iFixit Teardown: Studio Display Features iMac-Like Internal Setup

[turbineseaplane]

I’ve been proven right, they are rehashing the same display that has been in iMacs for the last 6 years and probably have huge economies of scale savings on.

Honestly it's the same basic panel that's been in there for 8 years really (Late 2014 iMac 5k). It's gotten some very minute revisions over the years, but it's basically that component with a better backlight, different glass covering and a tweaked calibration.

Bit of disappointment for sure

 

[CWallace]

Lol as predicted it uses the exact same display as the iMac 5K which is now at least 5-6 years old.
The £1499 price tag is looking even more ridiculous now.

Well there is only one manufacturer of 5K panels - LG Display - and they only make one model of said panel (with minor improvements over time). And considering the low production volumes, the panel still has a BOM to Apple in the ~£400 range.

This is at best a £550-£700 monitor tops. No way near able to justify a £1499 pricing. To justify £1499 it needed to add HDR, 120Hz Pro Motion, the A15 bionic and the same front camera on the iPhone 13 Pro.

There is the Iiyama XB2779QQS, which uses the 5K panels that Apple and LG reject for their own monitors, for ~£750 for those who want 5K on a budget.

 

[UK-MacAddict]

Well there is only one manufacturer of 5K panels - LG Display - and they only make one model of said panel (with minor improvements over time). And considering the low production volumes, the panel still has a BOM to Apple in the ~£400 range.




There is the Iiyama XB2779QQS, which uses the 5K panels that Apple and LG reject for their own monitors, for ~£750 for those who want 5K on a budget.

I’m not after a budget monitor. I simply want Apple to actually include the basic tech that should be in these displays in 2022. If it just added HDR and Pro Motion it would go a long way justify its price tag.

I’d hate to see the state of the panels Apple rejects. I’ve been using iMacs since 2007 and have always had to return multiple Macs before receiving a decent panel. Massive light bleed on the edges is the main issue and they always exhibit screen burn after a few years of use. Overly warm display calibrations is also an issue.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I’d hate to see the state of the panels Apple rejects.

You definitely don’t want to see it.
I went through so many Planar IX2790s

Every one of them had a different awful issue or at least of differing degrees.

Stuck pixels, dead pixels, ghosting, bad uniformity…on and on…and on

 

[FrozenDarkness]

And yet its sold out

 

[Fred Zed]

Interesting to see that this could have probably been the next gen iMac 27. But I suppose, the marketing dept figured its better to just sell it as a monitor. Agree with what a couple of others mentioned earlier regarding nits and 120Hz.

 

[ric22]

So it's almost exactly the same price as the last 27" iMac, has the same screen (except it goes a tad brighter), isn't a computer, and doesn't come with a mouse and keyboard, and people are daft enough to buy it? Errr...

2020 Apple iMac with Retina 5K display (27-inch, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD Storage)

iMac performance is at an all-time high with tenth-generation Intel Core processors, powerful AMD Radeon Pro 5000 series graphics, ultrafast SSD storage, Thunderbolt 3 (USB-C) connectivity. And it all comes to life on a stunning 27-inch Retina 5K display with one billion colors and 500 nits of br...

www.amazon.co.uk

 

[CWallace]

I’m not after a budget monitor. I simply want Apple to actually include the basic tech that should be in these displays in 2022. If it just added HDR and Pro Motion it would go a long way justify its price tag.

Well that is rumored to be coming at WWDC, but expect to pay up to $1000 over the Studio Display for them.

Apple is not going to release a non-Retina display and at 27", Retina means 5K and at 32" (which is a size many clamor for), that is 6K. And since LG Display is, I believe, the only provider of 5K and 6K panels and they only make one model, it is not like Apple can shop around for a better deal.

