How come only Apple makes good displays for their laptops?

[salivan]

I'd agree with this - Apples screen quality is diabolical. In my case, 3 out of 3 with shoddy screen faults so far on 2018 MBP 15" - Hoping lucky 4th attempt tomorrow

My Dell XPS 13 4K screen is way better than the MBP.

Hey, could you post in my topic? I'm curious to see what faults your Mac had, and how exchanges went: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mbp-2017-13-tb-screen-replacement.2135003/#post-26415120

My issue is uneven brightness, that makes whites look dirty near the bottom. Its quite annoying when reading news sites with ample whitespace.

 

[airlied]

I guess because they are touchscreens so they have to put some layer in between?

 

[Balders]

Hey, could you post in my topic? I'm curious to see what faults your Mac had, and how exchanges went: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mbp-2017-13-tb-screen-replacement.2135003/#post-26415120

My issue is uneven brightness, that makes whites look dirty near the bottom. Its quite annoying when reading news sites with ample whitespace.

Replied in your other post with details of my screen problems.

Some of the screen issues I had were similar to your problem - shadowy horizontal lines and dingy patches across the screen. I think it's the way they make the screens. When they glue the panel in, I reckon its applying pressure to the back panel of the screen. Some seem to be a lot worse than others. My 4th one was really bad - the 4 Apple guys in the store that looked at it spotted it straight away

My problem is I started looking for the problems and once seen, I couldn't unsee them. Struggling to justify £3.5K for a laptop with a dodgy screen that isn't a patch on the £1.2KDell laptop its supposed to be replacing...

 

[1096bimu]

Yes if you get the 4k option on the XPS line, you technically have a better panel, which still doesn't equate to better display because windows again, doesn't manage color as well as Mac OS, much like the situation on Android, where Samsung technically has just as good if not better displays on hardware.
However I think those 4k display options are pathetic and only exist to one-up MacBook on specs. First of all it has terrible battery life, the panels themselves have horrible efficiency just so that they can have "100% Adobe RGB" which doesn't actually work in anything other than Photoshop, suddenly as if everybody is suddenly from the print industry, because that's the only place where people use Adobe RGB.
Secondly the panels are unnecessarily high-res for an obvious reason, to be cheap. Since all 15-in or 13-in PC laptops can share the same panels, if they are at some standard resolution, Dell gets to save a lot of money using such panels instead of ordering their custom panel.
And third, no respectable high-end laptop should use the deceptive 16-9 aspect ratio, because it just gives you much smaller displays for what sounds like the same category of laptop. Big black chins exist not because the chins need to be that wide, but because they get to cheap-out even more on the display because there is simply less of it.

At least the X1 Carbon has a much more reasonable and very nice 2560x1440 display. Yet it still doesn't come standard, just so they can make the base model cheaper. With PCs, they make the core laptop as cheap as possible, but with the option to swap in more expensive components. which may beat the MacBook on paper, but really you'd still want a device that is designed to work with the good components, just like you wouldn't just swap in a Ferrari engine into a family sedan and call that a sports car. A purpose-built sports car is still better, even if the engine isn't as powerful.

 

[Ma2k5]

MacBook screens are great, but I think recently they definately have been bested. A lot of stores also for whatever reason don't display some of the best laptops out there. There are some Window laptops out there now with not only more colour accurate displays, but up to 600 nit brightness. Crazy if you ask me! (ZBook Studio G5 can be equipt with a 100% Adobe RGB anti-glare 4K 600 nit display)

 

[SDColorado]

My problem is I started looking for the problems and once seen, I couldn't unsee them. Struggling to justify £3.5K for a laptop with a dodgy screen that isn't a patch on the £1.2KDell laptop its supposed to be replacing...

That isn't a problem, that is due diligence when paying that much for a laptop. If you pay £350 for a laptop that is one thing, but for £3.5K you paid for the right to be a little more critical

 

[haruhiko]

Lol you're challenging the mindset of many people here. Apple cannot be good on the internet. Apple must be bad. If you say Apple is good you're at fault.

