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's New Standalone Monitor Could Be Around Half the Price of the Pro Display XDR
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There are a lot of 4K monitors with the wrong dpi to do a proper retina resolution.
The only other monitor 5K is the LG Ultrafine 27”. That one has design, connection, and construction problems. No one else makes an equivalent monitor.
The State of External Retina Displays, [Almost] 2022 Edition
The monitor story for Apple computers in [nearly] 2022 is basically would you like garbage, or would you like to take out a home equity loan?
www.caseyliss.com
Yes, you can get a lot of inadequate 4K monitors but that’s not what we are talking about. This is about 27-32” 5K and 6K monitors that can do proper retina resolution. 4K doesn’t cut it.
What about those of us with laptops? I want a large desktop display with retina level dpi. Even with a mini or an iMac customers want a good second display.
There are a lot of 4K monitors with the wrong dpi to do a proper retina resolution.
The only other monitor 5K is the LG Ultrafine 27”. That one has design, connection, and construction problems. No one else makes an equivalent monitor.
The State of External Retina Displays, [Almost] 2022 Edition
The monitor story for Apple computers in [nearly] 2022 is basically would you like garbage, or would you like to take out a home equity loan?
Unfortunately, I can't even find Casey's 24UD58. I might be OK with getting one or two of those and oversampling them at a 4.5K-ish resolution to get ~220 ppi. Instead, the smallest 4K display in Germany currently seems to be closer to 27 inches.
There are a lot of 4K monitors with the wrong dpi to do a proper retina resolution.
The only other monitor 5K is the LG Ultrafine 27”. That one has design, connection, and construction problems. No one else makes an equivalent monitor.
The State of External Retina Displays, [Almost] 2022 Edition
The monitor story for Apple computers in [nearly] 2022 is basically would you like garbage, or would you like to take out a home equity loan?
The 27-inch 5K LG UltraFine sold for $1300. This new monitor is rumored to sell at $2500, which is a very significant difference.
Most users will be satisfied with a consumer-level 4K display. Most Mac users already have a display attached to the computer (either in the form of a MacBook Air/Pro or an iMac) and do not need an additional one. Those who need/want an additional display will buy a cheap one, especially if they will use it only occasionally.
A high-end monitor selling for $2500 will have very limited appeal. A consumer with a MacBook Air/Pro may opt to buy a new iMac instead. A 24-inch iMac will cost $1299, and $2499 could buy a version with 16 GB RAM and 2 TB storage. Far more worth it for most consumers than investing in a high-end monitor which they will not even notice the pro features.
This.
What Apple likes to show off is multiple monitor support for Pro workflows. My guess is that they are going to release that $3000-$6000 iMac Pro and this would be the perfect monitor with similar display technology to use alongside that iMac.
There is another rumor that LG is making up to three monitors and I suspect that they are upgraded Ultrafine displays that will replace their current Mac versions at more traditional price points.
I would think most people that need a $2500 could just spring for the $5k monitor. These are likely corporate customers. Apple needs to get the monitor under $750 for it to compete in the prosumer market.
It’s discontinued. At this point the only 4K or 5K Retina display is the LG 27” UltraFine. Everyone saying that there are “plenty” of pro displays aren’t Mac users or they need their eyes examined.
Not really, because Apple's font sizes don't scale well to the existing larger third-party displays. Unless Apple is prepared to address this deficiency via software, it needs to do so via hardware.
Besides, Apple displays are typically optimized for Apple usage in other ways, and they include features such as webcams that tend to be absent from third-party displays. None of that requires "pro"-level color accuracy or graphics, and all of it could be done at a price-point that would be competitive with the existing products you mention. This is what Apple's displays used to be like.
Think about it this way: If Apple were to release displays that are just like its existing iMacs (but without the computing part and chin) and a third that is the same but 32", and these were several hundred dollars cheaper than the corresponding iMacs (the 32" obviously being a few hundred more than the 27"), they would serve a very large need that is not being optimally served by anyone at present.
