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 Next External Display: Everything We Know About Key Features and Launch Date
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would love to see Apple update the XDR to a 7k panel larger than 32", keeping the same price.
The most important thing for me is to keep the current XDR but lower the price to less than $3k and Nano and stand the same price as the Studio Display BTO.
I really want a 32" display but even as a Pro, it's hard to justify paying over $7k (nano/stand/tax) for the current XDR.
The most important thing for me is to keep the current XDR but lower the price to less than $3k and Nano and stand the same price as the Studio Display BTO.
I really want a 32" display but even as a Pro, it's hard to justify paying over $7k (nano/stand/tax) for the current XDR.
While it would definitely be much more peaceful in these forums if everyone just took whatever Apple decided to spoon-feed them without question, that's not a good recipe for getting good value for your hard-earned dollar. You should be thanking Apple's vocal critics instead of calling them "toxic", lest you may still be stuck calling a trash-can shaped box with 2013-era tech in it a "professional workstation."Here we go… this forum is always toxic and complaining
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Suspended
This was probably one of the most requested items even prior to the still expensive 5K Studio Display.
But Tim is either out of touch with reality or he doesn’t give a f*c…or both.
Too expensive to make 32-34" Retina display. Apple is not going to make a new display that is under 200 PPI. There is no chance of that.
Yes it's not that expensive really for what it is. The pricing doesn't bother me.
The reality here is that most of the displays available are propped up by the low-mid range television market providing whole lines of "acceptable quality" panels and electronics to stick in them. When you go slightly outside what the television market demands then the price dynamics are completely different. So that means anything smaller than the average 32"+ display, anything that isn't a 720p, 1080p or 4k panel and anything below a certain bandwidth required to fill it. All of those displays and electronics are multi-sourced and mass produced by large quantities of Chinese companies. Everything else is niche market and costs more. That's just reality of supply/demand mechanics. People are used to comparing to cheap because cheap is ubiquitous.
So when you pitch the Studio Display against a Samsung 32" 4k monitor, the Samsung one is basically a mass produced television. It's not really comparable in any rational way.
Now Apple when they put the Studio Display together they actually did a lot more work on the display than any other one on the market that I've seen.
Firstly most of the same displays on the market are 4k at 27" (I know I have one lying around). That means that for optimum display resolution you have to suffer 1.5:1 pixel ratio which leads to blurry as hell fonts (on all platforms). Apple aren't going to ship something that cruddy so it's 5k at 27" as that is optimum for the display size. That's not a TV panel so there goes more $$$$ (LG Ultrafine 5k was also $$$ but not $$$$
). The panel is exceptionally good as well.Secondly, being Apple they decided to actually make it usable and that means throwing in a proper TB port and USB-C PD capability that will charge higher end laptops quickly. They did that and it works. You plug it in and there are no surprises. In comparison my $4500 Dell 7670 here with $500 210W dock does not charge properly, ever. Been through two docks and two laptops now and I'm done with it. That's $10k of broken ****. Apple stuff just works as a rule.
Thirdly, the enclosure is actually pretty decent. It's the first monitor on the market for a long time that isn't some crappy injection moulded plastic. Even the higher end monitors these days have literally the front face of the display being the exposed polariser for example resulting in any display knocks being end game for the screen. That's just so so so cheap. And yes that big chunk of machined aluminium is not cheap! I live and work in the same environment and I want that to be something I enjoy being in and that means not surrounding myself with crap.
Fourthly, it's actually really well made. Most monitors are a generic control board, generic power supply and generic LCD thrown in a plastic box. If something goes wrong it's a 3-6 month long RMA session with the vendor, repairer who is usually the lowest bidding third party. This thing is a rather nice piece of engineering top to bottom. It's nice knowing it's there and it's nice knowing I have the safety net. And as discovered recently, yes you can get parts for it.
Fifthly, the audio is as good as it gets on a monitor. There's nothing that gets remotely near it.
Honestly I value my eyes, my ears and my time. This hits the mark. It's a niche product with niche performance which demands an appropriate price.