 

[TBoneMac]

MacBook screens are great, but I think recently they definately have been bested. A lot of stores also for whatever reason don't display some of the best laptops out there. There are some Window laptops out there now with not only more colour accurate displays, but up to 600 nit brightness. Crazy if you ask me! (ZBook Studio G5 can be equipt with a 100% Adobe RGB anti-glare 4K 600 nit display)

eww, 2 in 1's are immediate tech-turn-offs. Essentially forcing people to pay for a feature that is unneeded for many people and unwanted. It would be like if you had to pay for a mouse with your laptop, even if you never intended to use it over the trackpad.

PS. 600 nits, 4k etc.. does not make the display look good. I just told you that I was looking at high end laptops with 4k screen xps, and the microsoft surface book (new ones), and they have weird "spaces" in between the panel and the display, the glass and the pixels. It makes even the $3500 surface book laptops look like they're from 5-10 years ago.

Also, why would you need a 4K display on a laptop screen that's only 13-15 inches. It doesn't really make much sense, just a drain on the battery for something you can't even notice. I have to be supremely close to the screen to see the pixels already, if it were 4K (Retina Macbooks are 3K) it would certainly be a bit nicer but is it worth it for the battery power hit I'm going to take. If the screens were a bit larger then yes 4K all the way. Like around 19-21 inches. I would rather buy a separate display to plug into for 4K/5K/8K/15K etc. like the 27 inch 5K displays. That makes sense because it's so large that if it were only 2880x1800 like the retina macbooks then it wouldn't look as crisp as your laptop screen which would be a bit of a bummer (if you're like me). If we were talking about monitors only, then yes, again, get a 21.5inch or larger and make sure it's at least 4K! But for laptops, part of the greatness is the portability/battery life balance.

 

[e1me5]

Maybe isn't just the display tech that Apple buys to put into the MacBooks. It is the extra bit of software and hardware that enhances the quality of the image. I just received my 2018 MBP and that True Tone tech, my god, I don't know how I was living without this!!!

 

[jerryk]

If we were talking about monitors only, then yes, again, get a 21.5inch or larger and make sure it's at least 4K! But for laptops, part of the greatness is the portability/battery life balance.

I would even argue that most 4Ks are not needed until you past 27 inches or so. And even at 27 inches I prefer a lower processing load of a 2K unless I am doing photo or video work.

 

[Ma2k5]

eww, 2 in 1's are immediate tech-turn-offs. Essentially forcing people to pay for a feature that is unneeded for many people and unwanted. It would be like if you had to pay for a mouse with your laptop, even if you never intended to use it over the trackpad.

PS. 600 nits, 4k etc.. does not make the display look good. I just told you that I was looking at high end laptops with 4k screen xps, and the microsoft surface book (new ones), and they have weird "spaces" in between the panel and the display, the glass and the pixels. It makes even the $3500 surface book laptops look like they're from 5-10 years ago.

Also, why would you need a 4K display on a laptop screen that's only 13-15 inches. It doesn't really make much sense, just a drain on the battery for something you can't even notice. I have to be supremely close to the screen to see the pixels already, if it were 4K (Retina Macbooks are 3K) it would certainly be a bit nicer but is it worth it for the battery power hit I'm going to take. If the screens were a bit larger then yes 4K all the way. Like around 19-21 inches. I would rather buy a separate display to plug into for 4K/5K/8K/15K etc. like the 27 inch 5K displays. That makes sense because it's so large that if it were only 2880x1800 like the retina macbooks then it wouldn't look as crisp as your laptop screen which would be a bit of a bummer (if you're like me). If we were talking about monitors only, then yes, again, get a 21.5inch or larger and make sure it's at least 4K! But for laptops, part of the greatness is the portability/battery life balance.

You said a lot of subjective things, which is fine but it doesn’t make it fact. FYI I’ve used both Windows and MacBooks too and we have different opinions.

As for 4K on smaller screens, it is called pixel density when reading things, making things more crisp. Also Windows scaling issues are overblown, maybe they was bad once but now it’s really good, I use it daily on multiple monitor setups.

Watching things natively in 4K like movies also looks nicer, not sure about you but most people can easily notice difference in resolution of 4K and say 1440p.

As for nitt brightness I don’t need to go on about, seeing as everyone including Apple love to show off their high brightness displays. I was just merely showing how companies have surpassed Apple.