What an elitist disgusting post…
"this is a Mac forum, and you poor people should go elsewhere". Do you feel better?
Why would Apple sell two monitors with the same specs, with one being half the price of the other?
Even that is a stretch, IMHO.
The 4.5K iMac starts at $1299. The LG 4K was $699. Apple would presumably be more expensive than that; they're Apple, and also, 4.5K is more than 4K. But $699 is already a lot for a monitor.
And I think that's the quandary Apple knows they're in: they're not interested in doing a sub-$500 monitor, but most customers aren't interested in buying a $500+ monitor.
For $2500 grand I'd still rather get a new Eizo.
I bought the first 23" Cinema Display in 2004 and was sorely disappointed by it. I haven't used a stand alone Apple display since, even the decent ones. There's always one or two things missing at that price point compared to an Eizo.
I bought the first 23" Cinema Display in 2004 and was sorely disappointed by it. I haven't used a stand alone Apple display since, even the decent ones. There's always one or two things missing at that price point compared to an Eizo.
For a 24' monitor, $500 would be a steal. But it still would not fit in my budget. In fact, it wouldn't fit in my house either.
I have been using my Apple Thunderbolt displays for quite some time before they broke, I like that they are glass and have a very solid build quality. I have tried almost every mid-tier and high-end monitor on the market and none come close to the 5k iMac I use at work or the screen on my MBP. Something just always feels off.
I was expecting the display to cost somewhere closer to 1500, which would be on par with the Thunderbolt displays adjusting for inflation but 2500 seems a bit steep. If it really is 2500, I might just consider buying a second hand 5K iMac (I try to be mindful of the environment) or the new 27 inch iMac (although I am hesitant to buy first gen Apple items).
I was expecting the display to cost somewhere closer to 1500, which would be on par with the Thunderbolt displays adjusting for inflation but 2500 seems a bit steep. If it really is 2500, I might just consider buying a second hand 5K iMac (I try to be mindful of the environment) or the new 27 inch iMac (although I am hesitant to buy first gen Apple items).
They should always have a monitor for sale, with the same panel as the current iMac, for a price lower than the base price of that iMac.
If there are two levels of larger iMacs (27" LCD and 27 or 32" iMac Pro with miniLED), then there should be two levels of monitors available.
There are millions of mac owners - Mac mini, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, and iMac owners who want a second display, that want a full size Apple monitor that isn't intended for Pixar.
It should be less than a thousand bucks....and it should have a way to stand it up on your desk...
A decade of non-sense!! The Thunderbolt Display didn't even get updated USB (from 2 to 3) for the FIVE years it was out. Other IPS monitors were less than half the price. USB 3 was released in 2008. Thunderbolt was a failure and Apple ignored the fact for 5 years.
If there are two levels of larger iMacs (27" LCD and 27 or 32" iMac Pro with miniLED), then there should be two levels of monitors available.
There are millions of mac owners - Mac mini, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, and iMac owners who want a second display, that want a full size Apple monitor that isn't intended for Pixar.
It should be less than a thousand bucks....and it should have a way to stand it up on your desk...
A decade of non-sense!! The Thunderbolt Display didn't even get updated USB (from 2 to 3) for the FIVE years it was out. Other IPS monitors were less than half the price. USB 3 was released in 2008. Thunderbolt was a failure and Apple ignored the fact for 5 years.
Attachments
Last edited:
I don't believe this. I expect the new iMac Pro to start at $2,500. The same screen of this machine as a stand-alone monitor won't be the same price. More likely $1,800-$2,000. Assuming the monitor is identical to the new iMac Pro.
If it's inferior to the iMac Pro screen, then it would cost even less.
If it's inferior to the iMac Pro screen, then it would cost even less.
Why would the new iMac Pro start at $2,500 when the old one started at $4,999?
The current MacBook Pro's started at higher prices why wouldn't the new iMac Pro if they add all the same advancements to it that the MacBook Pro's received (like the display).
I think $2,500 for this display sounds about right if the new iMac Pro is $3999-$4999 or more which seems likely.