I guess it is not like some of the nay-sayers "don't get it". It is that they got it, but refuse to accept it is worth Apple's asking price. You see similar issues in Apple's "edge" devices, like Air Pods Max, the Magic KB with touch ID, the iPad Pro Magic KB etc. They solve a very specific set of problems while asking for a significantly higher price then otherwise.
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.
I'm genuinely surprised by the negative reviews of the Studio Display
- Thread starter CalMin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good video.
Pretty much exactly what the last 27” iMac did, with even less clutter.
Some people expected either:
- the current Studio Display, but without A13, Center Stage, True Tone, auto brightness, great speakers or great mic, for $999 or
- the current Studio Display, but with 120Hz, miniLED and HDR, for $1999
The 27" Asus PA27UCX-K is only a 4k screen and 60hz (but has the miniLED and HDR) and is $3k. The 32" version with 120Hz is $5k. Looking at those two a 27" 5k 120hz HDR Apple version it would be $4k easy IMO.
Last edited:
If there is really gonna be a Studio Display Pro classed between the XDR Pro and this 5k one, I bet it will be just another 27” 5k but with miniLED and HDR to match the 14” 16” MBP spec.
120Hz on 4k+ displays require more bandwidth than the current Macs’ TB4 can handle.
EDIT: noted by others, it turns out despite requiring more than TB4’s 40Gbps bandwidth, 5k @ 120Hz is now possible if DSC is implemented, which Apple has been doing; however there isn’t a 5k120Hz panel available yet.
120Hz on 4k+ displays require more bandwidth than the current Macs’ TB4 can handle.
EDIT: noted by others, it turns out despite requiring more than TB4’s 40Gbps bandwidth, 5k @ 120Hz is now possible if DSC is implemented, which Apple has been doing; however there isn’t a 5k120Hz panel available yet.
Last edited:
Acer Predator X32 FP and Predator X32 gaming monitors bring 4K 160 Hz mini-LED HDR goodness for both gamers and content creators
Acer has launched two new gaming monitors in the Predator lineup — the Predator X32 FP and the Predator X32. These 4K 160 Hz mini-LED monitors are aimed at gamers, but they also offer color-accurate panels that cover 99% Adobe RGB for content creators. The Predator X32 FP can also connect...
500+ local dimming zones (which on a 27" display isn't always defined as "mini LED") is available for fairly cheap these days. A $2000-2500 version of the pro Display with such a number of zones would have been feasible.
Now, a multi-thousands local dimming array with as much density as the MBP displays, that would be another story (and IMO worthy of a update to the XDR display).
60+ fps with 5K is a question of connectivity standards for now, rather than panel capability.
The current version's pricing should be put in perspective with what apple used to charge for the iMac 27" as the displays and built are similar (but without the entire computer and accessories) - not the LG displays (which were overpriced to begin with).
Last edited:
Oh I never said that it was realistic, only that that's what people were expecting.
Not one critic has put up a valid alternative. Except maybe the old LG 5k.
Show me a bright (500+), well built and supported (not cheap plastic without support), high PPI (210+), 27+ inch display as a competitor to the Apple Studio.
They all mention some random 4k monitor. Most fall apart quickly with a little research like an HDR display with a brightness of 350 or a low PPI and poor scaling.
Sure it would be great if it had mini led and other features, but given Apple's PPI standards and other requirements that tech isn't ready yet at this price.
People always nitpick and totally miss the point on products that are not for them or just can't afford.
Show me a bright (500+), well built and supported (not cheap plastic without support), high PPI (210+), 27+ inch display as a competitor to the Apple Studio.
They all mention some random 4k monitor. Most fall apart quickly with a little research like an HDR display with a brightness of 350 or a low PPI and poor scaling.
Sure it would be great if it had mini led and other features, but given Apple's PPI standards and other requirements that tech isn't ready yet at this price.
People always nitpick and totally miss the point on products that are not for them or just can't afford.
”Studio Display doesn’t have HDR, but this random 4K monitor at 30+ inch (100ppi ?) has…HDR400?…” what a joke.
I think you are really reaching here. This guy has zero credentials. The review boils down to "I like the way the monitor looks on my desk." This is essentially one of us posting here in video form.
You are describing the exact phenomenon that MKBHD cited. Apple put a spec sheet together that means it is impossible to find something exactly like it. And Apple fans eat it up, as many here are, without really thinking about how relevant many of those specs actually are. Alternative, by its very nature will have differences. That is why it is an alternative. For some, those trade-offs will be worth it. Others not.