I don’t rate Surface screens as the best but the XPS definitely look better to me than the MacBooks.

We are talking about screens here not the whole laptop so I don’t want to talk about battery life, 2 in 1’s etc. Mind you even a 4K XPS 15 has a ridiculous battery life due to not skimping on battery size.

My biggest disappointment was when I put my Mid 2014 MacBook against the new P3 screen and I was rather unimpressed. I wonder if them reducing the panel energy requirements by 30% has had an impact on them? Who knows...

 

[SteveJUAE]

You said a lot of subjective things, which is fine but it doesn’t make it fact. FYI I’ve used both Windows and MacBooks too and we have different opinions.

As for 4K on smaller screens, it is called pixel density when reading things, making things more crisp. Also Windows scaling issues are overblown, maybe they was bad once but now it’s really good, I use it daily on multiple monitor setups.

Watching things natively in 4K like movies also looks nicer, not sure about you but most people can easily notice difference in resolution of 4K and say 1440p.

As for nitt brightness I don’t need to go on about, seeing as everyone including Apple love to show off their high brightness displays. I was just merely showing how companies have surpassed Apple.

I don’t rate Surface screens as the best but the XPS definitely look better to me than the MacBooks.

We are talking about screens here not the whole laptop so I don’t want to talk about battery life, 2 in 1’s etc. Mind you even a 4K XPS 15 has a ridiculous battery life due to not skimping on battery size.

My biggest disappointment was when I put my Mid 2014 MacBook against the new P3 screen and I was rather unimpressed. I wonder if them reducing the panel energy requirements by 30% has had an impact on them? Who knows...

Unfortunatly the OP has turned this in to the usual click bait contradictions

We all know the MBP have a very nice panel with strengths and weakness but they are not the best in specifications or materials.

This should not distract from its high appeal given the primary target by Apples own metrics is mainly for general use with a bias towards some video/print options for a minority of users

 

[maflynn]

We all know the MBP have a very nice panel with strengths and weakness but they are not the best in specifications or materials.

They (Apple) do have very good laptops but let me say its not just about the hardware but the entire experience. That's the difference imo between windows, Linux and macOS. You have a computer and OS that is customized for that hardware working in concert. This is why I bought the 2018 MBP. Not because it has 6 cores, or the best display but because the user experience is best

 

[Falhófnir]

The things that Apple do better than (most) Windows OEMs are aspect (16:10 vs 16:9) and brightness (MBP screens are pretty well the industry leaders). In other ways Apple's are equal (Colour reproduction) but resolution is falling behind somewhat now Apple have stuck to 2880x1800 despite moving away from integer scaling. If they want to display 1680x1050 of content by default, the screen should really be 3360x2100. They still look good without integer scaling, but not as pixel-perfect as 1440x900 did on that display. It must be quite difficult to source screens with all the properties they want, particularly at relatively unusual aspect and resolutions.

 

[SteveJUAE]

They (Apple) do have very good laptops but let me say its not just about the hardware but the entire experience. That's the difference imo between windows, Linux and macOS. You have a computer and OS that is customized for that hardware working in concert. This is why I bought the 2018 MBP. Not because it has 6 cores, or the best display but because the user experience is best

That's what everyone strides for whether you find it in Windows or Apple is immaterial as long as your content

 

[Gamer-Dad]

Having used 4K displays in the past with Windows laptops (Dell XPS 15), Lenovo YOGA 920, HP Spectre 13, and the XPS 13, it is such overkill in a display of these sizes. While they are nice and crisp, and while watching movie content is great, battery life suffers tremendously. I like the 3:2 ratio on the Surface Book's. The 3000x2000 res is nice. BUT, I still see issues with those screens as well.

I don't think Apple's res is perfect, but it does offer 1 of the best displays on the market, and like others said, its the entire experience while using the Apple ecosystem together. Something Dell is trying to do with there connect software, but its nothing like what the ecosystem has.

Out of all the Windows laptops, the Huweii Matebook X Pro has by the best bang for the buck display, with almost zero bezels, brightness levels that are almost on par with the MacBooks's, 3:2 aspect and 3000x2000 resolution. Downside to that system is the lack of a 2nd fan internally and the 1 is louder than the nTB MacBook Pro 13.

