No it’s good when equipment has sufficient ventilation for cooling.
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
Videos games are works of art. The ultimate works of art. Also, speedrunning is a legitimate profession.
The lengths you’re going to defend yourself show you do care.
ADF? Ringleader? Typical response of someone with no actual point to argue.
Anybody tested this with any other computer than with new MP?
Native resolution with any other computer than new MP?
Native resolution with any other computer than new MP?
I've wonered for so long why Apple hates desktop so much?
Why there is no regular resktop mac for common use?
One pci for gpu and maybe another for whatever.
Few internal storage bays and upgreadable ram & i5-i9.
And now you can add: why no monitor "for the rest of us"?
I have LG's 5k2k & mini2018 and I get to hear monitor's gorgeous loudspeakers once a month, after booting from terminal (will be with Mojave for some years on). After first sleep, speakers are dead silent.
Depends on how well it reproduces P3 gamut or the color space of your choice.
I wouldn’t do much 4k editing without two 4k monitors. You need the user interface AND the canvas.
[automerge]1577057860[/automerge]
iMac Pro is already so outdated that it can’t drive 6k monitor?
Well, that lasted long, time to upgrade the graphics adapter, oh wait...?
[automerge]1577057984[/automerge]
If you add +$1k to the price...
Last edited:
I'd say a mac user deserve to be a bit angry.
No decent headless mac for almost a decade.
No decent matte screens.
Wonder how well people are starting to realize the resell value of their macs?
Mbp's before 2015 -> no repair program for display coating -> do not buy.
Any laptops between 2016-2019 butterfly keaboards -> do not buy.
iMacs in this decade with ssd -> unknown hours life left in ssd -> do not buy.
TrashcanMP, "fastest outdated workstation on the planet".
I guess macs are today for people who don't need good lifecycle for their machines.
Or can and will buy new MP.
Phones and ipads are pretty good though, at least if you change them to a new one every now and then...
Wonder when they will make "adobes" and sell macs only for a yearly fee...
Saddest thing is osX was once so much better than the rest...
Last edited:
Transcript: Phil Schiller, Craig Federighi and John Ternus on the state of Apple's pro Macs | TechCrunch
You have already read the news. But we thought we would also use this opportunity to share a transcript of the interview with Phil Schiller, Senior Vice
techcrunch.com
The regular desktop Mac is the iMac.
As per their own numbers, 80% of macs used are laptops. 70% of mac users don’t use “pro” applications. This means that for most users, the iMac actually suffices as a mid-tier Mac.
There just isn’t a market for the sort of mid-tier headless Mac you are asking for.
They would sell 10x more desktop macs, if they’d make them right!Transcript: Phil Schiller, Craig Federighi and John Ternus on the state of Apple's pro Macs | TechCrunch
You have already read the news. But we thought we would also use this opportunity to share a transcript of the interview with Phil Schiller, Senior Vice
The regular desktop Mac is the iMac.
As per their own numbers, 80% of macs used are laptops. 70% of mac users don’t use “pro” applications. This means that for most users, the iMac actually suffices as a mid-tier Mac.
There just isn’t a market for the sort of mid-tier headless Mac you are asking for.
(Personal bias: I hate double glassy screens...)
Then again, if they'd take the desktop market, there would be anti-trust issues and they'd have to open macos to others, so it wil never happen...
Last edited:
Hmm,
I wasn't thinking about local dimming.
How do pro people think local dimming in a "reference monitor"?
Do those high-end monitors have local dimming these days?
[automerge]1577060857[/automerge]
Can you imagine a world where NEC or Eizo would sell only one model (for all)?
[automerge]1577061096[/automerge]
You mean that 80% mac buyers buy a laptop and if they want bigger screen to it, theu buy iMac?
[automerge]1577061200[/automerge]
XDR on a DIT cart and it doesn't have sdi input to playback a footage straight from the camera?
Last edited:
The problem here is, that Apple can't (or doesn't mind) to get their products to work with "open standards".
It has always been more reliable to buy all critical parts from Apple to be sure that they work together.
My LG's 5k2k tb-monitor works fully with all other computers equipped with tb3 than mini2018.
So much for the "open standard".
[automerge]1577062318[/automerge]
Just because of that, it's at least funny, that they advertise it for coding and audio work.
Last edited:
Mac users buy iMacs because Apple does not have a regular desktop. They are victims of Apple's greed (AIOs bring fatter profit margins). AIO is anything but a regular desktop.Transcript: Phil Schiller, Craig Federighi and John Ternus on the state of Apple's pro Macs | TechCrunch
You have already read the news. But we thought we would also use this opportunity to share a transcript of the interview with Phil Schiller, Senior Vice
The regular desktop Mac is the iMac.
