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

[jasoncarle]

As far as I know, this is the ONLY 4K screen that's 120HZ and good for color accuracy and it's 5K USD. And from what I have read, doesn't necessarily play nice with Apple products.

If the specs come close to, or better than this, at $2500 bucks, and a cool metal case like the XDR why wouldn't I buy it?

I'll sell my LG 4K IPS panel to one of you who wants it, cheap...

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1649963-REG/asus_pa32ucg_k_32_4k_hdr_uhd.html

 

[lovehateapple]

Apple's many millions of repeat customers willing to pay pay premium prices for Apple products, year after year after year, would disagree with you. As would their almost $3 trillion market valuation.

Apple will price its display to support their required and reasonable (approx) 40% GPM.

If the specs are outstanding for its price point and meet customer needs, why would you want people to not purchase one? Or even care if they did? It's their money.

I've been an Apple customer and devotee my entire life so I'm one of those who was and still am willing to pay a premium for Apple's great products, especially when they're revolutionary as was the original iPhone.

However, if you read the majority of the comments to this story / rumor, I'm obviously not alone in hoping the price for the new Apple displays are (a lot) lower than $2,500. Of course, Apple can price its products however they want, and of course, I don't have to buy one either. I'm just saying Apple will be letting a ton of its most loyal customers down by pricing them out of market. (Again read the comments to this story.)

It goes without saying if the new displays start at $2,500 Apple won't sell nearly as many as if they were $1,500. And if enough people don't buy them because they're too expensive they will go the way of the full size HomePod. All I want is for Apple to realize it's perfectly acceptable to cater to the professional market, but it shouldn't completely ignore the mass market.

 

[Quu]

Because an M1 Pro and systemboard costs Apple significantly less than an Intel Xeon CPU, an AMD Vega Pro GPU and an Intel workstation systemboard.

I don't think that really comes into the equation to be honest with you. This is a company that charged $1,000 for a monitor mount. $800 for wheels.

If it's an iMac Pro in the same vein as the previous I don't see it being so low priced. I mean even this very rumour about this very monitor is putting it at $2,500 but people here are already convincing themselves the iMac Pro with the same class of display will start at that price.

I just don't see it. Also the MacBook Pro went up in price and not down in price with the advent of the M1 Pro/Max versions and yet Apple no longer had to pay an Intel or AMD tax in those systems for the CPU and GPU's they were using. Apple used that money on other things and still increased prices.

 

[LonestarOne]

So, Apple will introduce a monitor that‘s half the price of the XDR — someday, between now and the end of time.

Now, that’s breaking news.

 

[LonestarOne]

I agree but... I recently got $500 (company price) 32 inch 4k HP connected to my MBP.
Does it blend in? No.
Is it better than the TB displays? Yes. (height adjustments and resolution is better)
Is it better that 27 iMac 5k? Certainly not - but the additional 4.5 inches is useful.

Useful how? Those additional inches don’t display any additional information.

 

[jasoncarle]

I am sure that Tim Cook will read this and say to himself, oh damn, random asshats on macrumors won't pay $2500 for this monitor, we better lower the price...

Considering another story here on this site says that Apple has now become the very first company to be valued at 3 trillion USD, I don't think they care.

 

[chucker23n1]

I get the impression that very few people here have priced out a truly high end monitor recently...

Very few people want a high-end monitor. They just want any monitor that looks good with macOS. Given that subpixel rendering is gone, that means a Retina Display.

 

[jasoncarle]

Very few people want a high-end monitor. They just want any monitor that looks good with macOS. Given that subpixel rendering is gone, that means a Retina Display.

I think you're making a mountain out of nothing at all here. I have a 4K LG monitor and it looks just fine when scaled to 2560x1440 so I don't see why the complaining unless you just want to complain about something today.

 

[gugy]

This is what I hope for:
27" 4k @ $1k with stand +$500 nano
30" 5k @ $2k with stand +$500 nano
32" 6k XDR @ $4k with stand +$500 nano

 

[Blue Fox]

I think just bringing back updated Thunderbolt displays would be what people are actually wanting.

