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
$2500 is NOT 'consumer oriented'. It's the lower end of professional, i.e. the only people who will pay that much for what they offer are a) a few people who will buy anything from Apple and have the $$ to do so, b) people who legit need more than what they can get in that size+resolution combination for half the price.
I mean, here you go. 27" or better 4K screens, 120Hz or better refresh, all under $1300. https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tools/table/73917
Will an Apple monitor have better design in terms of bezels, etc? Yes. But that's separate from how good the display is. While the Apple display might be better... it needs to be significantly better to justify a 2x price premium.
Mind you, there's nothing at all wrong with Apple addressing this segment of the market and for people in it, $2500 is likely easily justifiable. But it's not a consumer level screen, not at that price point.
I mean, here you go. 27" or better 4K screens, 120Hz or better refresh, all under $1300. https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tools/table/73917
Will an Apple monitor have better design in terms of bezels, etc? Yes. But that's separate from how good the display is. While the Apple display might be better... it needs to be significantly better to justify a 2x price premium.
This is what I mean by 'lower end professional' though. How many 'consumer' level users need or care about color accuracy and of those, how many calibrate their monitors (you cannot just unbox something claiming to be color accurate and use it, if it's important to your work, you'll calibrate it)?
Mind you, there's nothing at all wrong with Apple addressing this segment of the market and for people in it, $2500 is likely easily justifiable. But it's not a consumer level screen, not at that price point.
Last edited:
Their last monitor was $999 and all Apple priced have gone up. It’s for the general ”Apple marketing consumer”.
Mmm well I can't say where things went money wise and so forth. I don't know.
What do you think the 27" iMac and this rumoured new XDR display will cost?
Looking at high spec means you are not comparing equivalent models.
The base price 16” MBP was nearly the same price as the earlier model.
The 14” MBP went up about 10% but was a new, larger model than the previous 13”.
Everyone who thinks the new iMac Pro is replacing the old, expensive Xeon iMac Pro is getting it wrong. Apple is likely to call all 27”(or whatever the large size is) iMacs “Pro”. That replaces the 27” that starts at $1799. This new model will certainly be more expensive if they use a miniLED screen, but that problem just puts it a few hundred more, not thousands more.
You can do this for under $200 from Walmart: Excellent external monitor for a MacBook or a Mini.
Attachments
Last edited:
I'm just comparing what I bought each time, the high spec standard config (not BTO). I did that in 2006, 2009, 2013, 2015, 2019. The price has gone up and down from time to time. £1599, £1999, £2,800, £2,000, £2300 now £3,300 etc
The M1 Max must be pricey to produce with its 57 billion transistor monolithic die is my thinking.
Well I think an iMac with an 8/14 M1 PRO, 16GB of RAM, a 512GB SSD and the same 5K 60Hz direct-lit LCD as is in the Intel iMac 5K could start at $2499.
And I have to presume that the new Apple Display referenced in this thread will also be $2499 based on the price given in the report.
What’s your billable/earnable rate per hour? It’s not as though a monitor is the only key annual expense for many professionals. It’s always easier for someone to justify how others should rationalize spending.
Sure Apple, for a 32” XDR 2.0 with mini-LED and the same specs as the current XDR (and a stand), $2500 seems reasonable. Anything else and we’re going to need to talk about your drinking dialing and recreational drug use.
Otherwise, you can justify about a 30% premium on the equivalent screen size and resolution for a 24” 4.5K and 27” 5K/60 from what others are selling them for and that’s it. Anything else really smacks of being completely out of touch with how the market has evolved since you left it back in 2011. Yes, 2011.
Otherwise, you can justify about a 30% premium on the equivalent screen size and resolution for a 24” 4.5K and 27” 5K/60 from what others are selling them for and that’s it. Anything else really smacks of being completely out of touch with how the market has evolved since you left it back in 2011. Yes, 2011.
The XDR isn't even 100% DCI-P3 and Adobe RBG . Cutting the price in half is very probably isn't going to raise the percentage points.
Not sure why animation/sfx would have huge requirement for 120Hz when majority of movie video is no where near 120Hz. Some make argument that video games and sfx have become the essentially the same thing. That is a bit of a stretch.
I think the specs are a reach in that Apple probably is not going to sell a monitor with better specs than the XDR for half the price. Something likely is capped here more than just pixel count (smaller screen.)
More likely would be maybe a scaled up 16" screen. ( with the 98% instead of 99% coverages) to 27" . Apple would leverage unit volumes of iMac 27 to get to the 50% lower price point at about 5K resolution. ( or same XDR tech in a smaller screen but backlight dial back some ).
"Stand included" might be a thing. If Apple bundled a $1500 display with a $999 stand .... $2,500. That would hit the price point.
[. Effectively it would be more than a 50% price cut in that context as the $4,999 + $999 = 5998 and 1/2 => $2,999 ] . Same magnetic , "snap to attach" connector. Ergonomics features would be driving up the price. ( and Apple would get more economies of scales margin increase on the stands. Those may sell at "too low " rates. )
If the monitor was. $1,500 + $200 VESA adapter as a BTO option , then at least it would be below the $2k 'mindset' threshold. Still wouldn't make the old guard $999 TB display docking station folks happy , but would be more reachable.