Edit: this monitor, I hope, also ends the cycle of 27" iMacs being consigned to landfill with perfectly good panels and useless computers attached. That's a travesty.
I find 27 is the maximum practical size for a monitor. Anything larger tends to result in fatigue or neck issues.
It depends what you do of course. When doing sysadmin work I was happy on a 12" thinkpad for a number of years...
I have a 40" mounted to the wall above the computer. Works pretty well when I need something larger than my 16" MacBook Pro.
I personally would love a Retina monitor much larger than 27", since I'm often frustrated by not being able to view the entirely of one of my spreadsheets without having to make the font very small.
As for neck strain, everyone is different. I don't anticipate it being an issue for me.
This is just a rumor, a big rumor,
I just got the Apple 27” Display, yes it pricey, but it does the job, I can’t see Apple releasing another display for less money than the $1,500. And if it will be more expensive then this will disrupt Apple’s display sales. And if there is no iMac 27” or 32” on the horizon then designers & video editors would get a Mac Studio and Apple display instead of waiting for an iMac w/M3 chip!
I think Apple finely woke up and realized the iMacs where such a great deal and they could make more money if they sell display and Mac separately.
I just got the Apple 27” Display, yes it pricey, but it does the job, I can’t see Apple releasing another display for less money than the $1,500. And if it will be more expensive then this will disrupt Apple’s display sales. And if there is no iMac 27” or 32” on the horizon then designers & video editors would get a Mac Studio and Apple display instead of waiting for an iMac w/M3 chip!
I think Apple finely woke up and realized the iMacs where such a great deal and they could make more money if they sell display and Mac separately.
How about a studio display that at least matches the specs of a MBP? same size, same price or a hair less, HDR either by miniLED or preferably OLED, Thunderbolt pass through. Paying 1.5k for tech that debuted in 2014 — going on 9 years ago — is getting pretty stale. My job wants to buy a new computer and display for me. If they still had the 27 inch iMac it would be no problem. Now I have the IT people asking if the studio display is really that expensive? Yep. Can I justify it? Nope.
5120x2880 on a 27" screen effectively requires that you run it scaled. The pixel density is too great to use it at native resolution. Unfortunately, all of the scaling options result in less overall real estate (and many result in subpar picture quality)
5120x2160 on a 34" widescreen is low enough pixel density that it allows you to run at native resolution (albeit that would still be too small for many people).
For comparison, I run 3840x2160 @ 27", which is the same pixel density as the 5120x2160 @ 34" options that are currently on the market.
There has been a 32" 8K panel on the market for over 5 years already (Dell's UP3218K) and it typically sells for a good deal less than the Pro Display XDR. That would allow you to run 4K Retina at true 2x integer scaling!!! The panel just needs to be updated with modern connectivity options.
Given that Apple frequently touts the ability of Apple Silicon based Mac's to edit multiple 8K streams in parallel, I'm still baffled that they don't offer a monitor that allows you to actually *view* an 8K stream.
27" inch is to small. I said it as a developer.
Best dimension for a comfortable work is 32" inch.
Best dimension for a comfortable work is 32" inch.
I waiting for 32" inch apple thunderbolt with more mini led zones and the cheaper price.
It is still over $4000 though. I suspect that most people here who want a 30"-34" display aren't talking about a $4000 8K display.
Well Apple already makes a $5000 32" 6K display, so....
Besides, your original post stated it was too expensive to make a 32-34" Retina display. I was just pointing out that there have been panels on the market that could do exactly that, going on 5 years now, and for less than Apple currently sells the Pro Display XDR for.
That Dell UP3218K can often be found on sale for a good deal less. The only reason it even costs that much is because it's literally the only option in that market. It has absolutely zero competition.
"The [A13] enables the monitor to run a version of iOS, receive software updates, and offer features like Center Stage that are processed on-device."
There's more than that. The A13 (or later) provides the display controller, and so can provide the features that are expected on an iPhone display. The most interesting of these is that the display is characterized in the factory, any defects are noted (eg slightly non-uniform grey levels) then this per-display data is burned into a ROM on the A13 (or whatever). The display controller then slightly tweaks the signal, making parts of it brighter, or less green, or whatever to compensate for the intrinsic display non-uniformity.
Another thing iPhones offer that's picked up by the Studio Display is True Tone – light sensors detect the brightness and white level of the environment and modify the image to match this.
(This is something it would be VERY nice for Apple TV to offer, and the HW is present on the SoC. What's missing is the light sensor... I wish Apple would just sell a separate small light sensor we could place next to the TV or somewhere in the TV room that did the light detection and communicated the data to aTV via bluetooth.)
There's more than that. The A13 (or later) provides the display controller, and so can provide the features that are expected on an iPhone display. The most interesting of these is that the display is characterized in the factory, any defects are noted (eg slightly non-uniform grey levels) then this per-display data is burned into a ROM on the A13 (or whatever). The display controller then slightly tweaks the signal, making parts of it brighter, or less green, or whatever to compensate for the intrinsic display non-uniformity.
Another thing iPhones offer that's picked up by the Studio Display is True Tone – light sensors detect the brightness and white level of the environment and modify the image to match this.
(This is something it would be VERY nice for Apple TV to offer, and the HW is present on the SoC. What's missing is the light sensor... I wish Apple would just sell a separate small light sensor we could place next to the TV or somewhere in the TV room that did the light detection and communicated the data to aTV via bluetooth.)
Thank you for your detailed reasoning and justification. I do hope this new monitor enables Apple to reduce the price on the existing studio display?Yes it's not that expensive really for what it is. The pricing doesn't bother me.
The reality here is that most of the displays available are propped up by the low-mid range television market providing whole lines of "acceptable quality" panels and electronics to stick in them. When you go slightly outside what the television market demands then the price dynamics are completely different. So that means anything smaller than the average 32"+ display, anything that isn't a 720p, 1080p or 4k panel and anything below a certain bandwidth required to fill it. All of those displays and electronics are multi-sourced and mass produced by large quantities of Chinese companies. Everything else is niche market and costs more. That's just reality of supply/demand mechanics. People are used to comparing to cheap because cheap is ubiquitous.
So when you pitch the Studio Display against a Samsung 32" 4k monitor, the Samsung one is basically a mass produced television. It's not really comparable in any rational way.
Now Apple when they put the Studio Display together they actually did a lot more work on the display than any other one on the market that I've seen.
Firstly most of the same displays on the market are 4k at 27" (I know I have one lying around). That means that for optimum display resolution you have to suffer 1.5:1 pixel ratio which leads to blurry as hell fonts (on all platforms). Apple aren't going to ship something that cruddy so it's 5k at 27" as that is optimum for the display size. That's not a TV panel so there goes more $$$$ (LG Ultrafine 5k was also $$$ but not $$$$
Secondly, being Apple they decided to actually make it usable and that means throwing in a proper TB port and USB-C PD capability that will charge higher end laptops quickly. They did that and it works. You plug it in and there are no surprises. In comparison my $4500 Dell 7670 here with $500 210W dock does not charge properly, ever. Been through two docks and two laptops now and I'm done with it. That's $10k of broken ****. Apple stuff just works as a rule.
Thirdly, the enclosure is actually pretty decent. It's the first monitor on the market for a long time that isn't some crappy injection moulded plastic. Even the higher end monitors these days have literally the front face of the display being the exposed polariser for example resulting in any display knocks being end game for the screen. That's just so so so cheap. And yes that big chunk of machined aluminium is not cheap! I live and work in the same environment and I want that to be something I enjoy being in and that means not surrounding myself with crap.
Fourthly, it's actually really well made. Most monitors are a generic control board, generic power supply and generic LCD thrown in a plastic box. If something goes wrong it's a 3-6 month long RMA session with the vendor, repairer who is usually the lowest bidding third party. This thing is a rather nice piece of engineering top to bottom. It's nice knowing it's there and it's nice knowing I have the safety net. And as discovered recently, yes you can get parts for it.
Fifthly, the audio is as good as it gets on a monitor. There's nothing that gets remotely near it.
Honestly I value my eyes, my ears and my time. This hits the mark. It's a niche product with niche performance which demands an appropriate price.
