Apple's Pro Display XDR Is Five Years Old Today

[citysnaps]

Apple's Pro Display XDR is NOT targeted to the typical Apple user. It's for professionals and very serious non-professionals who routinely engage in creative endeavors and are very fussy about color and uniformity.

I suspect that's a very small percentage of Apple's total customer base.

 

[green_diyos]

Love it - and don't need a "new Version" - as it still is the best Display out there. ✌️

I dont mind the "current version" being re-priced to sub-$2k.

To allow for a iMac 32" 6K M5 that starts at ~$2k.

 

[pksv]

May I introduce you to OLED? Been around for what, 15 years?

This is a comment from someone who has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. OLED has only been suitable for professional use in recent years, and some of the problems still haven't been fully resolved. The main problems are burnin, low brightness, and color calibration only at a specific brightness level.

Apple's Pro Display XDR is NOT targeted to the typical Apple user. It's for professionals and very serious non-professionals who routinely engage in creative endeavors and are very fussy about color and uniformity.

I suspect that's a very small percentage of Apple's total customer base.

Exactly. So many people vent about its price while they're not target customers.
I don't see many comments complaining about the Sony Venice camera price, for example, even though it costs $60k.
People understand that it is not for them, not for their use. With more expensive Apple devices targeted at professionals, they somehow cannot understand it.

 

[andrewxgx]

theres very good chance for update early in 2025 along with Pro and Studio Macs, theres reason M4 Pro/Max got TB5 very early (they have bandwith needed for 120 Hz for 5k, can't confirm 6k but probably too)

 

[iMac The Knife]

May I introduce you to OLED? Been around for what, 15 years?

This is probably the most uninformed comment I've seen in a long time.

 

[sunapple]

Apples displays are ridiculous. Small and expensive.
Ten years ago I had a 34" curved monitor. In 2019 I got a 43".

Even today Apple still doesn't sell a monitor the size I had 10 years ago.
If I was to get a new one today I'd probably aim around 50".

FWIW I work for a large public broadcaster. We produce everything from news to drama. We have thousands of Macs, yet we have zero Apple displays.

First I’m hearing 50” monitors would be an good size. Bigger monitors are simply not their target?

BTW at what resolution would you want to use a 50” monitor on a desk? Do you split the screen in 4 or something? I’m using an LG DualUp at 2560x2880 resolution with an 16:18 aspect ratio at 28”, in other terms it’s like 2x 21,5” stacked.

 

[Harry Haller]

Well - it is expensive- BUT it really worth the money- there is no other Display alike..

Love it - and don't need a "new Version" - as it still is the best Display out there. ✌️

Good morning Tim.

 

[citysnaps]

Exactly. So many people vent about its price while they're not target customers.
I don't see many comments complaining about the Sony Venice camera price, for example, even though it costs $60k.
People understand that it is not for them, not for their use. With more expensive Apple devices targeted at professionals, they somehow cannot understand it.

It's like being steamed one can't buy a Lamborghini or Bugatti for $50K. The nerve of those companies for charging so much!

 

[theluggage]

It would be great if Apple offered more than two monitor options, including one that matches the Mac mini in terms of budget.

I can't see Apple offering an alternative, lower-end display that isn't either an expensive 220ppi panel or an overpriced 4K UHD screen.

There are plenty of affordable, third-party 4k UHD displays that are perfectly suitable for an "economy" Mac Mini setup - not to mention virtually any 4K TV with HDMI. Unfortunately - thanks to a couple of widely shared online articles with big scary enlargements of "artefacts" & Apple's confusing way of describing screen modes - there's a lot of exaggerated FUD about 4k "not being suitable" for MacOS.

Bottom line: The "looks like 2560x1440" that gives the "correct" UI size at 4k@27" is actually 5120x2880 downscaled to 3840x2160, and shows far more detail & less pixelation than an actual 1440p display, and Apple themselves have been using similar fractional scaling as default on some MacBooks for years. It takes seconds to switch to "looks like 1920x1080" mode which is actually pixel-perfect 4k with a somewhat large - but perfectly usable - UI if you need pixel-accurate.

Yes, a ~220ppi screen (5k@27", 6k@32" or 4.5k@24") is optimum for MacOS if having exactly the same UI size as the former 27" iMac is vital to you - but there's clearly no demand for 220ppi in the wider PC world*, so that's always going to come at a hefty premium. 4K is a sensible compromise - esp. if you want a multi-screen setup, considering you can get 2-3 4k displays for the price of a 5k.

I suspect that the only reason that there is a Studio Display is that it doubles as the ultimate Thunderbolt charge/docking station for a MacBook Pro, which is a far larger potential market than just Mini/Studio users.

