Gurman: Apple Working on New Monitors, Including Updated Pro Display XDR

[theorist9]

An 8k retina with typical Apple native pixel 2x monitor dpi (218 dpi) would be 42-43", possibly higher if they reduce DPI since you likely have to sit farther away. Can't speak to whether that is "perfect" scaling.

"Perfect scaling" simply means integer pixel mapping, which avoids the moderate loss of sharpness that occurs with non-integer scaling.

How did you get that math?

Edit: it would be exactly 40" screen (220dpi)
Edit2: it would be 34.5" screen if it had same dpi as MBP (254dpi)

I get the same numbers as you when I use 8k = "8k UHD", which is 7680 pixels. With their current standard 218 PPI (what they use on the ASD and XDR) that gives:

width = 7680/218 = 35.23"
=> height = 35.23" x 9/16 = 19.82"
=> diagonal = 40.4"

And, granted, if they did an 8k screen, that's probably what they'd do.

However, Apple thus far has been generous with its pixels. If we extrapolate from what Apple's done on the 27" ASD and iMac (where "5k" = 5120 pixels horizontally), we get 8k = 5120 x 8k/5k = 8192 pixels (which is the 8k format used by the RED camera) and thus a 43" diagonal.

 

[dwaite]

How did you get that math?

By fudging it:

5k at 27" would imply 8k: 27*8/5 = 43.2
6k at 32" would imply 8k: 32*8/6 = 42.6

The discrepancy is Apple advertises monitors having at least the actual number of pixels horizontally - e.g. 5k is 5120 px across, not around 4800.

Edit: it would be exactly 40" screen (220dpi)

Sure, at 7.8k resolution 😉 Ok ok, I'll admit my dirty math shortcuts.

However, you are far more likely to see a larger cut of an existing panel at 218 dpi than an entirely new 220 dpi process. You really have to be selling iPhone numbers of devices to be able to coax manufacturers to do that.

Edit2: it would be 34.5" screen if it had same dpi as MBP (254dpi)

I'd only imagine this only justifiable for people who need native 8k pixel rendering in a smaller display sizes. So pretty much the market for the Pro Display XDR.

To compare - Apple historically hasn't cared much when people have complained that iPhone screens aren't native 4k. Why? Because you can't see the pixels, so you don't get any benefit. Indeed, it may cost you by having lousy pixel structure.

 

[switz]

I did not buy the two new Studio Displays for their speakers or their cameras. I use neither of those "features". I use them as my monitors on VESA mounts and they do that job very well for me replacing two Thunderbolt 27" monitors from 2013.

I have an old external Bose speaker system for music when desired and never do any of the visual networking stuff.

I wanted the Apple ECO system and gladly paid the price. One call covers tech support on the entire system with no finger pointing at other vendors like in the early days of computing (70s).

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

I really don't know why Apple doesn't make multiple ranges of displays of qualities and sizes.

Sizes: 24" 4K, 27" 5K, 32" 6K, 40" 8K
Quality: Standard, Studio, Pro.

None should come with speakers or cameras, but Apple could make an attachable camera accessory, and possibly some Apple brand speakers.

The Standard range would sell like hot cakes if priced reasonably. I for one would be tempted by dual 24" 4K monitors to dock my 16" M1P MBP into when working at home.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

I'd personally prefer a 7K (6880x2880) ultrawide screen (34 or 35 inch), but 120Hz/ProMotion would definitely be on the requirements list (as would an integrated KVM). Sadly, I see no indication of something like that happening.

Why do you prefer 7K over 8K?

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Studio Display is the worst Apple product I’ve ever owned.

Why so?

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Unfortunately, Jobs is gone and Cook is doing what he's great at: maximizing short-term profit, but he isn't a product guy, nor a visionary, and that's very clear from the overpriced, under-specced, and totally non-innovative products coming out of Apple the last few years.

Yeah, I've heard some on this forum stating that Cook is the best CEO ever. I shake my head in disgust. RIP Steve Jobs.

 

[coolerkid]

I really don't know why Apple doesn't make multiple ranges of displays of qualities and sizes.

Sizes: 24" 4K, 27" 5K, 32" 6K, 40" 8K
Quality: Standard, Studio, Pro.

None should come with speakers or cameras, but Apple could make an attachable camera accessory, and possibly some Apple brand speakers.

The Standard range would sell like hot cakes if priced reasonably. I for one would be tempted by dual 24" 4K monitors to dock my 16" M1P MBP into when working at home.

Think 24 would be a good addition to the line up, I’d use it as a secondary display next to my 27” and would be a good combo with the Mini. They already have the 32, and I think 40 would be overkill and likely cost over $10k. I agree that no display should have a camera or speakers. I always buy my own speakers and if I need a webcam I can tether my iPhone or buy a much better add-on camera. Would reduce the cost and possibly the thickness if they did. Looks like there’s a ton of extra circuitry in the ASD just for that camera and speakers.

Also they need to stop gouging on the stands. Come with 1 adjustable stand that can be removed and exposes a VESA mount like every other monitor on the market. What they did with the ASD stand is so ridiculous. You are stuck with the option you buy it with and just to get hight adjustability, which is absolutely necessary, is an extra $400, that’s insane

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Think 24 would be a good addition to the line up, I’d use it as a secondary display next to my 27” and would be a good combo with the Mini. They already have the 32, and I think 40 would be overkill and likely cost over $10k. I agree that no display should have a camera or speakers. I always buy my own speakers and if I need a webcam I can tether my iPhone or buy a much better add-on camera. Would reduce the cost and possibly the thickness if they did. Looks like there’s a ton of extra circuitry in the ASD just for that camera and speakers.

Also they need to stop gouging on the stands. Come with 1 adjustable stand that can be removed and exposes a VESA mount like every other monitor on the market. What they did with the ASD stand is so ridiculous. You are stuck with the option you buy it with and just to get high adjustability is an extra $400, that’s insane

Yeah, the 40 isn't for you or me, it's for those who want an 8K display, so that they can work on 8K content, and on a screen big enough to have enough pixels to actually see the result properly.

My view of product ranges isn't the narrow viewpoint of my own needs.

Agree on the stands, Apple are purely gouging with that rubbish, and even then, are failing to even make a decent product.

It is so obvious to me that all Apple has to do, is make a cheapish, simple, no bells and whistles, Retina quality, beautiful Apple designed, range of monitors, and they will walk out the door. Why they ignore these obvious markets, and launch these insanely high priced monitors instead, is beyond my belief. All the standard quality, cheapish monitors out there are dog ugly. Making simple, beautiful designs, with quality materials is what Apple excels at.

 

[theorist9]

I really don't know why Apple doesn't make multiple ranges of displays of qualities and sizes.

Sizes: 24" 4K, 27" 5K, 32" 6K, 40" 8K
Quality: Standard, Studio, Pro.

None should come with speakers or cameras, but Apple could make an attachable camera accessory, and possibly some Apple brand speakers.

The Standard range would sell like hot cakes if priced reasonably. I for one would be tempted by dual 24" 4K monitors to dock my 16" M1P MBP into when working at home.

I'd like to see these as well, but the answer seems simple: The fact that they're not making these means either they're still working on them, or they've decided they wouldn't be profitable for them. And if the latter is what they've concluded, it's probably true, since Apple understands its market better than any of us.

So if we don't see these in the future, I'd reframe your question from "Why isn't Apple making these?" to "What are the likely reasons Apple determined these wouldn't be profitable?"

 

[Surf Monkey]

I honestly miss the old Sony Trinitron monitors Apple used to make. They were gorgeous.

 

[theorist9]

I honestly miss the old Sony Trinitron monitors Apple used to make. They were gorgeous.

Being self-emissive, they probably had much lower native black levels than current LCD's, which gives a richer picture. But they were also 640 x 480 for a 13" display. I suspect if you took another look at one today, you'd realize you wouldn't want to go back to it.

 

[schneeland]

Why do you prefer 7K over 8K?

Mostly because of pixel-perfect scaling (it's basically double the resolution of existing screens). That being said, an 8K 32"/31.5" screen (so effectively triple the standard resolution) would also be great.

 

[rumz]

Think 24 would be a good addition to the line up, I’d use it as a secondary display next to my 27” and would be a good combo with the Mini. They already have the 32, and I think 40 would be overkill and likely cost over $10k. I agree that no display should have a camera or speakers. I always buy my own speakers and if I need a webcam I can tether my iPhone or buy a much better add-on camera. Would reduce the cost and possibly the thickness if they did. Looks like there’s a ton of extra circuitry in the ASD just for that camera and speakers.

Also they need to stop gouging on the stands. Come with 1 adjustable stand that can be removed and exposes a VESA mount like every other monitor on the market. What they did with the ASD stand is so ridiculous. You are stuck with the option you buy it with and just to get hight adjustability, which is absolutely necessary, is an extra $400, that’s insane

Yeah I'd love to see a 24" 4.5k-- I'd either run it in portrait next to a 27" (landscape-orientation) screen, or, I'd stack a 24" with a 24" iMac. (With laptops, I prefer to stack a single display above the laptop screen rather than set them side by side, and I suspect 24" might be small enough to get away with stacking 2 screens.)

 

[theorist9]

Mostly because of pixel perfect scaling (it's basically double the resolution of existing screens). That being said, an 8K 32"/31.5" screen (so effectively triple the standard resolution) would also be great.

Note that @sideshowuniqueuser said 40" 8k. I assume what he meant was 42.5" 8k, which would have the same pixel density as 32" 6k, and thus use the same 2:1 scaling.

32" 8k would be great but, at 2:1 scaling, its UI would be too small for many. 3:1 scaling would work (the UI would be just ~20% larger than the 27" 5k/32" 6k), but MacOS doesn't currently offer that.

Ideally, I'd like to see 36" 10.5k with 3:1 scaling. That would give a super-sharp 330 ppi, with the same UI size we now get with the 27" 5k & 32" 6k.

 

[Tagbert]

Note that @sideshowuniqueuser said 40" 8k. I assume what he meant was 42.5" 8k, which would have the same pixel density as 32" 6k, and thus use the same 2:1 scaling.

32" 8k would be great but, at 2:1 scaling, its UI would be too small for many. 3:1 scaling would work (the UI would be just ~20% larger than the 27" 5k/32" 6k), but MacOS doesn't currently offer that.

Ideally, I'd like to see 36" 10.5k with 3:1 scaling. That would give a super-sharp 330 ppi, with the same UI size we now get with the 27" 5k & 32" 6k.

With that much resolution and such small pixels, you wouldn’t even need to worry about integer scaling. You could do pretty much any resolution and the antialiasing would be nearly unnoticeable.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Note that @sideshowuniqueuser said 40" 8k. I assume what he meant was 42.5" 8k, which would have the same pixel density as 32" 6k, and thus use the same 2:1 scaling.

32" 8k would be great but, at 2:1 scaling, its UI would be too small for many. 3:1 scaling would work (the UI would be just ~20% larger than the 27" 5k/32" 6k), but MacOS doesn't currently offer that.

Ideally, I'd like to see 36" 10.5k with 3:1 scaling. That would give a super-sharp 330 ppi, with the same UI size we now get with the 27" 5k & 32" 6k.

I didn't put a huge amount of thought into the exact sizes, it was more about the idea of adding 4K and 8K monitors to the range. It sounds like you know what you're talking about, so I assume 42.5" makes more sense.

 

[theorist9]

It sounds like you know what you're talking about...

Never a good assumption to make in my case!

...so I assume 42.5" makes more sense.

It's pretty easy to calculate. If you want to maintain constant ("Retina") pixel density, and if you can assume the aspect ratio stays about the same, then you can scale to bigger linear sizes by multiplying by the ratio of the linear resolutions:

If we start at 32" 6k, and increase the linear resolution to 7k or 8k, that would allow us to increase the linear size to:
32" x 7k/6k ~37"
32" x 8k/6k ~42.5".

 

[JimmyG]

With apologies for resurrecting this thread...In researching information for a 10-bit HDR display I stumbled my way here.

As a point of information, MacRumors did post a follow-up article update to the above, but, for reasons unknown, they did not provide for a comments section to that follow-up/update...

New Apple Monitor to Surpass Studio Display and Pro Display XDR With Three 'Pro' Features [Updated] - MacRumors

MacRumors: Apple News and Rumors

Apple News and Rumors

www.macrumors.com

...well, more than a year has transpired since the original article and nearly a year since the update and no super-dooper new MBP-class XDR display has materialized from Cupertino.

This makes me question the, um, "information chain" that occurs to generate such reporting, if I'm to take the provided information as "based on actual/accurate inside information" then I'm at a loss to understand Apple's failure to have launched said product.

As a long-time Mac user (c.1995), and as a current HDR-shooting, um, "artist" (LOL), I have been in dire need of an 8K 10-bit HDR display for several years now. Apple clearly has refined and improved on its now-primitive mid-2010's Pro Display XDR technology with their current MBP XDR displays and it begs the question, "why haven't they applied that existing manufacturing ability for a ≥27" XDR iMac?"

The world of imaging is moving apace beyond SDR color spaces and gamuts and max-brightness and there has existed (now for several years) a dearth of full-resolution HDR displays for we, er "content creators" to help facilitate that pace.

Plain-and-simple, there is a broad gap in Apple's desktop space for 5K/28", 6K/32" and 8K/42" XDR all-in-one iMacs. By my reading and reckoning of the tech sector, such devices should have existed already, and their PR department's, um, "recommendation" that iMac users consider migrating to SDR-only Studio Macs and Displays was a non-starter the moment that idea was conceived.

There is a growing world for whom SDR has become, or is quickly becoming, irrelevant. The reveal for the XDR iMac line needed to arrive coincident with the reveal of the XDR Apple silicon MBPs, by my read, there is discontinuity within the Apple product launch team...something Tim needs to fix.

The sun will rise on 2024 shortly...whither goest your XDR iMacs, Tim?

 

[theorist9]

With apologies for resurrecting this thread...In researching information for a 10-bit HDR display I stumbled my way here.

As a point of information, MacRumors did post a follow-up article update to the above, but, for reasons unknown, they did not provide for a comments section to that follow-up/update...

New Apple Monitor to Surpass Studio Display and Pro Display XDR With Three 'Pro' Features [Updated] - MacRumors

MacRumors: Apple News and Rumors

Apple News and Rumors

www.macrumors.com

...well, more than a year has transpired since the original article and nearly a year since the update and no super-dooper new MBP-class XDR display has materialized from Cupertino.

This makes me question the, um, "information chain" that occurs to generate such reporting, if I'm to take the provided information as "based on actual/accurate inside information" then I'm at a loss to understand Apple's failure to have launched said product.

As a long-time Mac user (c.1995), and as a current HDR-shooting, um, "artist" (LOL), I have been in dire need of an 8K 10-bit HDR display for several years now. Apple clearly has refined and improved on its now-primitive mid-2010's Pro Display XDR technology with their current MBP XDR displays and it begs the question, "why haven't they applied that existing manufacturing ability for a ≥27" XDR iMac?"

The world of imaging is moving apace beyond SDR color spaces and gamuts and max-brightness and there has existed (now for several years) a dearth of full-resolution HDR displays for we, er "content creators" to help facilitate that pace.

Plain-and-simple, there is a broad gap in Apple's desktop space for 5K/28", 6K/32" and 8K/42" XDR all-in-one iMacs. By my reading and reckoning of the tech sector, such devices should have existed already, and their PR department's, um, "recommendation" that iMac users consider migrating to SDR-only Studio Macs and Displays was a non-starter the moment that idea was conceived.

There is a growing world for whom SDR has become, or is quickly becoming, irrelevant. The reveal for the XDR iMac line needed to arrive coincident with the reveal of the XDR Apple silicon MBPs, by my read, there is discontinuity within the Apple product launch team...something Tim needs to fix.

The sun will rise on 2024 shortly...whither goest your XDR iMacs, Tim?

A few questions, and a comment:

1) Are you looking for a 10-bit panel, or 10 bits via an 8-bit panel + FRC? And what would be the performance difference between them? The 32" XDR is Apple's only 10-bit panel. The ASD and MBP display panels are all 8-bit.

2) How many nits do you need in order for a display to be useful for your HDR work? Are you looking for 1000 full-screen sustained/1600 peak, like Apple's 32" XDR? Currently VESA's highest certification is HDR1400, which is 1400 peak.

3) 6K/32" and 8K/42" XDR replacements would be very expensive, and probably have a useful life of nearly a decade (even if they're replaced before that, they can be repurposed for text and coding work). By contrast, those who buy such monitors probably upgrade their hardware every 3-4 years. If you offer them in iMac configurations, these displays, which could have had a long useful life, become boat anchors when their computing hardware becomes obsolete. [Since Apple refuses to offer Target Display Mode.] Hence I think it makes more sense to offer them as display-only models. Plus if someone wants to run dual or triple XDR's, iMac versions won't work.

I own a 2019 iMac myself, and am getting to the point where I need to upgrade my desktop hardware. When I do, I'll need to sell the iMac, even though its display is still superb. [Yes, you can still use it as a display with AirPlay or Luna, but those introduce lag and compromise the PQ.]

You might also find this discussion interesting:

Is there any monitor with color / HDR as good as MBP Liquid Retina XDR?

the Pro Display XDR is old though, is it really the only comparable part? I’ve watched a bunch of youtube reviews and the ProArt was supposed to be comparable but HDR solidly not as good as MBP

forums.macrumors.com

 

[HDFan]

I've heard some on this forum stating that Cook is the best CEO ever.

Maybe not the best CEO ever but he has been on Barrons' best CEO list for years:

Here Are Barron’s Top CEOs of 2023

From tech to tortillas, these 25 innovative leaders found ways to thrive through the mayhem and prepare their companies for the challenges ahead.

www.barrons.com

In the past few years, Cook has masterfully navigated soaring Covid-era demand, supply-chain shortages, a recent slump in Mac computer sales, scrutiny of Apple’s relationships in China, and scrutiny of the company’s dominant App Store. Cook’s challenge now is to find new sources of growth

While there is no question that Jobs was an engineering and design genius, nearly 95% of Apple’s current market cap was added since Cook took the top job in 2011.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Maybe not the best CEO ever but he has been on Barrons' best CEO list for years:

Here Are Barron’s Top CEOs of 2023

From tech to tortillas, these 25 innovative leaders found ways to thrive through the mayhem and prepare their companies for the challenges ahead.

www.barrons.com

In the past few years, Cook has masterfully navigated soaring Covid-era demand, supply-chain shortages, a recent slump in Mac computer sales, scrutiny of Apple’s relationships in China, and scrutiny of the company’s dominant App Store. Cook’s challenge now is to find new sources of growth

While there is no question that Jobs was an engineering and design genius, nearly 95% of Apple’s current market cap was added since Cook took the top job in 2011.

So the metric is market cap alone?

 

[SSDGUY]

Yet here you are, posting on an enthusiast forum… 🙂

Did you miss the "I love Apple kit …" part?