As per their own numbers, 80% of macs used are laptops. 70% of mac users don’t use “pro” applications. This means that for most users, the iMac actually suffices as a mid-tier Mac.
There just isn’t a market for the sort of mid-tier headless Mac you are asking for.
I doubt it.
For many users, I believe the iMac does represent the ideal desktop form factor. It’s dead simple to deploy and maintain, takes up less space, and the majority of owners are not going to bother with upgrading the innards. Spec-wise, it suffices for the sort of productivity the target market will use it for. They will just use it till the day it dies or they want something newer, and upgrade.
As for the workplace, I personally feel that laptops still make more sense than desktops, given that you can move them around (eg: for meetings), and still connect external displays when needed.
It’s not about “owning” the desktop market, but about Apple channeling their resources to hit as much of the market as possible with one stone. An xMac is going to require a radically different design from a Mac Pro to cut down the costs, for not that much ROI.
Transcript: Phil Schiller, Craig Federighi and John Ternus on the state of Apple's pro Macs | TechCrunch
You have already read the news. But we thought we would also use this opportunity to share a transcript of the interview with Phil Schiller, Senior Vice
The regular desktop Mac is the iMac.
As per their own numbers, 80% of macs used are laptops. 70% of mac users don’t use “pro” applications. This means that for most users, the iMac actually suffices as a mid-tier Mac.
There just isn’t a market for the sort of mid-tier headless Mac you are asking for.
There actually is...the issue is those mid-range devices don't exist.
Those numbers are skewed because Apple basically abandoned the mid range pro user back in 2012 or so. So they've forced a lot of people to MBP's or PC's.
There is a market for a mid range Apple desktop that is half the size of the current MacPro tower with the iMac guts or iMac Pro guts that has some less slots/storage/cores and 1-2 gfx slots and UPGRADABILITY.
There's also a market for a 4k & 5K XDR display. Their XDR display line-up should be offered as follows:
4K - $2000
5K - $3000
6K - $4000
Stand's included.
Add nano etching for $1k to any monitor
I can tell you they'd sell metric sh-t-ton of any of these towers or monitors.
Well, the thing is that for all the discussion here, Apple doesn't seem interested in serving the xMac market. And I feel that past a certain point, continuously banging the "I want one!!!" drum gets counterintuitive and repetitive. Perhaps it might serve the discussion better to think about why Apple hasn't released such a product?
Offhand, the immediate thought would be about profits. A mid-tier tower Mac may not be profitable enough from Apple's perspective, if enthusiasts would simply opt for the baseline model, and hang on to it for ~10 years while upgrading the innards with third-party components. It simply wouldn't be worth Apple's while to support.
However, I still want to revisit Apple's overarching goal of wanting to make technology ever more personal. There is a legitimate reason for releasing the Mac Pro - it serves a small market of users whose needs legitimately cannot be met even with a maxed out iMac Pro, and Apple wants to retain this group of creators to better serve the other 99% of the apple user base. You can tell that Apple gave it the full design treatment. That case is a beauty and the internal layout has been redesigned as well; they didn't just recycle the old cheese-grater form factor and just call it a day.
In short, it's possible that even with the prices that Apple charges for the Mac Pro and the XDR display, Apple may not make much money from it, and it's a hit they are willing to take for the greater good of the Apple platform. There is also the question of opportunity cost - might the time and resources that went into designing the Mac Pro (which likely serves several hundred thousand users at most) have been better focused on another product with a wider market reach and with more lucrative prospects?
One could argue that Apple didn't want to release a Mac Pro if they thought they could get away with it, but their hand was forced.
Today, times have changed. The market wants laptops, tablets and smartphones, and Apple responds accordingly.
If you want a cheap PC, Apple's answer to that is the iPad.
If you think about the people who want an xMac, they probably consist of gamers, enthusiasts and pros. Macs aren't really built for gaming, while Apple has shown they have little interest in serving the PC enthusiast. That leaves the last group of users who would probably gladly pay a reasonable premium for a customisable/expandable tower that could officially run MacOS, which in turn brings me back to my original point about this being more of a "want" than a "need", in that their computing needs could likely already be met by an iMac, iMac Pro, MacBook Pro or Mac mini with e-GPU. I acknowledge the flexibility of being able to use your own monitor and the versatility of being able to upgrade the internals as needs change, and that still doesn't feel like a compelling enough reason for Apple to release one.
Ultimately, I feel that this market you are describing is a lot more niche than perhaps you realise.
My reference Sony is an OLED so it doesn't have a separate light source that needs local dimming.
Is it a reference monitor or not?
You don't like people complaining about the price? You think people have the wrong idea about what this monitor is for? Tell it to Apple:
The fact that Apple even mentions coding or music composing in their advertisement suggests that they actually think people should buy this monitor just for those uses. So instead of criticizing people who complain about the price of the monitor, how about we reexamine the message that Apple itself is sending.
