Absolutely agree.
In the old days, Dell sold a speaker bar which clipped on the bottom of the monitor and had power from the monitor. They've moved away from that design, at least on the Ultrasharps.
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 Studio Display vs. Dell's Latest $655 27-Inch UltraSharp Monitor
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Absolutely agree.
In the old days, Dell sold a speaker bar which clipped on the bottom of the monitor and had power from the monitor. They've moved away from that design, at least on the Ultrasharps.
I don't understand either and it certainly isn't useful in a video "studio".
An odd thing to include. I guess good for some folks, but totally wasted on others.
For Apple work the P3 color space (non-hdr) is more important. I think the Ultrasharp (Dell has two really good ones) has 99% P3. That means your work will be basically the same on a MacBook and this screen.
It's overpriced (for me) because it does not have an iPhone camera in it; the current webcam is useless (to me). This would have been a chance to bring the first display with a youtube level camera to market, and Apple blew it.
Not my intention, just giving my view from my personal experience. Only reason I mention is that the MR review was comparing the blacks on this with OLED. I had the completed opposite experience and always appreciate people giving their honest feedback. It's not even in the same ballpark. I really wanted to like the Dell, colors were great and price was amazing, I even scored a little more discount than what was already offered buying direct.
One amazing thing among tech devices and news is the poor inportance the community gives to proper display calibration.
There is almost no good calibrated from factury display, not even Apple calibration is consintnt along its devices.
All Macbooks looks different vs other macbooks models, same for iphone, ipad, iMacs ETC.
Calibrating devices should be best selling devices but barely people knows about them.
Then, your clients comolaimts about colors on their screens…
Calibration is important to some but I'd say that it doesn't matter to the vast majority.
In the old days, I was using VT100s, monochrome monitors where the idea was that you could make out the characters. Not that they looked good. You had one font in one color and that was it. And you got your work done with it.
There are tons of people working in offices doing routine computer work. Would color calibration matter at all?
This comment makes me skip the remaining 8 pages of this thread. Thanks 👍🏻
A smart move and you’ll be happier for it as well
The speakers exist for the same reason the built-in camera and iPhone CPU exist in the monitor - it is cheap to add those things to a monitor, and it makes it easier to say "our monitor has 'xyz feature' that other monitors don't have" to justify a massively inflated price.
Even bumping the brightness from 500 nits to 600 nits was done for no other reason than to make it look like an upgrade from the LG monitor that they already convinced many of their customers to buy. And as is expected of the loyal iSheep, that one little change was enough to sour many LG users just enough to go all Peter Griffin on their LGs and fork over even more money for essentially the same monitor.
I'll hand it to Tim - he knows his customer base.
Just all arguing about "retina" and some elitism about what is "good/great/better/best/good enough"
All mostly subjective opinions, but some feel the need to insist on "one true way is correct"
(which it's not)
I love the look of the dell with the black even bezels much more than Samsung's uneven white bezels which I can't stand.
I don't care about speakers, but do miss the webcam. Samsung's optional snap on webcam is a nice solution. I want a cover on webcams so simply removing the cam is a nice option.
Built-in height adjustable stand is nice as well. Though apple's I'm sure will be much easier/sturdier which is important to me as I expect to want to make small adjustments fairly often.
Still gonna wait 3-4 more weeks for my Studio Display order to ship. Wish there was more competition/choices in this area. Especially with 5k.
Edit: Oh and ports. I love a ton of ports which Apple is always skimpy on (yay for the Mac Studio which brings a decent amount back.) Gotta love the Dell if only for the ports. Hubs and adapters suck.
I don't care about speakers, but do miss the webcam. Samsung's optional snap on webcam is a nice solution. I want a cover on webcams so simply removing the cam is a nice option.
Built-in height adjustable stand is nice as well. Though apple's I'm sure will be much easier/sturdier which is important to me as I expect to want to make small adjustments fairly often.
Still gonna wait 3-4 more weeks for my Studio Display order to ship. Wish there was more competition/choices in this area. Especially with 5k.
Edit: Oh and ports. I love a ton of ports which Apple is always skimpy on (yay for the Mac Studio which brings a decent amount back.) Gotta love the Dell if only for the ports. Hubs and adapters suck.
1. It's 10years on from the first Retina screens, and we're still arguing over PPI and forgetting that viewing distance matters.
2. People adding wonderful comments like: "it's only 4k. Not good enough for me!" only with less words
3. People bickering over how 2:1 scaling works and how I can totally see the difference and I'm never going back.
The 5k screen is a great screen. It is not the only solution, and it is out-of-budget for most people. In many use cases and for many people, a 4k/27" screen will be indistinguishable. We can argue about this to the end of time. A Lexus IS a great car. Still, lots of people buy Hondas.
