And yet not the same panel. MR and others need to stop throwing around the words “exact” and “identical” for things that are not exact nor identical because it just feeds this:
It is not the same panel.
The last consumer Apple display, the Thunderbolt Display, was priced at a cool $1000 in 2011. That's close to $1300 in 2022 dollars. So let's not clutch our pearls too hard at this costing a few hundred bucks more.
Why would they do that for a desktop monitor? Nobody wants to reach up and poke around at a big horizontal display out in front of them at the proper viewing distance. It's an ergonomic nightmare.
Apple used to *only* do overkill like this. It's why many folks fell in love with them. Steve Jobs pretty famously
It absolutely is not. It’s a far brighter panel with higher constant. This has been clearly show in Max Tech vids. Do better MacRumors.
Another one…. They didn’t confirm anything. They pulled two cameras out with different shapes and different part numbers and decided since they’re both 12MP, they are “pretty much identical”. It can’t be “pretty much” or “essentially”, identical— it’s identical or it’s not identical. iFixit didn’t bother to do anything more than compare resolutions.
I wonder... could MacOS be run on the A13 inside? It wouldn't be as fast as the M1, but could it be done?
The chin still exists for one main reason: they wanted to make the iMac as thin as possible to look svelte and impressive in the middle of a living space. Showing the colors and retaining the iconic fascia also surely played a part, not disagreeing there. But if they tried to cram the computer behind the screen itself, it would have required more thickness. For the studio display, they clearly didn't care about thickness as much, since it's more likely to be in a dedicated work space rather than a living space. Otherwise, as others have pointed out, they typically have no hesitancy integrating power supplies--in fact it seems like they find it to be a fun challenge based on this teardown.
What they said is a little exaggerated. It's not impressive that it's internal; it's impressive how thin it is for a power supply. PSUs in general are fairly "tall" even in say the 2017 iMac line because of their components. The nice curvy lines of the old iMac design sort of "hid" how thick it gets in certain parts. This display is on average much thinner which is partly enabled by the fact that the PSU board has cutouts in it for the biggest components on that board. That's not common (just look at the screen cap from the video side by side with the above link).
Power supplies tend to have some of the biggest components on a board such as inductors and capacitors. Getting it spread out this thin over a large area is not as easy as building your box to put on the outside. The iMac had a lower chin to fit everything in there. Also it wasn’t designed to power a macbook pro like this display.
When it goes to refurb, the cheapest it will be is $1359.00 = $1599 X .85, which is the standard Apple refurb percentage off. Just an FYI.