Anyone can look up the prices of $20,000 reference monitors on Google without actually working with one. So my questions for people who actually have professional experience with reference monitors:
1. Is this Apple Pro Display a reference monitor, based on industry accepted definition of the term?
2. Does the Apple Pro Display have all the features that industry professionals come to expect from a reference monitor?
3. If the Apple Pro Display is a reference monitor based on industry accepted definition and Apple can sell it for $5000, does that mean those $20,000 reference monitor manufacturers have been price gouging their customers all along?
Last edited:
Yes, it’s overkill for some buyers, in terms of the need (or lack thereof more accurately) for a reference monitor, but Apple knows those who can cost-justify a $5k 32” retina monitor will buy it. There’s nothing wrong with advertising to them.
From a business/enterprise standpoint—which is how a $5k display must be viewed—how hard is it to justify this monitor for a software developer, CAD engineer, bioinformatician or other data scientist, or even a project manager or spreadsheet jockey dealing with large amounts of data on screen?
Not hard at all. Those folks can make $100-150k a year easy, and fully burdened, cost the company $150-225k (or more) all in. Those companies don’t think twice about spending $100/month to give an employee who’s costing them $10-20k a month the right tool for their job.
Or maybe you’re a music producer. If you’re in a studio that costs $200-500 an hour, working for someone paying you $2k/day, that $5k monitor is buried in the noise.
Have you seen the number of plugins these guys use nowdays? They have hundreds in use simultaneously, and being able to see more of the project at once, without having to scroll around as much, is very useful—and valuable. It makes them more efficient. Time is literally money for these guys.
Those who aren’t triggered by $30,000 reference monitors shouldn’t be triggered by the XDR. I’m not even saying Apple’s display is up to that level. But it’s close enough that it’ll grab a certain chunk of that market.
Apple doesn’t say those outside photography, film or video “should” buy this monitor. However, they absolutely know they will. Without a doubt.
I'd personally just kill for a Mac desktop that I can upgrade. It would be fine if the upgrades had to be sourced from Apple to continue a stream of profit for them, but good grief. Having my whole computer built into a monitor is obnoxious for perhaps needing to take it in for servicing, and so on. It's like, I have a Macbook Pro 16", and it's great. But I want something to replace the PC I myself built that is an Apple product that isn't an iMac or Mac Mini.
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.
OMGosh that ASUS isn't even close aside from color and user options. How can an article claim something out-specs the XDR but the first line states that it's 4K? Then the rest of the article is typical PC apologist drivel.
It's a great display no doubt, but like the page said it's still not going to be cheap. Definitely $3299 --> $3999 and people will still compare it to the 32" HP and Dell monitors around $1299 --> 1799.
Check out the sides of most OLED professional displays. They're all just as thick, and some even have fans and vents.
Sure thing, I'll dig through some of my archives and see if I can pull up some photos from my job before last. (because they'll be photos that identify company equipment, but it's been some time between when I last worked there)
1. NO .............. BUT ... it's a good inbetween for some special use cases in the broadcast world. I'm tickled pink because I often spec equipment for mid ($1.5 million) to low ($500,000) range live/post production houses and at least ONE reference monitor is crucial. At least ONE that gives you the most accurate and best signal money can buy. That price range has been split in half, and in some cases (referencing 4K) a quarter.
In a DIT cart, it'll work perfectly for 75% of technicians hired to test signal on low-small budget films. Killing the weight in an already SUPER heavy cart. The same for colorists and editors who need to color correct. I wouldn't put it in a news van, but I wouldn't be surprised to see one or two in those new tiny, electric ones with giant 4G/5G antennas instead of microwave dishes.
2. NO (in the panel, yes, but not in the case) ........ BUT, most reference monitors will also include a plethora of connections including multiple flavors of 3G-SDI and a network port. Others have mounting options for yokes and 3/8 (some 1/4 20 if they're small). Built in scopes and waveforms are in some, others have peaking, others false color (more field monitor than reference, but some do have them.)
Others have tally lights and some others record RAW 10bit 4K (like the NEON I was looking into purchasing). But they also make terrible TERRIBLE computer monitors because of the high price. So those houses I mentioned above can now kill two birds with one stone. Get a great computer monitor and have one accurate enough to reference color and quality.
3. NO .... and my reason will be up for debate. I stated earlier or in another thread that the price isn't there because Sony wanted to gouge. It's there because of the high technology and small market.
As we all know based on THIS thread, most people wouldn't buy a reference monitor. But the companies that DO buy them are already paying upwards of $100k each for 2 computers, $75k for a camera for each of the 8 photogs, $175k each for 3-4 news vans (maybe more: I'm using mid market broadcast news as an example) .... you get the point.