Then, of course, there's the M4 iMac - personally I don't want an all-in-one, but its an option if you really want a smaller/cheaper 220ppi display. If Apple did release a screen-only version it would probably look like poor value c.f. an iMac - but at least it would be something unique to Apple.

(* various alternative 5k3k displays have come and gone over the years - none have hung around - and even ~24" screens at 4k seem to be getting rare. 220ppi being a "sweet spot" for the UI is entirely a MacOS quirk, and 4k on a desktop display is close-enough to "retina" at typical viewing distances that going higher offers rapidly diminishing returns)

 

[joecomo]

First I’m hearing 50” monitors would be an good size. Bigger monitors are simply not their target?

BTW at what resolution would you want to use a 50” monitor on a desk? Do you split the screen in 4 or something? I’m using an LG DualUp at 2560x2880 resolution with an 16:18 aspect ratio at 28”, in other terms it’s like 2x 21,5” stacked.

Before TB5 I guess there wasn't even the bandwidth to support a much larger Retina display.
This being said, I do have one 43 inch Display (a 4K Dell) - you have to use it on the smallest scaling ratio (if I remember correctly 1:1,25) to use it in a satisfactory manner.

Far from the quality of a Retina display - I cannot imagine how someone could want an even larger screen.

 

[joecomo]

I can't see Apple offering an alternative, lower-end display that isn't either an expensive 220ppi panel or an overpriced 4K UHD screen.

There are plenty of affordable, third-party 4k UHD displays that are perfectly suitable for an "economy" Mac Mini setup - not to mention virtually any 4K TV with HDMI. Unfortunately - thanks to a couple of widely shared online articles with big scary enlargements of "artefacts" & Apple's confusing way of describing screen modes - there's a lot of exaggerated FUD about 4k "not being suitable" for MacOS.

Bottom line: The "looks like 2560x1440" that gives the "correct" UI size at 4k@27" is actually 5120x2880 downscaled to 3840x2160, and shows far more detail & less pixelation than an actual 1440p display, and Apple themselves have been using similar fractional scaling as default on some MacBooks for years. It takes seconds to switch to "looks like 1920x1080" mode which is actually pixel-perfect 4k with a somewhat large - but perfectly usable - UI if you need pixel-accurate.

Yes, a ~220ppi screen (5k@27", 6k@32" or 4.5k@24") is optimum for MacOS if having exactly the same UI size as the former 27" iMac is vital to you - but there's clearly no demand for 220ppi in the wider PC world*, so that's always going to come at a hefty premium. 4K is a sensible compromise - esp. if you want a multi-screen setup, considering you can get 2-3 4k displays for the price of a 5k.

I suspect that the only reason that there is a Studio Display is that it doubles as the ultimate Thunderbolt charge/docking station for a MacBook Pro, which is a far larger potential market than just Mini/Studio users.

Then, of course, there's the M4 iMac - personally I don't want an all-in-one, but its an option if you really want a smaller/cheaper 220ppi display. If Apple did release a screen-only version it would probably look like poor value c.f. an iMac - but at least it would be something unique to Apple.

(* various alternative 5k3k displays have come and gone over the years - none have hung around - and even ~24" screens at 4k seem to be getting rare. 220ppi being a "sweet spot" for the UI is entirely a MacOS quirk, and 4k on a desktop display is close-enough to "retina" at typical viewing distances that going higher offers rapidly diminishing returns)

fully right - a 4k screen scaled to 2560x1440 is decent enough for many users

 

[jonnysods]

Still rocking my 2011 27" Thunderbolt Display, flipping love it.

 

[DesertNomad]

My XDR is, in my opinion, the best Apple product I have owned since I started buying Apple stuff in 1986.

 

[RedWeasel]

With more expensive Apple devices targeted at professionals, they somehow cannot understand it.

Maybe this is a bit due to the inflationary use of "Pro" in Apple's marketing and product naming.

 

[DMG35]

Still the best Apple purchase I've ever made. I had the original glossy but then sold that one for the Nano texture display and its absolutely spectacular.

 

[PPGMD]

Bottom line: The "looks like 2560x1440" that gives the "correct" UI size at 4k@27" is actually 5120x2880 downscaled to 3840x2160, and shows far more detail & less pixelation than an actual 1440p display, and Apple themselves have been using similar fractional scaling as default on some MacBooks for years. It takes seconds to switch to "looks like 1920x1080" mode which is actually pixel-perfect 4k with a somewhat large - but perfectly usable - UI if you need pixel-accurate.

