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.
Hands-On With Apple's $4999 Pro Display XDR and $999 Stand
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Again, as it seems Englis is not your native I will make this simple and not distract you with anything else: Are you an on set Colorist or DIT? Do you need to be able to move your reference monitor from your home/office to a shooting location on a regular basis?
What you just said is completely irrelevant and doesn't change the fact that the feature is the same compared to every adjustable stand on the market. What you get is nothing more than an ordinary stand and the only difference is that you need to pay substantially for the same type of product. $299 adjustable stand vs $999 Apple stand.
Last edited:
I acknowledged that NOTHING Apple makes (including the Stand) is priced reasonably. And NOTHING Apple makes brings anything new to the market. They make stuff, folks buy their stuff. Is that too hard to understand?
Please provide an example of a $299 stand with the same features. Specifically:
- a tool-less mount/unmount
- rotate to portrait mode with a lock to prevent the monitor from hitting the desk when it rotates
- an angle maintaining elevation
- the ability to handle a monitor of this weight.
This post makes it pretty clear that you are not a DIT or a colorist at all. Since you will not answer the direct question, I have to infer it from other statements you have made. Again, this makes it really clear that you are not in the target market for this display.
Makes it much easier to understand your vitriol.
Apple stopped making commodity displays because people did not want to pay the premium for Apple's designs. They chose not to make a follow on to their Thunderbolt Display because it was not profitable. Had their been a substantial demand, they would have done it.
They are happy to serve markets that they can serve profitably. That is why they sell the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro. They do not have a mini-tower because there would not be enough demand for one at the price Apple could deliver it. In the same way, they do not deliver the display you want because they know they will not sell enough of them at the price they would have to charge to cover their design/development/manufacturing/distribution costs.
Just because you wish it were different, does not make it so.
Last edited:
Wow, not even close. I mean 4k compared to 6k and they’re arguing that the 4k is better. Guess they’ve got to eat some kinda way, so why NOT write something guaranteed to get hits? Probably even got a bonus.
It is not even 4K, it is UHD (less than 4K DCI), and it does not seem to be actually available anywhere yet (not even a coming soon on B&H). Their tech specs page lists the color spaces but not the percentage coverage. Lists the peak brightness but not the full screen sustained brightness.
Their lower spec version (1200 nits peak) sells for $4,000, making it likely that this one will be the same price as the XDR when/if it ships.
Seems like a nice display, however.
Curious where you get that (not arguing you are wrong, just looking for a source)? My understanding is that "nano-etched" was textured glass.
By the way, thanks for posting that video of the difference between the two monitors. The Apple Store on the Third Street Promenade only has the regular one. I had not seen the other one since June.
You are flat out wrong and made lots of unsubstantiated claims. The new iteration of thunderbolt display and Apple Pro Display wouldn't be much of a huge difference. What makes you think it's going to sell more if the product price increase by 5-6x and it doesn't include a STAND out of the box. The product could be far worse than the other model because the quantity of buyer in that target market is even smaller and it doesn't even support some of the features that are available on a reference monitor and it might not even usable for some of the work used by DIT. Clearly, you also misunderstood profitably and quantity of accessories sold isn't the same as Apple flagship product and certainly wasn't expect to sell like hotcakes.
Last edited:
No, you’re right, I spoke confusingly. The choices USED to be matte and glossy. These days, the ”normal glass with low reflectivity” is the new and better version of the old “matte”. Because, it lowers the reflectivity without altering the accuracy of the color.
Apple’s new matte, from looking at the graphics on their site, is not the old matte. The old mate was just a random texturing/etching of glass, at an optical level, so it alters the accuracy of the colors. Apple’s matte is indeed still texturing, but at a level far more detailed and intentional than just a random etching. If it’s designed such that no adjacent nano sections are reflecting in the same direction, then you‘d get no visible reflection, AND the colors haven’t aren’t altered. The downside, though, is that it’s possible to ”buff down” those nano etched points if you don’t use a proper cloth. Which, I guess, would take you right back to random texture frosted glass. It’s at this point where I feel I should have just googled to see what some glass professional has said about their screen, buuuuut, it’s already written now LOL!
[automerge]1578239126[/automerge]
NOTHING Apple makes brings anything new to the market. They make stuff, folks buy their stuff. Is that too hard to understand?
Been lurking on some of the creative pro forums, and this comment, by Jake Blackstone (https://liftgammagain.com/forum/ind...o-display-xdr-for-color-grading.12846/page-15) does a pretty good job of summarizing the current view.
