Everything wrong with the LG Ultrafine 5K

[iBrooker]

I really want to like this (and I may still buy one) but the following baffle me - why on earth didn't Apple or even LG (who has much 'better' products already) do something about all this?

1 - The look.

LG makes much nicer looking displays, why on earth does this one look so bad? Were Apple execs high/half asleep when they gave this design the thumbs up?

2 - The build.

Plastic? Really? For a high end display for a high end computer/brand you give us plastic. What gives, Apple? And LG, why did you agree to it? Bet you never thought that being associated with one of the world's top brands would make you this much of a laughing stock.

3 - The ports.

It's bad enough not having HDMI in and that you can only connect a TB/USB-C Mac to this. But where's the headphone jack? A headphone jack that could connect to your speakers or amp making this a truly one-dock system.

It feels like Apple has lost its way. Even the most junior of Apple designers would have been able to flag these things up. I just don't understand it. Like I said, it baffles me!

Feel free to add your own rants about this monitor to the list!

 

[Brookzy]

Points 2 and 3 I can understand.

2: Apple is the world expert at manufacturing aluminium products. I think if LG attempted to make an "Apple-style" display it would look even worse than just sticking with what they know - plastic.

3: Apple are evidently not fond of having lots of ports these days.

But point 1 I cannot get my head around. That forehead. I don't understand what is happening with that. Couldn't they have had a chin instead? I think I'd even rather a thick bezel all the way round than just the forehead. It's beyond me.

Apple did have a big say in the design of this monitor. Well placed sources are suggesting that what's lurking inside that monitor will be very interesting and was essentially the exclusive work of Apple. The people working on it inside Apple apparently expected it to end up inside an Apple Cinema Display.



Surely it must have been mentioned at some point? Someone at Apple must have bemoaned that forehead.

Apple also seems embarrassed about it because the images used in the keynote - where they show the two LG 5K monitors hooked up to a 15" MacBook Pro - do not show the forehead.

 

[user74246]

Can you please show me an example for a non-plastic monitor (other than Apple Thunderbolt Display). And one example for a better looking LG?

Oh btw, the UltraFine has a metal base plate.
[doublepost=1480637287][/doublepost]

[…] the images used in the keynote - where they show the two LG 5K monitors hooked up to a 15" MacBook Pro - do not show the forehead.

Yeah, I also noticed that the prototypes at the keynote didn't have it (seen it in some videos on YouTube). My guess is they didn't even have a webcam at all.

 

[iBrooker]

And one example for a better looking LG?

27" 4k LG

Can you please show me an example for a non-plastic monitor

Old Dell 32" monitors had dark brushed metal casing - they looked stunning in person. Incidentally, we used these at 1920 x 1200 and used the onboard scaler to fill 2560x1600... 'retina' before Apple even dreamt it ;-)
[doublepost=1480638675][/doublepost]

Points 2 and 3 I can understand.

2: Apple is the world expert at manufacturing aluminium products. I think if LG attempted to make an "Apple-style" display it would look even worse than just sticking with what they know - plastic.

3: Apple are evidently not fond of having lots of ports these days.

But point 1 I cannot get my head around. That forehead. I don't understand what is happening with that. Couldn't they have had a chin instead? I think I'd even rather a thick bezel all the way round than just the forehead. It's beyond me.

Apple did have a big say in the design of this monitor. Well placed sources are suggesting that what's lurking inside that monitor will be very interesting and was essentially the exclusive work of Apple. The people working on it inside Apple apparently expected it to end up inside an Apple Cinema Display.

View attachment 675681

Surely it must have been mentioned at some point? Someone at Apple must have bemoaned that forehead.

Apple also seems embarrassed about it because the images used in the keynote - where they show the two LG 5K monitors hooked up to a 15" MacBook Pro - do not show the forehead.

Why didn't they just bring it out as an Apple Cinema Display - just sounds weird :/

 

[Brookzy]

Why didn't they just bring it out as an Apple Cinema Display - just sounds weird :/

This is the thing. They seemed to do the hard work. How much more work could it have been to slap it into iMac style casing? (I'm sure it's a lot of work but certainly within Apple's capabilities.)

The only explanation I can think of is that the LG solution is somewhat 'hacky' and Apple considering the implementation too unrefined to put their own name on. There is speculation amongst two camps for how the LG 5K actually works:

1. That it takes two independent display streams and stitches them together to form a 5K resolution
2. That it has a built-in GPU of some description that can render its own graphics

Both these solutions are imperfect and Apple does not use either for the iMac 5K display - which instead uses custom connectors and timing controllers to achieve a "true" 5K image without the need for post processing or image stitching.