Edit: this monitor, I hope, also ends the cycle of 27" iMacs being consigned to landfill with perfectly good panels and useless computers attached. That's a travesty.
I suspect it won't.
I looked at the "self service repair" costs of the parts and proportioned everything out and the thing is quite expensive to make. They aren't making a huge amount of money on the Studio Display I suspect.
To put it into perspective I showed a friend the chassis. He does aluminium CNC cast + milling for industry and he said he couldn't even mill the enclosure and stand for the price of the monitor at a quantity of 100,000.
Yes it's not that expensive really for what it is. The pricing doesn't bother me.
The reality here is that most of the displays available are propped up by the low-mid range television market providing whole lines of "acceptable quality" panels and electronics to stick in them. When you go slightly outside what the television market demands then the price dynamics are completely different. So that means anything smaller than the average 32"+ display, anything that isn't a 720p, 1080p or 4k panel and anything below a certain bandwidth required to fill it. All of those displays and electronics are multi-sourced and mass produced by large quantities of Chinese companies. Everything else is niche market and costs more. That's just reality of supply/demand mechanics. People are used to comparing to cheap because cheap is ubiquitous.
So when you pitch the Studio Display against a Samsung 32" 4k monitor, the Samsung one is basically a mass produced television. It's not really comparable in any rational way.
Now Apple when they put the Studio Display together they actually did a lot more work on the display than any other one on the market that I've seen.
Firstly most of the same displays on the market are 4k at 27" (I know I have one lying around). That means that for optimum display resolution you have to suffer 1.5:1 pixel ratio which leads to blurry as hell fonts (on all platforms). Apple aren't going to ship something that cruddy so it's 5k at 27" as that is optimum for the display size. That's not a TV panel so there goes more $$$$ (LG Ultrafine 5k was also $$$ but not $$$$
Secondly, being Apple they decided to actually make it usable and that means throwing in a proper TB port and USB-C PD capability that will charge higher end laptops quickly. They did that and it works. You plug it in and there are no surprises. In comparison my $4500 Dell 7670 here with $500 210W dock does not charge properly, ever. Been through two docks and two laptops now and I'm done with it. That's $10k of broken ****. Apple stuff just works as a rule.
Thirdly, the enclosure is actually pretty decent. It's the first monitor on the market for a long time that isn't some crappy injection moulded plastic. Even the higher end monitors these days have literally the front face of the display being the exposed polariser for example resulting in any display knocks being end game for the screen. That's just so so so cheap. And yes that big chunk of machined aluminium is not cheap! I live and work in the same environment and I want that to be something I enjoy being in and that means not surrounding myself with crap.
Fourthly, it's actually really well made. Most monitors are a generic control board, generic power supply and generic LCD thrown in a plastic box. If something goes wrong it's a 3-6 month long RMA session with the vendor, repairer who is usually the lowest bidding third party. This thing is a rather nice piece of engineering top to bottom. It's nice knowing it's there and it's nice knowing I have the safety net. And as discovered recently, yes you can get parts for it.
Fifthly, the audio is as good as it gets on a monitor. There's nothing that gets remotely near it.
Honestly I value my eyes, my ears and my time. This hits the mark. It's a niche product with niche performance which demands an appropriate price.
Edit: this monitor, I hope, also ends the cycle of 27" iMacs being consigned to landfill with perfectly good panels and useless computers attached. That's a travesty.
I think a better way to gauge profit margins than trying to estimate individual parts costs (which are very hard to know) is to take a big-picture approach and compare the ASD's pricing to the 2020 iMac's. The iMac had a very similar panel to the ASD (both are 8-bit), probably had Apple's typically excellent profit margins, and started for $1800, only $200 more than the ASD. I expect if they can have excellent profit margins on a complete AIO for $1800, they should have excellent profit margins on the monitor portion alone for $1600.
And at that price, I don't think it's as high-end as it could be. As a prosumer display, they should have made it a bit more special and invested the parts budget into a true 10-bit panel (like on the XDR), rather than fancy audio, camera, and power delivery, since the latter three are anciallary to what a prosumer display is fundamentally about.