And even 4K HDR displays are not as cheap as many believe. The LG 27GP950 is considered a great "low-cost" HDR display, but it is still over $1000, has only slightly better peak brightness than the Apple Studio Display (which it cannot hold for very long), suffers from terrible blooming since it only has 16 local dimming zones, does not come with a webcam or speakers, has worse build materials and a more reflective screen.

 

[ric22]

Well that is rumored to be coming at WWDC, but expect to pay up to $1000 over the Studio Display for them.

Apple is not going to release a non-Retina display and at 27", Retina means 5K and at 32" (which is a size many clamor for), that is 6K. And since LG Display is, I believe, the only provider of 5K and 6K panels and they only make one model, it is not like Apple can shop around for a better deal.

And even 4K HDR displays are not as cheap as many believe. The LG 27GP950 is considered a great "low-cost" HDR display, but it is still over $1000, has only slightly better peak brightness than the Apple Studio Display (which it cannot hold for very long), suffers from terrible blooming since it only has 16 local dimming zones, does not come with a webcam or speakers, has worse build materials and a more reflective screen.

It is "Retina" if your face is 50cm away...

 

[UK-MacAddict]

Well that is rumored to be coming at WWDC, but expect to pay up to $1000 over the Studio Display for them.

Apple is not going to release a non-Retina display and at 27", Retina means 5K and at 32" (which is a size many clamor for), that is 6K. And since LG Display is, I believe, the only provider of 5K and 6K panels and they only make one model, it is not like Apple can shop around for a better deal.

And even 4K HDR displays are not as cheap as many believe. The LG 27GP950 is considered a great "low-cost" HDR display, but it is still over $1000, has only slightly better peak brightness than the Apple Studio Display (which it cannot hold for very long), suffers from terrible blooming since it only has 16 local dimming zones, does not come with a webcam or speakers, has worse build materials and a more reflective screen.

Which is the problem with Tim Cook's Apple. Splitting product lines for no reason other than to charge more for a few extra basic features which should have been included in the first instance.

Adding HDR and Pro Motion should not be adding £1000 on top of the £1499 Studio price.

At least with other manufacturers their displays go into sales and can be picked up heavily discounted if you shop around. Apple never drop prices. The trash can Mac Pro released in 2013 was still be charged at the same price in 2019 even though everything inside it was dated.

 

[CWallace]

It is true that Apple does not generally reduce the price of older Mac hardware, but they do improve the base components over time so it's effectively a price drop as what were extra-cost BTO options become standard configurations. This was done with the 2013 Mac Pro, 2017 iMac Pro and now the 2019 Mac Pro.

And yes, the Apple Studio Display could have just launched at $2499 with MiniLED HDR and ProMotion and that was for a time the rumor du jour of what would happen. Apple knew there was strong demand for the iMac 5K panel (without MiniLED and ProMotion) in a standalone monitor and were quite willing to pay $1600-2000 for it.

It would have been nice if they could have offered a MiniLED HDR ProMotion panel as a BTO option (even it it was priced at $750-1000), but I must presume that supply constraints mean the panel is not ready and Apple needed the display to launch now alongside the Mac Studio. So now they will either offer it as a BTO option or just release a separate "Studio Display Pro" that uses it and perhaps has some additional features.

 

[UK-MacAddict]

It is true that Apple does not generally reduce the price of older Mac hardware, but they do improve the base components over time so it's effectively a price drop as what were extra-cost BTO options become standard configurations. This was done with the 2013 Mac Pro, 2017 iMac Pro and now the 2019 Mac Pro.

And yes, the Apple Studio Display could have just launched at $2499 with MiniLED HDR and ProMotion and that was for a time the rumor du jour of what would happen. Apple knew there was strong demand for the iMac 5K panel (without MiniLED and ProMotion) in a standalone monitor and were quite willing to pay $1600-2000 for it.

It would have been nice if they could have offered a MiniLED HDR ProMotion panel as a BTO option (even it it was priced at $750-1000), but I must presume that supply constraints mean the panel is not ready and Apple needed the display to launch now alongside the Mac Studio. So now they will either offer it as a BTO option or just release a separate "Studio Display Pro" that uses it and perhaps has some additional features.

No need to have BTO HDR or Pro Motion they should have been standard on the Studio Display.

Those that wanted Mini LED would go for the XDR, though it performs identical to the iMac 5K display to my eyes.

Customers just wanted a reasonably priced monitor. Apple shouldn’t be thinking of releasing three different monitors they only need two.

The Studio Display at £1499 with HDR and Pro Motion as standard, the height adjustable stand should also be included in that price.

Then the XDR display at £2499.

 

[theluggage]

And yes, the Apple Studio Display could have just launched at $2499 with MiniLED HDR and ProMotion and that was for a time the rumor du jour of what would happen. Apple knew there was strong demand for the iMac 5K panel (without MiniLED and ProMotion) in a standalone monitor and were quite willing to pay $1600-2000 for it.

Well, only Apple will know how well it sells at that price. Trouble is Apple have created the perception of the regular 5k panel & speaker/mic/webcam set up being "worth" under $1000 (the difference between a lower-end 5k iMac and a comparable Intel Mac Mini). A $2500 HDR/ProMotion display would be inviting comparisons with the $5000 XDR Pro, instead of the $1800 iMac.

There was an interesting perspective on Snazzy Labs on, really (my interpretation), how the Studio Display was "built up to a price" and, while you could justify the price looking at the bill-of-materials for the ultra-slim power supply, cooling system etc. the result didn't really make sense as either an affordable consumer display or a premium "pro" display (including the extra brightness being pointless on a non-HDR display, with most SDR reference standards specifying far lower brightness).

Probably, Apple are just stuck with the LG 5k panel being the only game in town, only being made in small, expensive quantities and MacOS being semi-dependent on that magic PPI value because of MacOS's scaling techniques - although, having used a 4k, 28" display alongside a 5k iMac, I think people are exaggerating and misunderstanding that problem. Still, that's Apple's problem to solve - they have pretty formidable resources - and have managed to come up with non-standard resolution panels for everything up to and including the 24" iMac without massive price hikes.

Well that is rumored to be coming at WWDC, but expect to pay up to $1000 over the Studio Display for them.

I thought the rumours were "a new version of the XDR plus a more affordable display". I'm assuming that the Studio Display is the "affordable" option at "only" $1600 and the new XDR will be similarly priced to the old $5000 one.

I think launching a ~$2500 XDR display in June would really, really annoy many people who've already bought the Studio Display...

 

[CWallace]

No need to have BTO HDR or Pro Motion they should have been standard on the Studio Display.

Sure, but then it would have been the $2499 as originally rumored when it was expected to have those features.

And chances are a fair number of people would have bought it.

But a fair number of people really just wanted the iMac 5K display without the computer. And Apple finally gave it to them and at a price lower than many of them expected to pay (the over-under was $1999).

Those that wanted Mini LED would go for the XDR, though it performs identical to the iMac 5K display to my eyes.

And a number of people did just ante-up and pay the $6000 for an XDR because it looked like Apple would ever give them the iMac 5K without the computer. Others paid $1300 for an LG UltraFine and had a less than ultra-fine experience with it, but it was their only other option for Retina.

And this seems to be the thing a fair number of folks don't understand - Retina was required. "Full" HDR and MiniLED and ProMotion were all "nice to haves", but they were not requirements. And the Apple Studio Display is Retina so that instantly made it a buy for all of those people.

Customers just wanted a reasonably priced monitor. Apple shouldn’t be thinking of releasing three different monitors they only need two.

See above - most Apple customers wanted a reasonably priced monitor and they bought one from a third party because there are so many options available.

The Apple customers who wanted an Apple Studio Display wanted a Retina monitor and were ready and willing to pay up to $2000 for it.

And now that they have it, they are buying it.

The Studio Display at £1499 with HDR and Pro Motion as standard, the height adjustable stand should also be included in that price.

Then the XDR display at £2499.

Sure, in a world where Apple works on 3% margins and not 33%.

Well, only Apple will know how well it sells at that price.

They're going to sell plenty - the thing is already back-ordered months and it's a monitor using existing parts that are in ready supply so it's demand that is causing the delays.

Trouble is Apple have created the perception of the regular 5k panel & speaker/mic/webcam set up being "worth" under $1000 (the difference between a lower-end 5k iMac and a comparable Intel Mac Mini).

But the Mac mini had an even worse CPU than the low-end iMac and it did not have a dGPU.

And considering LG charges $1300 for an iMac display in a junk plastic enclosure, I would argue that is the "floor" of what the display was worth.

A $2500 HDR/ProMotion display would be inviting comparisons with the $5000 XDR Pro, instead of the $1800 iMac.

Yup. And it would have likely seriously impacted XDR sales. Which explains why the latest rumors are Apple is going 7K and 36 inches for the next Pro Display XDR to justify a price twice as high as that of the "Studio Display Pro".

Probably, Apple are just stuck with the LG 5k panel being the only game in town, only being made in small, expensive quantities and MacOS being semi-dependent on that magic PPI value because of MacOS's scaling techniques - although, having used a 4k, 28" display alongside a 5k iMac, I think people are exaggerating and misunderstanding that problem.

It might not be a real problem for you, and that is fair. But it is a real problem for them, and that is fair, as well. And for those who non-Retina is a real problem, it's 5K or nothing. So they suffered with the LG UltraFine and now that they don't have to suffer with the Apple Studio Display, they are snapping it up.

I thought the rumours were "a new version of the XDR plus a more affordable display". I'm assuming that the Studio Display is the "affordable" option at "only" $1600 and the new XDR will be similarly priced to the old $5000 one.

I think it will be a three-tier strategy:

1. Pro Display XDR Mark II - 7K at 36 inches with MiniLED HDR and ProMotion for ~$5000
2. Studio Display Pro - 5K at 27 inches with MiniLED HDR and ProMotion for ~$2500
3. Studio Display - 5K at 27 inches for $1500

And with Apple being Apple, I expect the Pro Display XDR will stick around for awhile, dropping to ~$4000.

I think launching a ~$2500 XDR display in June would really, really annoy many people who've already bought the Studio Display...

I think it would, as well, which is why I am skeptical about Ross Young's claims. I believe the panel exists, I just don't believe Apple is ready to launch it so closely after the Studio Display.

 

[ric22]

.And Apple finally gave it to them and at a price lower than many of them expected to pay

It's almost the same price as the 27" iMac it replaces- same panel with a little more brightness, but it isn't a computer and don't come with the mouse and keyboard. But you think it's less than people expected to pay?!? Only if you value the new speakers at $800, maybe...

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It's almost the same price as the 27" iMac it replaces- same panel with a little more brightness, but it isn't a computer and don't come with the mouse and keyboard. But you think it's less than people expected to pay?!? Only if you value the new speakers at $800, maybe...

Pretty much. Anyone that’s been following Apple even for as little as a year knew that whatever they released would cost more than what’s available non-Apple. LG’s price being where it was, it wasn’t incredible to think that they’d release a monitor at $1,999.

 

[CWallace]

It's almost the same price as the 27" iMac it replaces- same panel with a little more brightness, but it isn't a computer and don't come with the mouse and keyboard. But you think it's less than people expected to pay?!? Only if you value the new speakers at $800, maybe...

Yes I do because many of the people who clamored for an Apple 5K Monitor were literally ready and willing to buy an $1800 iMac 5K and use it in Target Display Mode if that had been an option. They didn't give a damn about the computer part - they only cared about the 5K panel.

I mean some of these customers dropped $6000 on a Pro Display XDR because it was the only Apple option available to them! Compared to that, $1500-2000 was a bargain!