There is decent chance that mini-LED won't be "outdated" in 2-3 years. If those screens move down the price scale into the $500-1000 range then the volume sold will probably go way up, not down.
It would more so be the point that paying twice as much for what could get for another 50% price drop in 2-3 years.
Micro-LED probably won't wipe out mini-LEDs as long as the silicon supply chain keeps having hiccups. And also monitor vendors are also likely to hold onto the higher margins long if they can too. ( Maybe not as ridiculous as how long 10GbE has had high premiums , but very quick either).
If it is true the XDR isn't going away with this new monitor then Apple is on a slower paced track than 2-3 years for this monitor. The XDR could go to micro-LEDs in 2-3 years but this monitor would trail behind.
Thinking about this more, my take is that Apple should not have 2 monitors in their lineup. They should have 3.
High end: The current XDR display. Need the absolute best? Buy this. 32", 6k, $5000.
Midrange 'prosumer': You care about features important to a professional or high end amateur such as color accuracy but don't need the absolute best. $2500, 27 or 30" 5k.
Entry level/consumer: You want a good 4k screen that has Apple level design and build quality but do not need anything more than what you can get elsewhere for this price. $1250, 24" 4k.
Yes, I basically halved the price each step down. That feels like it makes sense to me. Apple is never going to do a $400 screen, nor should they. But they can and I think should set the standard in each segment above.
High end: The current XDR display. Need the absolute best? Buy this. 32", 6k, $5000.
Midrange 'prosumer': You care about features important to a professional or high end amateur such as color accuracy but don't need the absolute best. $2500, 27 or 30" 5k.
Entry level/consumer: You want a good 4k screen that has Apple level design and build quality but do not need anything more than what you can get elsewhere for this price. $1250, 24" 4k.
Yes, I basically halved the price each step down. That feels like it makes sense to me. Apple is never going to do a $400 screen, nor should they. But they can and I think should set the standard in each segment above.
Apple prices have generally gone up, but not like this. A $999 monitor could cost $1199 or $1299 now, that is the kind of price increase that Apple has been practicing. It is not alienating its customers, just ripping them off
Should this be the only monitor solution that Apple offers besides the 32” XDR, it’s just going to be incredibly tone deaf by Apple. No one asking for an Apple-branded monitor expects plastic shell Dell 4K pricing, but $2500 better be off the damn charts specs wise. The simple fact is that the halcyon days of $1999 23” displays from Apple are done. Users here want an Apple solution that complements their Mac and they’ll pay a premium, but Apple seems to be less than realistic when it comes to what’s feasible for their users, at least in this regard. We’ll have to see how it all shakes out, but here Apple seems out of touch.
No, I don’t expect $400 4K, but a $999 4.5K is more than reasonable, $1,499-$1,799 for a 5K/60 27” sounds reasonable.
$2,500? Sorry Apple but that's ridiculous. $1,000 - $1,500 is about right for a decent quality Apple branded monitor.
See below, post from 'MayaUser' on page 2 of this thread - I edited my post to reflect the below - I had said most would be happy with 60hz.
To continue though,
The ProDisplay XDR is 2+ years old, and competitor monitors (Asus ProArt for example) can achieve 100% DCI-P3 & AdobeRGB for under $5k @ 32", and under $3k for 27", granted @ 4k resolution.
My point is, unless Apple can make a 27" that can at least compete with the above, what's the point? I'm all for a professional 27" display, but if they're going to do it, they should do it properly.
A 400-500 nit sRGB 27" 5K IPS monitor with an Apple logo might do it for some, but then that really wouldn't be worth the $2.5k suggested in the article.
The Pro Display XDR is already outdated with its woeful blooming due to limited number of dimming zones; and we already have true RGB OLEDs going into laptops.
RGB OLEDs already wipe the floor with Mini-LEDs, but they are a little expensive (around $30k for the Sony HX310), so yeah - in 2/3 years mini-leds may be $500-1000, and hopefully the true RGB OLEDs will be down to £3-5k
I'm in the market for 2x27"s myself, but I'm replacing 400-nit SRGBs, so I'm holding out for the right specs, and I don't really care if it has an Apple logo on it or not. The Asus ProArts are sure tempting, but I'm willing to wait to see what Apple comes up with.
My hopes are still high!
It does not make sense. The entry-level would be a 24-inch 4K monitor selling for $1250. The base model 24-inch iMac has 4.5K and sells for $1299. And that includes the computer.
Apple is not delusional.
The 30-inch Apple Cinema Display was released in June 2004 and had a $3299 price tag. There was no equivalent display in other Apple products. In August 2004, Apple released the 20-inch iMac G5, which sold for $1899. The displays were worlds apart, which justified the price tag.
In October 2008, Apple released the 24-inch Cinema Display which sold for $899. In March 2009, Apple released the 24-inch iMac, selling for $1499. The iMac was $600 more expensive, which was justified by the fact that it had a computer inside. And the iMac was even cheaper than the previous 24-inch model released in April 2008, which sold for $1799 and up.
The Thunderbolt Display was a 27-inch 5K model released in June 2011 and sold for $999. The display was similar to the one found in the 27-inch iMac. The 27-inch iMac released in May 2011 sold for $1699 and up.
The 6K 32-inch Pro XDR Display was released in June 2019. It sells for $4999 without the stand. In March 2019, Apple had released a 27-inch 5K iMac for $1799 and up. The display was far more expensive, but it had many features that the iMac lacked: it was larger, had a higher resolution, had much more brightness, better viewing angles, better color reproduction, and so on.
All these prices had something in common: they made sense.
Whenever the external monitor was similar to the one found in an iMac, the price was significantly lower so it could be justifiable. The iMac was always significantly more expensive than the monitor, although it carried some sort of "discount" so it would stimulate customers to buy the all-in-one package. It means that, although the iMac was more expensive, it was cheaper than buying a Mac mini plus the Apple monitor plus the separate mouse and keyboard from Apple.
When the external monitor was not matched by the display of any iMac, Apple put a hefty price tag. It was more expensive, but it had no competitors in Apple's world.
If Apple plans to sell a $2500 monitor and expects it to be reasonably successful, it simply cannot put the very same display inside an iMac which costs less than that.
I know, right? Right now, I'm looking for a laptop with a superior Mac-like (retina) screen, but all the makers fall short. It's frustrating as ****! Next, I want to find a Mac-like monitor for my future Windows set-up (I can build the tower, I just need a killer monitor). So I quickly clicked on the title of this article only to be supremely disappointed with such an insane price. I went from "Yay!" to "****!" It's beyond ridiculous.
Oh, and I hope Apple people read these comments to see what people are saying...
There are several rumors that while there isn't a "Mac Inside" , there is some "Apple silicon" inside. Some have mentioned a A13-like SoC. I suspect that was used as a "stub / harness" because more specifically custom Apple Silicon derivative wasn't ready yet. My guess would be one (or both) of the SoC processors that are going into the AR/VR goggles. In part so that Apple can do a 'wireless' monitor connections. ( continuation of Apple's 'war' on wires).
In short, Apple probably not trying to delivery a generic market 27" monitor. Even the Thunderbolt monitors were as much docking station as monitor. That whole mainstream monitor ( primarily just simple video input to display) Apple really hasn't done anything for close to two decades. Not sure why folks are expecting them to go back after being out for that long.
If the entire set of monitor vendors were doing everything mostly wrong then perhaps there would be a need for Apple to fill the basic , mainstream role , but they aren't. If look at the upper 25-50% of the offerings from Dell ,HP , NEC , ASUS , Ezio , etc. it isn't that bad. There has been lots of innovative movement of the last 2-3 years and doesn't seem to be slowing down. CES 2022 is coming up and there will probably be more than 6-7 more than decent monitors announced there with sub $1500 prices.
If Apple does the wireless monitor connection then they will point to the ten's of thousands of employees at the other system vendor companies who didn't do wireless monitor concept to the level that Apple did. That the wireless monitor system only works inside the Apple eco-system... just a bigger moat around Apple products.
[ Apple's "Universal Control " is like a wireless KVM system without the video part.
Apple Officially Delays macOS Monterey Universal Control Until Spring 2022
Apple has officially delayed Universal Control, a hallmark feature of macOS Monterey and iPadOS 15 announced in June, until Spring 2022. In an...
www.macrumors.com
This 'wireless video' monitor could fill that hole in the KVM set up. ]
Apple has said on multiple occasions that were other folks are doing a more than decent job they won't be looking to compete with others just to sell everything to everybody. They more so look for spots were folks aren't doing what Apple things should be done. A "basic functions" monitors are just commodity peripherals at this point. A monitor with just an Apple design container (and that is basically end of value add) probably doesn't meet the threshold of being a "others falling short" to get a green light project. Versus doing something unique without commodity market forced price drops over the next 3-5 years.
The Thunderbolt display and the "back seat driver" LG Ultrafines have all been one , and only one, input monitors. No buttons and "all magic" controls. Doing KVM without more wires would be exactly the track they have been on for more than decade.
The consumer monitor (in terms of price) is far more likely going to be capped at repacking the 24" iMac monitor into a display docking station.
Wow, make any general conclusions lately? You sound like the customer Apple wants. I'd guess there are many more coffee shop use Macs than professional use Macs in service. Many professionals use *gasp* Windows machines. But if you never leave your garden, you wouldn't consider that.
Unless Apple adds a non-Mac "computer" back into it. Then it would creep closer back to the iMac because there was processor/memory/storage inside the box. Toss in a bundled $999 stand (way better ergonomics than the iMac) and easily could creep but up the iMac prices (and $2,500 ).
Sure, if I need a cheap POS monitor to check 4K content with before rendering to make sure it looks decent on the low end, I’m sure it works fine. But not for everyday use, even productivity wise. If your eyes can deal with it, Godspeed.
The Dell specs get me very close to native image size from my Canon R5.