One 4K 24” model around the $700 price point that matches the new M1 iMacs (offer them in colors)

One 5K 27” (or 6K 32”) model around the $1000 price point that matches the upcoming large iMac (offer them in colors).

Keep the same features as the previous Thunderbolt displays (speakers, cameras, same display panels as iMacs).

 

[CarlJ]

A $2,500 (read: £2,500 in the UK) Apple monitor is a definite "no" for me. That's crazy pricing. I can get EIGHT good 4K's for that!

I think part of the point (and, again, it’s all just rumors right now), is that if all you need is a straightforward 4K monitor, you aren’t the target market for this (rumored) monitor - go get one of those eight others.

That said, I do wish Apple would make a good under-$1000 standalone monitor.

It seems, so far, like Apple is content leaving the normal 4K monitor market to other players. I’d like to see them back in the monitor market, and I’d like to see them return to the WiFi/router market as well.

 

[chucker23n1]

I think you're making a mountain out of nothing at all here. I have a 4K LG monitor and it looks just fine when scaled to 2560x1440 so I don't see why the complaining unless you just want to complain about something today.

“I think Steve is making a mountain out of nothing at all. I have an iPhone 3GS and it looks just fine so I don’t see the need of a Retina Display.”

Retina came 12 years ago (10 years for the Mac). Then, a few years later, they killed subpixel rendering. When is Retina going to be practical on an external disk play?

 

[CWallace]

I don't think that really comes into the equation to be honest with you. This is a company that charged $1,000 for a monitor mount. $800 for wheels.

Because they knew they would sell so few XDRs and Mac Pros that the only way to make the RoI work on the accessories was to charge a significant amount for them.

If it's an iMac Pro in the same vein as the previous I don't see it being so low priced. I mean even this very rumour about this very monitor is putting it at $2,500 but people here are already convincing themselves the iMac Pro with the same class of display will start at that price.

Apple effectively has two options:

1. Launch a single 27" iMac Pro and offer a range of BTO options to allow for a range of prices from $2500 to $6500 (or more);
2. Launch two iMac models - the iMac from Option 1 with pricing from $2500 to $6500 and a second iMac Pro model with pricing from $4999 to $9999 (or more).

Option 1 would start with an 8/14 M1 Pro, 16GB of RAM, 512GB SSD and the same 27" 5K 60Hz direct-lit display as in the current Intel iMac 5K at $2500. Then you could add up to a 10/32 M1 MAX, 64GB of RAM and 8TB of SSD for another $4000+ (based on MacBook Pro pricing).

The iMac Pro in Option 2 would start with a 20/64 "M1 MAX Duo" (Jade2C-Die), 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD and whatever panel is going into the $2500 Apple Display (my guess is a 32" 6K with MiniLED). Than you can increase RAM to 128GB and storage to 8TB. You might also be able to get a 60/128 "M1 MAX Quad" (Jade4C-Die), but I think that will a Mac Pro exclusive as will 256GB or more of RAM.

 

[Tozovac]

I don't understand whom this is for. Like, it's a premium monitor, sure. But a $750 monitor is already premium. A $2500 is… I don't even know what. A supercar of monitors?

Apple needs to figure out a way to get third parties to make reasonably-priced high-resolution displays, and… this ain't it.

Tim is held captive by the Shareholder Growth demon, from which there is no escape.

$20 polishing cloths, $700 wheels, $$ Airpod Pros (that are constantly sold at discount)…

 

[jasoncarle]

“I think Steve is making a mountain out of nothing at all. I have an iPhone 3GS and it looks just fine so I don’t see the need of a Retina Display.”

Retina came 12 years ago (10 years for the Mac). Then, a few years later, they killed subpixel rendering. When is Retina going to be practical on an external disk play?

What? I just hear whining.

 

[jasoncarle]

Because they knew they would sell so few XDRs and Mac Pros that the only way to make the RoI work on the accessories was to charge a significant amount for them.