I'm not fully informed of the ins-and-outs of Thunderbolt 3 but I know there is some reason that means either method 1 or method 2 is being used in this LG display, and the only obvious difference between the LG implementation and the iMac implementation is the Thunderbolt element.

So, maybe Apple thought that if they couldn't do a display without such fudging, they didn't want to put their name on it.

None of this addresses that bloody forehead though!

@user74246 - the demo units did have a forehead and seemingly a hole for a webcam (see enhanced image - exposure boosted as the bezel is indistinguishable otherwise) but the ones in the photos certainly didn't.

 

[user74246]

Cool, I didn't know about these ancient Dell monitors. But I was actually more interested in things I can buy now. There's nothing really, no?

And I totally disagree with your opinion about the LG 27UG88. Sorry, but I hate about every single detail of its design. All these different plastic colors, glossy white, silver (let's make it look like aluminum, most customers won't even notice), matte black. Then those shapes! It might be nice to have some fun with a fingerboard on the base, yeah. But seriously that base looks ugly, even more when I imagine my minimalist, rectangular Magic Keyboard next to that round shape.

 

[iBrooker]

The only explanation I can think of is that the LG solution is somewhat 'hacky' and Apple considering the implementation too unrefined to put their own name on. There is speculation amongst two camps for how the LG 5K actually works:

1. That it takes two independent display streams and stitches them together to form a 5K resolution
2. That it has a built-in GPU of some description that can render its own graphics

Both these solutions are imperfect and Apple does not use either for the iMac 5K display - which instead uses custom connectors and timing controllers to achieve a "true" 5K image without the need for post processing or image stitching.

This is worrying me now - if it's a 'fudge' job maybe it's worth waiting to see what comes out at CES 2017 which is on around 6th Jan... kinda weird how Apple's offer is only for this month (hence want them sold asap/before then?)

 

[user74246]

the demo units did have a forehead and seemingly a hole for a webcam

Thanks @Brookzy, I thought I looked closely enough, but they really did have the forehead.

I have to admit that I actually kinda like the forehead… screams form follows function. But yeah, I am not missing it on my 21"!

 

[Brookzy]

And I totally disagree with your opinion about the LG 27UG88. Sorry, but I hate about every single detail of its design. All these different plastic colors, glossy white, silver (let's make it look like aluminum, most customers won't even notice), matte black. Then those shapes! It might be nice to have some fun with a fingerboard on the base, yeah. But seriously that base looks ugly, even more when I imagine my minimalist, rectangular Magic Keyboard next to that round shape.

Agree with this. The curved stand I find terrible: it should be as minimalist as possible, not try to draw attention to itself. And I've heard it's horribly unstable and sort of rocks back and forth - very un-solid.

The UltraFine by contrast (as you'll know) has a very sturdy stand and the height adjustment is very refined with a nice amount of resistance.

This is worrying me now - if it's a 'fudge' job maybe it's worth waiting to see what comes out at CES 2017 which is on around 6th Jan... kinda weird how Apple's offer is only for this month (hence want them sold asap/before then?)

Any other approach would be incompatible with your MacBook because the I/O (Thunderbolt 3) is the issue. The stitching/GPU approach is going to stick around for a while. I wouldn't worry about it though. Personally I plan on buying two ready for the next iMac update.

 

[user74246]

[…] the next iMac update.

And this is exactly the reason why I think Apple has got no problems with getting out of the monitor business (at least for some time)… they need customers for their next gen iMacs. It's getting harder and harder to sell desktop computers these days, so they simply want the iMac to be the only nice aluminum "monitor" available.

You want to see how this works? Take me as an example: if the next gen is nice and has a 16:10 or 3:2 display I'm gonna sell my UltraFine and buy an iMac again. More aluminum for me and more $$ for Apple, 2k for the MacBook and 2k for the iMac.

 

[Brookzy]

And this is exactly the reason why I think Apple has got no problems with getting out of the monitor business (at least for some time)… they need customers for their next gen iMacs. It's getting harder and harder to sell desktop computers these days, so they simply want the iMac to be the only nice aluminum "monitor" available.

You want to see how this works? Take me as an example: if the next gen is nice and has a 16:10 or 3:2 display I'm gonna sell my UltraFine and buy an iMac again. More aluminum for me and more $$ for Apple, 2k for the MacBook and 2k for the iMac.