Based on preliminary testing, creative pros have expressed three concerns about the XDR: (1) lack of a complete calibration solution; (2) viewing angle; and (3) excessive blooming. His response is that the monitor has not yet been properly evaluated to determine the extent to which these are problems in practice. At the same time, he also says it's simply not plausible that the XDR will gain Netflix certification as an HDR mastering monitor.
As indicated, I've edited his comment somewhat for clarity, but you can see the original at the above link:
"...there are a lot of unanswered questions ...[about a]... monitor, that until now no one had a chance to properly evaluate. Once we know...if [the] XDR can even be internally calibrated or by using a third party LUT box[,] and disregarding the narrow viewing angle (X310 is pretty bad in that respect as well), then users will have a chance to decide, if the amount of blooming is truly excessive. Bottom line, EVERY monitor using modern technology has some issues, that users need to keep in mind.....[At the same time] it goes without saying [that] Netflix will not be listing this monitor as an accepted HDR mastering monitor."
Based on preliminary testing, creative pros have expressed three concerns about the XDR: (1) lack of a complete calibration solution; (2) viewing angle; and (3) excessive blooming. His response is that the monitor has not yet been properly evaluated to determine the extent to which these are problems in practice. At the same time, he also says it's simply not plausible that the XDR will gain Netflix certification as an HDR mastering monitor.
As indicated, I've edited his comment somewhat for clarity, but you can see the original at the above link:
"...there are a lot of unanswered questions ...[about a]... monitor, that until now no one had a chance to properly evaluate. Once we know...if [the] XDR can even be internally calibrated or by using a third party LUT box[,] and disregarding the narrow viewing angle (X310 is pretty bad in that respect as well), then users will have a chance to decide, if the amount of blooming is truly excessive. Bottom line, EVERY monitor using modern technology has some issues, that users need to keep in mind.....[At the same time] it goes without saying [that] Netflix will not be listing this monitor as an accepted HDR mastering monitor."
Last edited:
Says the person who claims there is a $299 stand that is exactly the same, but will not provide an example.
Sorry, I have no idea what you are even saying here. Are you saying that it would not cost Apple much to design, manufacture, and distribute a completely new Thunderbolt 3 display? Are you saying a new Apple Thunderbolt display would not be different than existing Thunderbolt displays from other manufacturers?
I never said it was going to sell more than any other display. I said it serves a specific target market with functionality that people in that market need, at a price point that is lower than many of their current alternatives.
This is a professional product targeting a specific group of professionals (into which your comments about HDR make clear you do not fall). I would be surprised if this was a volume product.
Again, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Are you saying they may sell fewer XDR monitors than they would sell of a [non-existant] lower spec Thunderbolt display on which they make their standard profit margin? Are you saying that Apple should make a commodity Thunderbolt Display at a lower profit margin to sell a volume product?
Are you saying that the market for commodity displays is larger than that for professional reference displays? Are you saying that the market for commodity displays is more profitable than that of reference displays?
Are you saying that despite Apple actually knowing how many of the old Thunderbolt displays they sold, and what their cost would be to design, build, distribute, and market a new Thunderbolt Display (vs. the cost and sales of their competition’s displays), has decided not to make a very profitable item for them just so they can make you angry?
Given that we know you are not a DIT or a Colorist, your speculation about their needs adds no value.
Again, I have no idea what you mean. Instead of speculating, I will just explain a simplified model of how Apple (and every company) calculates an expected profit on a product (the exact order of steps may vary):
- Apple estimates the cost to design, test, prepare for volume manufacturing, distribution and support a product.
- It then adds estimates for the materials cost of the product’s components, the manufacturing costs (per unit, vs. the cost to set up the line), the retail packaging costs, the cost distribution costs, the distribution packaging (the nondescript brown box used to ship a product) cost, the cost of shipping, etc., giving it an incremental cost (estimating volume of sales to estimate volume parts discounts).
- Next it decides what portion of Apple’s overhead it needs to allocate to the product (this is somewhat more ”squishy” as there are many ways to do this and they involve some determination of the value to the company of the product).
- Then it estimates how much it will have to spend on marketing to sell the product.
- Next it estimates the total number of units it expects to be able to sell (by channel), given a final target sale price (running several different pricing models).
- Finally, it divides its fixed costs (step 1), by the number of units it expects to sell, adds its per unit costs (step 2), allocated overhead (step 3), and marketing costs (step 4) and subtracts that total from its expected sale price.
It makes sense for Apple to make products where:
- there is a specific user need not being met (the XDR’s case)
- where the market is large enough and willing to pay the premium an Apple produced version entails (more expensive materials, premium design, etc.)