Apple effectively has two options:

1. Launch a single 27" iMac Pro and offer a range of BTO options to allow for a range of prices from $2500 to $6500 (or more);
2. Launch two 27" iMac models - the iMac from Option 1 with pricing from $2500 to $6500 and a second iMac Pro model with pricing from $4999 to $9999 (or more).

Option 1 would start with an 8/14 M1 Pro, 16GB of RAM, 512GB SSD and the same 27" 5K 60Hz direct-lit display as in the current Intel iMac 5K at $2500. Then you could add up to a 10/32 M1 MAX, 64GB of RAM and 8TB of SSD for another $4000+ (based on MacBook Pro pricing).

The iMac Pro in Option 2 would start with a 20/64 "M1 MAX Duo" (Jade2C-Die), 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD and whatever panel is going into the $2500 Apple Display (my guess is a 32" 6K with MiniLED). Than you can increase RAM to 128GB and storage to 8TB. You might also be able to get a 60/128 "M1 MAX Quad" (Jade4C-Die), but I think that will a Mac Pro exclusive as will 256GB or more of RAM.

#3 launch a 32 inch iMac Pro...

 

[ValueArb]

I just cannot justifying paying more for a monitor than my base MBP 14". Who is this for? If you're willing to drop 2500 for a monitor, I'm sure your pockets are already deep enough to spring for the Pro Display XDR (and, it'll probably even make more sense, considering tax write-offs).

This is the display equivalent of a medium-sized popcorn.

If you bill $50 an hour, that's $100,000 a year.

The difference between a $500 monitor and a $2,500 monitor is maybe $400 a year total, and after tax maybe $250 a year. And thats assuming the monitors only last 5 years, which is far more likely to be true for the $500 monitor.

So for this person, the cost is less than 1/2 of 1% of their gross income for something they'll stare at 8 hours a day. Does it make them more than 1/2 of 1% more productive, or increase their work quality enough to get 1/2 of 1% more business, or allow them to work more than 1/2 of 1% longer than a ****** monitor? If the answer to any of those questions is yes, it's a no brainer purchase.

And most creative professionals bill a lot more than $50 an hour. Which explains who is buying all those XDRs.

 

[jasoncarle]

I'm just saying Apple will be letting a ton of its most loyal customers down by pricing them out of market. (Again read the comments to this story.)

People on this forum are even less than a rounding error in the number of these monitors that Apple will sell.

 

[skaertus]

The only thing that makes sense to me here is Apple is planning a new iMac Pro for $5,000. This $2,500 display might be the same as whatever is in that.

I guess we will see if Apple has any intention of releasing a standalone non-XDR retina display....but this probably isn't it.

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.

No, it does not make sense that this new rumored $2500 monitor is a companion to a forthcoming $5000 (or $3000-$5000) iMac Pro. For two reasons.

The first reason is that the new iMac Pro may be the redesigned version of the current 27-inch iMac, which costs $1799-$2299. Apple is going to launch a new product to cover these price points. As the 24-inch iMac is priced $1299-$1699, Apple could sell a new iMac Pro beginning at $1999 or something along these lines.

The thing is, Apple cannot just discontinue the current 27-inch iMac and introduce a replacement for $3000 or $5000, leaving nothing to fill the gap between the 24-inch iMac and this purported iMac Pro.

I think the new iMac Pro will be a replacement for the 27-inch iMac beginning at similar price points, much like the MacBook Pro. There could be a cheaper iMac Pro with an M1 Pro, and more expensive options with an M1 Max. But Apple will not leave a gap of $1500 between these two product lines, as it does not make sense.

The way I see it, the 27-inch iMac Pro that was discontinued was just a placeholder while the new Mac Pro was being developed. At $5000, it aged a lot and was never replaced (a 27-inch non-Pro iMac was much more worth it in the end, as it was both cheaper and faster). Plus, it could cannibalize the Mac Pro after it was released.

The second reason is that the future iMac Pro will already come with a monitor attached to it. Of course, any user could add a second monitor. But releasing a brand-new model to serve as a companion to this forthcoming iMac Pro, and at these prices, sounds like a bad business decision.

What Apple may do is launch different Mac Pro models, at different prices. Apple may reduce the price gap which currently exists between the 27-inch iMac by providing more options.