I'm in a genuine dilemma about this - if the new iMacs support target display mode it is very tempting to buy two base-spec ones to use solely as displays.

It sounds like sheer excess until you do the sums:

The resale value on something like the LG UltraFine will be seriously low. Only Thunderbolt 3, ugly, probably going to be old tech soon. It will be a near total loss.

The resale value of an iMac is as good as it gets for technology. Two, three years down the line, it will still be a great computer and someone will buy it.

And would it be cool to have three iMacs on your desk? Yes, it would be ****ing awesome!

In the long run it may even be more economical to have three iMacs than one iMac and two UltraFines. I may do just that!

 

[iBrooker]

Any other approach would be incompatible with your MacBook because the I/O (Thunderbolt 3) is the issue. The stitching/GPU approach is going to stick around for a while. I wouldn't worry about it though. Personally I plan on buying two ready for the next iMac update.

Will this be fixed in next years mbps? When is TB due v4 or an update?

You want to see how this works? Take me as an example: if the next gen is nice and has a 16:10 or 3:2 display I'm gonna sell my UltraFine and buy an iMac again. More aluminum for me and more $$ for Apple, 2k for the MacBook and 2k for the iMac.

+

In the long run it may even be more economical to have three iMacs than one iMac and two UltraFines. I may do just that!

You guys are crazy

 

[jimthing]

^ I doubt that'll work, either economically or technically, knowing Apple.
Economically, the base 5K iMac is now currently £1750 and likely to go up in price at next Tbolt 3 refresh (certainly not cheaper, that's almost a given!), compared to two LG 5K's at virtually the same price (£1768: £884 each).


I actually like the LG 5K's, from the limited amount we've seen and can read about it currently.

They are what used to be called monolithic design: simple, functional, non-showy, no overly rounded/cute and cuddly soft corners.
The so-called 'forehead' is also fine in my books, as it follows that very principle (function explains form; the camera+mic on top, hence slightly wider area there), and actually makes it subtly different to all the myriad of perfect rectangle displays out there already. And we're really nowhere near the age yet of completely borderless displays, either, so that was never going to happen at this time.

Also, the whole stand is metal, making it very sturdy and not wibbly-wobbly like all those other naff curved plastic LG stands, and (as said above) the height adjustment is very refined with a nice amount of resistance, making it easy to raise above your MBP 15" screen that might be in front of it (though, I may opt for a long desk display shelf with AV turntables under each one to add swivel, or perhaps just use a completely freeform dual-display VESA stand).

It's form is also followed by the display itself being designed to be plastic, as it makes several things possible. Firstly, the weight is much lowered at 8.5 kg (18.7 lb.) – the ACD/ATD is quite heavy being made of all that metal hence 10.8 kg (23.5 lb.); ~30% heavier. Secondly, compared to the ACD/ATD which have to use their own stand type, or the current iMac's which have to be pre-bought with VESA mountable backs at time of purchase, it allows for a VESA panel to be swappable on the same unit you buy and is included in the box. That would likely be next to impossible to offer in metal, and still be able to meet anywhere near acceptable price and production targets.

And as for ports, the LG 5K's are made for computers going forward, hence are not made to support legacy devices but to work on all new machines from now on with Tbolt 3. Any new iMac's obviously will work with them, and there's a single port Tbolt 3 controller now available, so the 2017 12" Macbook's will have Tbolt 3 versions of the USB-C port on them. And the 5Gbps USB-C's can be used for virtually anything compared to single-use type ports; ethernet/docks/HDDs/printers/scanners/etc. (maybe even another non-5K display, given the 15" MBP can support yet another display lane of its 6... 2 for LG 5K#1 +2 for LG 5K#2 +1 for MBP built-in display +1 for something else!])

The only minor negative is that newer 5K displays may support DP 1.3 (Tbolt 3 is only DP 1.2), potentially matching 2017/2018 Macs capabilities, so could be driven as SST rather than the MST this current LG has. Meaning more displays per machine (e.g. 2017/2018 MBP's may be able to run newer DP 1.3 SST 5K displays; one on each of the 4 ports!). But this is all open to conjecture at this moment, and may be redundant anyway, as one would likely use those other two ports for non-display duties on things like super fast storage for editing or suchlike.