Where is that in the interface? Because I don't see a per monitor scaling option like Windows has. Which IMO is one of the biggest faults in Mac OS.

 

[RMo]

I dont mind the "current version" being re-priced to sub-$2k.

While that is the only current monitor I'm aware of with comparable specs, note that the price you allude to is for a used, not new, listing:

New from Dell, its just under $2500: https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/del...4kb/apd/210-bhbz/monitors-monitor-accessories

Apparently this was around $3200 when it was introduced (see: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dell-ultrasharp-u3224kb-6k-gaming-monitor), so it does seem to have gone down in the 18 months or so since then.

 

[1037]

They should update the refresh rate and call it the new Studio display and price it at $1999

I really hope the new studio display this spring lives up to expectations.

 

[pksv]

They should update the refresh rate and call it the new Studio display and price it at $1999

I really hope the new studio display this spring lives up to expectations.

It's not going to happen as Pro is 32". But a cut-down version to 27" at 90Hz would be perfect (still, not going to happen as they will probably sell LCD panel at 90Hz first).

 

[PsykX]

Apple's not serious about displays. They should update them on a 2-years basis max, most competitors release displays on a yearly basis (can't wait for CES 2025!).

It's kinda sad, because they make some of the most amazing displays on their release day.

 

[alexandr]

After trying several monitors I've come to the conclusion that the XDR is indeed what I need, but it feels weird buying a piece of tech that is 5 years old for 7k when there just may be an update around the corner...

 

[WarmWinterHat]

Apples displays are ridiculous. Small and expensive.
Ten years ago I had a 34" curved monitor. In 2019 I got a 43".

Even today Apple still doesn't sell a monitor the size I had 10 years ago.
If I was to get a new one today I'd probably aim around 50".

FWIW I work for a large public broadcaster. We produce everything from news to drama. We have thousands of Macs, yet we have zero Apple displays.

Depends on what you do and what you like, I guess. I can't stand having any screen above eye level while sitting at my desk. At work, I have x2 24" monitors. At home I have a single 27", and I think it's too tall and would rather have a 24".. I don't work in anything creative.

A 50" sounds like hell! 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

[lkrupp]

I dont mind the "current version" being re-priced to sub-$2k.

To allow for a iMac 32" 6K M5 that starts at ~$2k.

Dream on, my friend, dream on.

 

[theluggage]

Where is that in the interface? Because I don't see a per monitor scaling option like Windows has. Which IMO is one of the biggest faults in Mac OS.

Still on Monterey - things have probably moved around on Sequoia - but

- click on display icon in menu bar
- click on Display Preferences
- if you have multiple displays, choose the display on the left-hand side of the dialog
- choose "Scaled" (if you're not already using a scaled resolution)
- You'll now have 5 buttons corresponding to different scales from "Larger Text" to "More Space" - hover to see the "looks like" resolution.

You'll get a "may affect performance" message (your M-series GPU can take it!) on the ones using fractional scaling. On a 4k display the first and last option are exactly 2:1 and 1:1 respectively, which gets you a pixel-perfect 4k display with double or regular-sized UI elements (or "too big" and "too small"). Second from the left is usually the "looks like 1440p" option which is "generally regarded" to be the Goldilocks Zone for UI size. Your Mileage May Vary.

Option-click on "scaled" to get the full choice of resolutions. There are tools like "Better Display Tool" that let you tinker more extensively (and which, I believe, will let you set a hotkey).

In Windows is that you have a fully-scalable UI and you can choose any % scale (150% is good for 4k) which determines the PPI value that the OS and properly-written apps will use to lay out the UI. MacOS just offers a choice of 110ppi or 220ppi and uses the technique of rendering to an internal buffer and re-sampling to offer intermediate sizes.

The Windows method is technically better when it works & all applications make the proper OS calls to lay out screens and render content but (in my experience) is more prone to mess up and present you with an unusable UI, especially if you're switching between different size/resolution screens (as you might do when docking a laptop). Plus, any bitmap assets used by apps can only be provided in so many alternative resolutions and will end up being fractionally scaled anyway if you pick an arbitrary scale factor. The MacOS method seems more robust and able to cope with "mixed economies" of screens - and developers only have to provide bitmap assets in two sizes.

It's a shame that Apple hasn't been able to move to a fully scalable UI - practically, though, Windows has been like that since the stone age whereas Apple would have to persuade developers to re-write and re-test their apps for fully variable UIs.

 

[green_diyos]

Dream on, my friend, dream on.

I suspect a larger iMac with Apple Silicon did not materialize because of display parts not being ~$1,000.