Frankly, the customers who the Apple Studio Display is aimed at are people who want a 5K display from Apple and know that it would not be priced like a commodity 4K monitor because they know Apple doesn't do "commodity".

These customers were shopping the LG UltraFine 5K because it was their only option (at the time) for a standalone 5K display and were well aware that LG wanted $1300 for their 5K display and they knew Apple was not going to charge LESS than the competition.

 

[ric22]

5K panels haven't really taken off, or LG would have made the effort to improve this one with features like 120Hz (and maybe HDR). At least those with deep pockets get the finest 7 year old tech available.

 

[turbineseaplane]

5K panels haven't really taken off

Really no surprise as 5k is 77% more pixels than 4k, and gamers are a huge driver on monitor design/features/trade offs. For gaming, 5k offers nothing over 4k beyond massive massive increases in required GPU resources.

As an aside, here's a great read from today on someone who has opted for the Gigabyte M28U over an Apple Studio Display (for the value offered and high refresh rate) -- https://pilky.me/4k-vs-5k-displays/

 

[theluggage]

They're going to sell plenty - the thing is already back-ordered months and it's a monitor using existing parts that are in ready supply so it's demand that is causing the delays.

I don't think you can conclude anything from the stock situation - could be high demand, could be low supply, could be low anticipated demand making logistics difficult (...you don't send a huge initial stock to every Apple store, distribution centre and third-party retailer if they're likely to go unsold). Also, this is just the first flush of demand from all the die-hard enthusiasts who were desperately hitting "refresh" on the Apple web page after the launch - the question is how it sells over the next year or two.

But the Mac mini had an even worse CPU than the low-end iMac and it did not have a dGPU.

That's kinda my point - the base 5k iMac "only" cost $1000 more than the $800 i3 Mini, yet it came with a 5k display, speakers, webcam, keyboard, mouse and a better CPU and GPU. It felt like you were getting the display for well under $1000.

(Of course, the other interpretation of that was that Apple were completely taking the Mickey by charging $800 for the i3 Mac Mini - actually raising the price even though they'd switched to desktop i3 processors that were substantially cheaper than the mobile i5 they'd been using in older Minis).

 

[CWallace]

I don't think you can conclude anything from the stock situation - could be high demand, could be low supply, could be low anticipated demand making logistics difficult (...you don't send a huge initial stock to every Apple store, distribution centre and third-party retailer if they're likely to go unsold). Also, this is just the first flush of demand from all the die-hard enthusiasts who were desperately hitting "refresh" on the Apple web page after the launch - the question is how it sells over the next year or two.

Apple got out of the display market because they couldn't sell $1000 Thunderbolt displays against commodity $500 QHD displays. That they are now back in can only be because their market research shows demand is strong and people will pay a premium over the LG model.

Apple should have released a 5K version of the Thunderbolt Display shortly after cancelling the original, but instead let LG handle it. And LG stuffed-it up from the get-go (WiFi interference) so badly that LG had to drop the price by 25% for the remainder of 2016 as an "apology" of sorts and I expect a large number of folks rolled the dice and bought one at $975 and that probably dampened future demand for a number of years.

That's kinda my point - the base 5k iMac "only" cost $1000 more than the $800 i3 Mini, yet it came with a 5k display, speakers, webcam, keyboard, mouse and a better CPU and GPU. It felt like you were getting the display for well under $1000.

(Of course, the other interpretation of that was that Apple were completely taking the Mickey by charging $800 for the i3 Mac Mini - actually raising the price even though they'd switched to desktop i3 processors that were substantially cheaper than the mobile i5 they'd been using in older Minis).

Considering the Mac mini's niche was small, but so dedicated, I would not at all be surprised if Apple soaked them on the price. And if the Mac mini commanded higher gross margins compared to other Macs, that was likely a major reason why the model stayed in the line-up and was not EOLd.