 

[Maven1975]

I don't know about you... but I would trade my MBP screen for a Lenovo sourced HDR display. No glass, lighter, flicker free and 100% of aRGB. Although, I would want it in 16:10 format instead of 16:9.

I have NO idea why Apple continues with the glass nonsense.

 

[Fishrrman]

The title of the thread:
"How come only Apple makes good displays for their laptops?"

This is known as "poisoning the well".

And it's completely false on its face:
1. Apple no longer -makes- displays, of any kind (the "LG" displays are designed and produced by another company). They may have been designed to "Apple's spec requests", but LG did the work.
2. There are plenty of excellent 3rd-party displays "out there" that look great with Apple computers.

 

[teohyc]

I had to send in my MBP 2015 for the delamination problem with the screen. I see that Apple has a repair program for this.

Apple makes good displays? I don't even know how to answer that question.

I've seen Dell XPS 4K and Surface Book 2 screens, those are great too. There are good and lousy screens out there.

For an expensive laptop like the MBP, having delamination problems or the anti-glare coat coming off is unacceptable at any price range.

 

[SDColorado]

I had to send in my MBP 2015 for the delamination problem with the screen. I see that Apple has a repair program for this.

Apple makes good displays? I don't even know how to answer that question.

I've seen Dell XPS 4K and Surface Book 2 screens, those are great too. There are good and lousy screens out there.

For an expensive laptop like the MBP, having delamination problems or the anti-glare coat coming off is unacceptable at any price range.

One of the issues I had with the first of the 2018 MBP's I sent back was a poorly applied coating. It was wavey, looked rough particularly with any light on it. I thought maybe I was just being nitpicky, but when I brought it in for the BridgeOS error issue, the tech noticed it right away and noted it for exchange for that reason alone. Maybe the issue is in the application process of the coatings where it sometimes isn't applied properly, resulting in the delamination? Really no excuse for it though. It reminded me of a cheap camera filter.

 

[MrGunnyPT]

I love the display of my MacBook Pro 2017, it's really close to the IPS X34 Predator I got.

 

[Queen6]

They (Apple) do have very good laptops but let me say its not just about the hardware but the entire experience. That's the difference imo between windows, Linux and macOS. You have a computer and OS that is customized for that hardware working in concert. This is why I bought the 2018 MBP. Not because it has 6 cores, or the best display but because the user experience is best

Maybe if your deeply interwoven with Apple's echo system, equally the Mac in isolation has been rather disappointing to say the very least, with continuous physical & software issues and a general disregard for it's professional users stacking up.

Experience is one thing, equally it must also accompany reliability, performance, long-term support and above all trust in the professional environment. All of which sadly Apple is seemingly all too happy to allow to dwindle, with the current computing "experience" being one I can well do without...

Q-6

 

[TBoneMac]

The title of the thread:
"How come only Apple makes good displays for their laptops?"

This is known as "poisoning the well".

And it's completely false on its face:
1. Apple no longer -makes- displays, of any kind (the "LG" displays are designed and produced by another company). They may have been designed to "Apple's spec requests", but LG did the work.
2. There are plenty of excellent 3rd-party displays "out there" that look great with Apple computers.

No, it isn't known as poisoning the well. You're taking the words way too literally. Anyone on macrumors knows that apple obviously doesn't make the displays. "How come only Apple makes good displays" is me asking why apple is the only company that cares about their display/specs/quality. Specfically for Macbooks/Laptops/Notebooks

And stop with the dell xps, microsoft surface stuff guys. They both suffer the same flaw I mentioned where there's air/space between the panel and the plastic/glass/etc. Which makes them both look cheap/plasticy/mediocre.

Not to mention, why do you need to spend so much for a decent screen, unless it's apple (apple at least has more affordable options with good screens)? You can get one that looks better on a 1000-1500$ macbook, or macbook pro. Even the Macbook Air displays do not suffer from that weird "space" that makes displays look bad. And they cost less than 1000$
I should have been more clear that I was talking about Macbooks specifically, not other displays/monitors that you can buy 3rd-party/etc. I'm pretty sure this is the Macbook section on macrumors.


Sidenote, Other companies don't use glass? Are they crazy? That might be one of the reasons it looks so much better.