- it benefits the ecosystem in some way.
Now, given that your writing has become impossible to understand, and that you refuse to answer any questions, or provide concrete examples for any of your claims, I am finished responding to you, until you do.
Clearly, you are not able to grasp the horrible value and the proposition of a product regardless if it is not reasonably priced or it could be worse than a reference monitor. In fact, that's why your interpretation really wasn't that logical and you inaccurately assumed that people wouldn't use it for work that requires color accuracy. Your assumption or explanation of how the Apple Pro display could sell better than the another model is really awful and that target market is a whole lot smaller and the minuscule potential of growing the market. In your point of view, Apple can do no wrong and so your question can be considered utterly meaningless and BIAS.
Last edited:
Yeah, it’s at this point where they don’t even TRY to offer an option that you know it’s just a troll.
You’re not going to be able to get them to see your point because they’d simply rather not.
Just thought this needed a, "in your humble opinion".
Yeah, it’s at this point where they don’t even TRY to offer an option that you know it’s just a troll.
Yup. At the point when someone will not answer simple ”yes” or “no” questions, and makes pronouncements like “there is a $299 item that is just like this $999 item” but cannot provide any example, that it becomes clear it is not worth the effort of responding. People honestly interested in learning or discussing can draw their own conclusions.
Yeah, it’s at this point where they don’t even TRY to offer an option that you know it’s just a troll.
It's terrible if that's how you consider a troll.
Yup. At the point when someone will not answer simple ”yes” or “no” questions, and makes pronouncements like “there is a $299 item that is just like this $999 item” but cannot provide any example, that it becomes clear it is not worth the effort of responding. People honestly interested in learning or discussing can draw their own conclusions.
You don't see the point of it that even if someone offers a much cheaper or better substitute. Therefore, your question doesn't really matter and the people might even regard it as bias.
We do not know exactly where it ranks on the scale from crap to Flanders Scientific, that is true.
So far, talking to various people at Dolby and Blackmagic Design, no one knows if it is a perfect replacement for a Flanders, but they are all pretty impressed with it so far.
It may not be a Pulsar, but it seems it will at least work as a great on set monitor. I look forward to the Blackmagic card/box that will give it LUTs and scopes.
Yeah, it’s at this point where they don’t even TRY to offer an option that you know it’s just a troll.
I spent the evening on Sunday with a dozen DITs and a few on set colorists. It was funny how many of them had initially (as in early June) said that they would buy their XDRs with VESA mounts, but now had decided that they wanted the stand after playing with it in the Apple Store. They tool-less mount and un-mount was a big workflow win for them.
I understant the stand is a really nice piece of engineering that makes the screen feel nearly weightless when you move it. The two complaints I've heard are that it (a) it lacks horizontal and vertical detents (though I can understand there are good reasons for leaving these out); and (b) in landscape it can't be lowered as much as some would like.
Any thoughts from your colleagues on the luminance shift issue? See post #292: https://liftgammagain.com/forum/ind...o-display-xdr-for-color-grading.12846/page-15
I was surprised exactly how close to weightless it feels.
While I can see why some would want that, I think it would take away a great deal of its user experience (the absolutely free movement).
I am not sure how I feel about this. In most of the environments I have seen it really used, there were controllers on the desk and it really could not go any lower.
Yeah, I suspect the stand was designed more for use by creative pros than other types of pros (e.g., scientists/coders/financial types who would like a very large retina monitor for large calculations/viewing several documents simultaneously/coding/spreadsheet work). It's probably more for that type of work that you might more often find users who want the monitor to be lower.
I'd personally like something that's retina (220 ppi) but larger than 32". I love doing coding work/calculations/document editing on my 27" in portrait mode, since I have so much (23.5") vertical real estate. But that limits me to viewing one document/notebook at a time. Ideally I'd have something that has that vertical dimension *in landscape mode*, which means its horizontal dimension (assuming, say, 16:10) would be 37.6". At 220 ppi, that would be 8272 x 5170, i.e., in the 8k range. Since that doesn't quite conform to any standard, my fantasy is a 220 ppi 40" 8k monitor (given that 8k UHD is actually 7680 x 4320 [16:9], that would work out to a 40" diagonal).
Last edited:
I think you’re right, a VESA mount makes more sense for some folks. Though overkill for those that don’t need a reference-type monitor, there are plenty of scientific, engineering, finance and others like music producers who can benefit from a lot of screen real estate. There are few large Retina-class displays available.