A $2500 monitor could be a smaller version of the $5000 model. Or Apple decided that the $5000 was a flop in sales and will replace it with a cheaper option. Hard to know, as the rumors reveal nothing about the expected monitor, except for the price range.

 

[ValueArb]

Apple once again proving they are out of touch with the vast majority of their customers... Let's hope this rumor is just a trial balloon that turns out to be wrong. I remember when the first iPhone was released Apple chose to reduce the price after a couple of months to speed up the adoption rate. If the display is really priced at $2,500 I hope no one buys one so Apple will be forced to come to its senses.

The majority of Apple's customers are creative professionals earning six figure incomes from spending most of their time in front of their Macs. The difference in cost between Macs with Apple accessories compared to alternatives like Windows are trivial for them, the difference in their productivity is substantial.

 

[Quu]

Because they knew they would sell so few XDRs and Mac Pros that the only way to make the RoI work on the accessories was to charge a significant amount for them.



Apple effectively has two options:

1. Launch a single 27" iMac Pro and offer a range of BTO options to allow for a range of prices from $2500 to $6500 (or more);
2. Launch two iMac models - the iMac from Option 1 with pricing from $2500 to $6500 and a second iMac Pro model with pricing from $4999 to $9999 (or more).

Option 1 would start with an 8/14 M1 Pro, 16GB of RAM, 512GB SSD and the same 27" 5K 60Hz direct-lit display as in the current Intel iMac 5K at $2500. Then you could add up to a 10/32 M1 MAX, 64GB of RAM and 8TB of SSD for another $4000+ (based on MacBook Pro pricing).

The iMac Pro in Option 2 would start with a 20/64 "M1 MAX Duo" (Jade2C-Die), 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD and whatever panel is going into the $2500 Apple Display (my guess is a 32" 6K with MiniLED). Than you can increase RAM to 128GB and storage to 8TB. You might also be able to get a 60/128 "M1 MAX Quad" (Jade4C-Die), but I think that will a Mac Pro exclusive as will 256GB or more of RAM.

Price on the 16" high spec went from £1,999 to £3,300. More than a 50% increase. Intel to Apple Silicon etc

Where are the savings from not using Intel and AMD there?

 

[Think creative]

if this and a mini pro come out and that's a clear upgrade path (mini pros every say 5 years or so, this monitor is honestly going to be good for 10+ years) that may be what I transition over to over iMac's. As of right now, I'll probably go with the iMac when they launch the new one. Still debating over a base MBP 14 inch and a new air when they launch. Hopefully most of this comes out by June so there's plenty of being able to weigh what's best for my needs. Still, this last few years has done so much to make the macs exciting again. What a nice change over the dark days of 2016-2020 when it came to their actual computers.

 

[nebojsak]

The majority of Apple's customers are creative professionals earning six figure incomes from spending most of their time in front of their Macs. The difference in cost between Macs with Apple accessories compared to alternatives like Windows are trivial for them, the difference in their productivity is substantial.

Do we know exact numbers of 2019 Mac Pros and XDR displays sold to date?

 

[citysnaps]

It goes without saying if the new displays start at $2,500 Apple won't sell nearly as many as if they were $1,500.

Of course.

And it also goes without saying if Apple can't snag a (roughly) 40% GPM it won't be coming to market. If the monitor has outstanding specs and decent size, I suspect getting that 40% GPM will not be possible at a price of $1,500. And thus will be priced higher to where that 40% GPM can be realized.

It's just the way it is.

 

[SomeMacGuy]

What an elitist disgusting post…

"this is a Mac forum, and you poor people should go elsewhere". Do you feel better?

So I'm an elitist for being able to justify a $2500 display that will last me 10 years? I couldn't afford an XDR but a lot of people have them. Some people have two even. Are they disgusting elitists for buying that product instead of something cheaper? Apple has no obligation to compete with low-end products and complaining about their pricing is a waste of time. I'm not going to waste any time trying to convince the owner of a luxury car that my Toyota is better car / value, even if I believe that it's true. It doesn't matter.