And those stations may only buy 5 .... maybe 6 ref monitors and those would be HD, at $10k a piece. Those guys are actually industry accepted reference monitors with one button push to get highly accurate scopes, but they only bought 6. Meanwhile, the walls are COVERED (think 90+)in Samsung LED TVs so everyone at any time can WATCH what's happening on every news channel cable, satellite, terrestrial OTA, etc can offer.
So based on that, the cost of the panel is high not simply because of the tech, but because of the amount of units sold.
Back to the XDR, think of Apple's ability to push product. They axed 80% of the tech that goes into the case, but left the panel high quality and gave us 6k, and they know for a fact that they're going to sell a lot more than a handful to most companies and users.
Outside of any of these real specific, real niche uses, the XDR isn't worth it or isn't accurate enough. A high end user would be better served by an HP DreamColor or Dell Ultrasharp and an Xrite. Most users would be fine with .... anything else.
Last edited:
It’s not that Apple abandoned the mid-range pro user in 2012, it’s that mainstream CPUs became fast enough that most pros didn’t have to buy a Xeon anymore to get the power they needed to do their job.
2012 Mac Pro: $2,999 6-core Xeon 3.3/3.6GHz, 6GB RAM, Radeon HD 5770, Geekbench 4: 2,988/13,134
2013 Mac Pro: $2,999 4-core Xeon 3.7/3.9 GHz, 12GB RAM, AMD FirePro D300 x2, Geekbench 4: 3,749/12,830
2013 27” iMac: $2,199 4-core i7 3.5/3.9 GHz, 8GB RAM, GeForce GTX 775M, Geekbench 4: 4,241/13,852
2014 27” 5K iMac: $2,749 4-core i7 4.0/4.4 GHz, 8GB RAM, Radeon R9 M290X, Geekbench 4: 4,740/15,489
The 2014 5K iMac was a game changer. Amazing display, outstanding value for money. 2015 MBP was awesome too. By 2016 Air/MBP was 80% of units sold, iMac another 10%+.
Re: displays, I don’t think XDR would be in much demand at 21.5 or 27”. If they were going to do those sizes, I think $1,000/1,500 would have a lot better shot at volume. They could simply base them on the 21.5/27” iMacs.
But unfortunately, there’s probably still not enough volume even at $1,000/1,500. And the 6K monitor is a huge hit at $5k +1k +1k... delivery dates are already pushed out until mid-February. No reason at all to cut the price $1-2k, that’s leaving money on the table.
Last edited:
actually
https://monitors.com/products/barco...MIzZnX4v3L5gIVhcDACh0UBgpgEAYYBCABEgKB0fD_BwE
and here are the standard models at $75,000
www.cdw.com
Now maybe you might appreciate the amazing value Apple actually is!!!
Actually you have no understanding of the cost of high end displays!! For if you did you would realize Apple is practically giving this display away at cost. I am a radiologist and we have to use similar displays. The low end displays which are not even at the quality of this display cost $20,000!! The more commonly used displays in our department cost $40,000. The cost of the stands is also similar for these types of displays . do some research!! Here is one of the cheaper models on sale for Christmas
https://monitors.com/products/barco...MIzZnX4v3L5gIVhcDACh0UBgpgEAYYBCABEgKB0fD_BwE
and here are the standard models at $75,000
Barco Coronis Uniti 33.6" 12MP Dual-Head IPS Medical Display - K9602762 - Computer Monitors - CDW.com
Buy a Barco Coronis Uniti 33.6" 12MP Dual-Head IPS Medical Display at CDW.com
www.cdw.com
Now maybe you might appreciate the amazing value Apple actually is!!!
actually
Actually you have no understanding of the cost of high end displays!! For if you did you would realize Apple is practically giving this display away at cost. I am a radiologist and we have to use similar displays. The low end displays which are not even at the quality of this display cost $20,000!! The more commonly used displays in our department cost $40,000. The cost of the stands is also similar for these types of displays . do some research!! Here is one of the cheaper models on sale for Christmas
https://monitors.com/products/barco...MIzZnX4v3L5gIVhcDACh0UBgpgEAYYBCABEgKB0fD_BwE
and here are the standard models at $75,000
Barco Coronis Uniti 33.6" 12MP Dual-Head IPS Medical Display - K9602762 - Computer Monitors - CDW.com
Buy a Barco Coronis Uniti 33.6" 12MP Dual-Head IPS Medical Display at CDW.com
Now maybe you might appreciate the amazing value Apple actually is!!!
Don't come up with some unknown model of display that is somehow irrelevant in the market and make an unrealistic comparison to justify the cost of a Apple Pro Display XDR because both company are not targeting the same field.
Last edited: