needs to be 120hz for animation/sfx)
• 100% in DCI-P3 and AdobeRBG (and sRGB, and Rec. 709 of course) and then at least 88% Rec. 2020 coverage. The new MBP screens achieve 98% DCI-P3, and 91% Adobe RGB - so this should be achievable with a desktop monitor
• 1000 nits (sustained, minimum, 1200+ would be nice)
• Delta-E of less than 2 out of the box, with less than 1 with calibration

If Apple can do all of that, with a stand (!) then it might just justify the price. If they can't do 100% in DCI-P3 & Adobe RGB and make it a reference monitor (92-98% is not good enough), it will not justify the price at all.

Also, unless you're using this monitor for work, 2.5k for a mini-led screen (an intermediate display tech that will be outdated in 2-3 years) is not a good way to spend money.

 

[t0rqx]

This.Is.Insane.

 

[EntropyQ3]

That's the problem, though: almost none of those are high-resolution enough for Retina 2x, so you'll probably run them at 1x. But since macOS no longer supports subpixel rendering either, text will look bad.

MacOS no longer supporting sub-pixel rendering is an issue Apple created themselves for whatever reason.
It's just - bad. And more than a little embarrassing in my book, it creates problems for everyone using external monitors, whether from laptops or desktops.

 

[chucker23n1]

Samsung announced 32" 4K 240hz 2000nit monitor. I don't know it's detail spec, but this interests me more

That's 138ppi, which is way too low for macOS's expected 220.

I can edit 8K content on a Mac Mini but can’t see how it will look because my current screen resolution maxes out at 5k.

They're probably not gonna make an 8K display any time soon. At 220ppi, that would be about 43 inches.

Unless they go 3x, so 330ppi. Then we're talking like 28 inches.

I don't think either of those are happening.

 

[chucker23n1]

MacOS no longer supporting sub-pixel rendering is an issue Apple created themselves for whatever reason.

Exactly.

(Microsoft also no longer fully supports it; not in UWP apps, for example. Why? Well, for one, it makes the rendering pipeline quite complicated. And two, even then, it doesn't work well once you do GPU acceleration, unless you implement subpixel rendering in the GPU itself, which no major OS vendor has done.)

Clearly Apple's and Microsoft's bet was that displays would quickly gain higher resolutions. That did happen in phones and tablets, and to an extent in laptops. But oddly, it hasn't happened in external displays, and neither Apple nor Microsoft seems to be pushing third parties to make it happen.

It's just - bad. And more than a little embarrassing in my book, it creates problems for everyone using external monitors, whether from laptops or desktops.

Yup. It makes macOS look quite mediocre in an office setting, where you're likely to have an external display, running at 1x.

 

[diddl14]

If Universal Control one day lives up to its promises, all I need are two iMac’s!

 

[MayaUser]

• 120hz (even 60Hz would be ok, it's not a gaming monitor)

As a Maya user, i need 120hz...not 240hz(those are truly gaming purpose) but for manipulation and motion , 120hz is a must these days...so, 60hz will not be ok for the 27" in 2022
But the rest is on point