Apple has a trademark on Retina for displays so it is definitely a marketing term. But Apple also has a technical justification for Retina which is enough pixel density that at a normal viewing distance someone with 20/20 vision can't discern individual pixels. For Apple with notebook and desktop displays that means approximately 220 PPI from a distance of 51 cm (20 inches). Apple tends to side on slightly higher pixel density than is strictly necessary for the average person. Having lower than this pixel density isn't the end of the world but anyone who says that they can't tell the difference between a pixel density of 220 PPI versus 165 PPI has somewhat impaired vision or they have never compared the different PPI displays side by side.
I have both Dell 4k and Apple 5K on my desktop side-by-side. The Dell monitor's multiple input ports are nice. The adjustability is nice. You have height, tilt forward/back, tilt rotational, and swivel. And you can rotate it to portrait mode - something that I've used in the past but don't use now. The powered ports are nice, even for charging your devices. It provides multiple options on how you power the ports too.
A lot depends on your application, budget, and requirements. I bought Dell pre-pandemic and the prices were a lot lower than what they are today and I'm very happy with the Dell stuff, particularly the price-point. And I'd buy them today over a Studio Monitor. But I have an iMac 5k on my desk so I get the benefits of Apple 5k, speakers, etc.
Thank you kindly for that summary, you safed me a lot of time 😊
Not according to Apple's own guidelines for Retina, which corresponds to what they judge as a typical range of viewing distances. I.e., you can't take what's typical for you and insist that's typical generally.
What Apple considers to be typical viewing distances for non-handheld displays allows for viewing distances down to 14"–16", since otherwise they wouldn't have made 220 ppi the minimum for such displays. I.e., Jobs said that the Retina pixel density (human eye can't distinguish the pixels) at a 10"–12" distance is 300 ppi. Thus 220 ppi is Retina down to (10" to 12") x (300/220) = 14" to 16".
MORE IMPORTANTLY: Job's guidelines for Retina are wrong. Likely they reflect what he knew he was able to achieve technologically, rather than the actual limit of human vision. He then marketed that as "Retina", even though he knew thateven higher pixel densities would look, to those with excellent vision, better still. See: https://mostly-tech.com/tag/steve-jobs/
"Raymond Soneira from DisplayMate Technologies, who is one the most respected names in display analysis [wrote] “The math just doesn’t add up,” and suggested the term Retina display was misleading. Soneira went on to say “it was inaccurate to measure the resolution of the eye in terms of pixels.” He added “…a more accurate Retina definition would have a pixel resolution of 477 pixels per inch at 12 inches.”"
Thus, even at a viewing distance of 20", you'd need to get to a pixel density of 477 ppi x 12"/20" = 290 ppi before those with excellent vision no longer see further improvement. You may not see it, but others do.
See also: https://www.cultofmac.com/173702/why-retina-isnt-enough-feature/
Last edited:
All I want is a MacBook Pro screen just a little bigger. Why is that so hard? 120hz, HDR, 4k.
In the computer monitor world that’s like a rare thing
In the computer monitor world that’s like a rare thing
This would counteract all the work that us as individuals have come together to work on as a whole including the big picture takers as well you see
This is Apple's own support page for ergonomics:
Ergonomics - Apple Support
Learn to set up your environment and use your devices safely.
Move your screen a comfortable distance away from your eyes, between 20-30 inches (50-75 cm). Adjust the screen’s angle to be comfortable for you.
For the Americans, OSHA recommends 20-40 inches.
Super basic stuff hereThis is Apple's own support page for ergonomics:
Ergonomics - Apple Support
Learn to set up your environment and use your devices safely.support.apple.com
Move your screen a comfortable distance away from your eyes, between 20-30 inches (50-75 cm). Adjust the screen’s angle to be comfortable for you.
Retina IS a marketing term but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t mean anything.
Apple uses this term to describe displays where the pixels are small enough that you can’t really see individual pixels at the typical viewing distance for that device. This means that when you look at text or a curve in the screen it looks completely smooth with no jagged edges.
The distance matters. A phone is viewed up close and a retina phone display typically has more than 300 pixels per inch (ppi) and sometimes more than 400ppi. A laptop retina screen is typically viewed around 18” from your eye and retina would be around 225ppi. A desktop display is usually further away at around 24” and retina would be around 200-220ppi.
In practice a retina screen will let you comfortable read text that is about half the size of text on your older 2010 iMac.