 

[CWallace]

The only explanation I can think of is that the LG solution is somewhat 'hacky' and Apple considering the implementation too unrefined to put their own name on. There is speculation amongst two camps for how the LG 5K actually works:

1. That it takes two independent display streams and stitches them together to form a 5K resolution
2. That it has a built-in GPU of some description that can render its own graphics

Both these solutions are imperfect and Apple does not use either for the iMac 5K display - which instead uses custom connectors and timing controllers to achieve a "true" 5K image without the need for post processing or image stitching.

I'm not fully informed of the ins-and-outs of Thunderbolt 3 but I know there is some reason that means either method 1 or method 2 is being used in this LG display, and the only obvious difference between the LG implementation and the iMac implementation is the Thunderbolt element.

To my knowledge, all current external 5K monitors "stitch" two video streams together to create the display. One stream feeds the left half and the other feeds the right. Just like the old Dual-DVI 30" LCDs (like the Apple Cinema Display 30").

Thunderbolt 3 supports two DisplayPort 1.2 streams over a single port/cable. So the LG monitor still stitches two feeds together, but it only needs one cable and port whereas earlier TB2/DP models need two cables and ports.

This is worrying me now - if it's a 'fudge' job maybe it's worth waiting to see what comes out at CES 2017 which is on around 6th Jan... kinda weird how Apple's offer is only for this month (hence want them sold asap/before then?)

DisplayPort 1.3 can handle a 5K signal over a single cable but no Mac currently supports DP1.3 and I don't expect the next iMac to do so either (since it will probably use the same USB-C/TB3 ports the new MBP does). If Apple updates the Mac Pro it might.

Will this be fixed in next years mbps? When is TB due v4 or an update?

I don't expect Intel to support DisplayPort 1.3 / 1.4 over Thunderbolt until maybe CoffeLake or Icelake in 2018.

 

[jimthing]

To my knowledge, all current external 5K monitors "stitch" two video streams together to create the display. One stream feeds the left half and the other feeds the right. Just like the old Dual-DVI 30" LCDs (like the Apple Cinema Display 30").

Thunderbolt 3 supports two DisplayPort 1.2 streams over a single port/cable. So the LG monitor still stitches two feeds together, but it only needs one cable and port whereas earlier TB2/DP models need two cables and ports.



DisplayPort 1.3 can handle a 5K signal over a single cable but no Mac currently supports DP1.3 and I don't expect the next iMac to do so either (since it will probably use the same USB-C/TB3 ports the new MBP does). If Apple updates the Mac Pro it might.




I don't expect Intel to support DisplayPort 1.3 / 1.4 over Thunderbolt until maybe CoffeLake or Icelake in 2018.

Agree, per my comment above.

 

[ascender]

I think points 1 & 2 are obviously much more subjective (I think that Dell screen in brushed metal looks really cheap in that picture for example!), but #3, the ports, is a really strange one. Other LG monitors have a headphone port which mean you do get a one-cable solution to the laptop so this just doesn't make any sense at all.

I've owned every 27" screen Apple have done and I have to say in these days of thin bezels, I don't know how much you'd even "notice" an aluminium surround unless you were sitting behind it. But I will say that the design of the UltraFine screens seems a bit dated compared to the UD88 one which someone has linked to above.

 

[ABCDEF-Hex]

I took a chance on the 4K but had to return it.
Nice matte black finish and felt very solid - just couldn't get it to work with the cables that the
" Apple rep " told me would work.
1 - Bad info when ordering.
2 - LG was no help - the paperwork it shipped with referred to a user manual download which
Was not available.
3 - Apple paid for the return shipping but wasted both my time and theirs.
4 - New product but when you release a product for sale the support should be in place.
5 - When I called support they referred me to LG.
So I was "stuck in the middle".

 

[jimthing]

I took a chance on the 4K but had to return it.
Nice matte black finish and felt very solid - just couldn't get it to work with the cables that the
" Apple rep " told me would work.
1 - Bad info when ordering.
2 - LG was no help - the paperwork it shipped with referred to a user manual download which
Was not available.
3 - Apple paid for the return shipping but wasted both my time and theirs.
4 - New product but when you release a product for sale the support should be in place.
5 - When I called support they referred me to LG.
So I was "stuck in the middle".

What cables?

 

[ABCDEF-Hex]

What cables?

I thought the Apple rep knew something and tried to go TB2 to TB3.
I shook have payed more attention to the experts on this forum.
I took a chance when it first went on sale because of the price and before Apple posted more about the compatibility.