Specs like HDR400 and 100ppi on a computer monitor is truly relevant - as a bad monitor.
It's a bit cheeky to draw up a list of specs and expect that what constitute a "valid alternative" must have all of these features, because otherwise I could do it for absolutely every single display in existence.
As in "Show me a 42" 4K TV with a local contrast ratio of at least 8000:1 that supports hardware calibration via Calman, Dolby Vision, HDR10, HLG, VRR, 4 HDMI 2.1 ports" and bam just like that the list of "alternatives" suddenly gets very small.
It's similar to when public administrations draw up tenders with a set of requirements that "just happen" to coincide with what a single company in particular can produce...
The ASD's spec list is very unique indeed but that doesn't mean that there's no valid alternative elsewhere for a lot of people as long as compromising on some of these unique specifications is a possibility as a trade-off for other benefits.
What I do like a lot about the ASD is that just like with the iMac, the spec list is a pretty decent balance for a wide range of applications, even if it means not being superbly appropriate for any one of them. That sort of balance makes a lot of sense for an integrated display, and probably as well for MacBook users who want a single, larger display that does it all on their desk when they're back home, or for ex iMac 27" users who no longer have that option from Apple, for example.
But that's also where marketing it as a companion to the Mac Studio is a bit weird. The latter's users might be a bit more selective about the features they want / need in an external display and the catch 'em all features list might not be quite as appropriate in their case.
Maximum brightness aș specificed on a spec sheet is a poor predictor of the quality of the HDR experience you'll get.
VESA's HDR 400 certification is a total joke that misleads consumers, but in a darker environment, with quite a lot of content, you'll get a better HDR experience with that : https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-32ep950-b-oled-monitor
than with the XDR display, even though it only reaches a paltry 250 or so cd/m2 full screen.
That's what VESA's HDR 400 True Black certification is for
.Apple's marketing for the XDR display isn't much less misleading in regards to its actual HDR capabilities.
Last edited:
Not for resolution.
So which monitor would you recommend for a Mac user who doesn't game and doesn't watch videos on a monitor?
macOS is optimised for the 5K resolution and not 4K. Any 4K monitor will look worse under macOS than Windows.
That's why 5K is such an important requirement for some us Mac users.
It's more important than HDR. I don't watch watch videos on my Mac, just editing my own which I don't think is HDR at all.
Although 144 Hz refresh rate could improve text it doesn't really overcome the scaling issue with 4K on macOS.
macOS isn’t “optimized for 5k”. It is more like macOS “UI elements are less sharp while scaled by non-integers”.
And 27” just happens to be the ideal 200% UI scaling resolution for 2560x1440 at 5k. The 21.5” iMac was UHD 4k while maintaining similar ppi, and the default UI resolution is 1080p FHD.
And 27” just happens to be the ideal 200% UI scaling resolution for 2560x1440 at 5k. The 21.5” iMac was UHD 4k while maintaining similar ppi, and the default UI resolution is 1080p FHD.
For the naysayers speaking when they just want to demoralize users who have purchased already. After a week and a half of use I have to say this display has exceeded my expectations and then some. And for what ever reason it’s allowed to play HDR on YouTube when even a an lg ultrefine and iMac 27” 5K cannot. This screen gets bright. Way brighter then the other 5K s in the iMac 27”. Both my LG OLEds only go up to 600 nits and are considered HDR panels. I think this panel is brighter. And I think nits of brightness measured equate on a linear scale. Even the Mac book pros only have 500 nits when not displaying HDR content. Long ramble but my point is it’s a non issue. So is the lack of pro motion. Thunderbolt 4 has its limitation of 4K 60 hertz using 2 displays and somehow we’re pushing 5K at 60 hertz and can use multiple 5K studio displays. Why are people complaining. Before a pro motion MacBook Pro came out this was also a non issue. And obviously mini led gets more expensive when scaled up to bigger screens.
I think I'm with the handymen in this example.. lol
Do you really have $4,000 chairs?
(like for one chair?)
Very well said
The usual greed just because they can
Nice business to be in I guess
Sucks to be on the receiving end of those strategies though (customers)
I gave the minimum specs for a display that I would purchase, namely 210+ PPI, 500+ nits, and build quality. This to me this is the core of a quality monitor used for productivity and are non negotiable. Other features would be considered when comparing as long as they meet the above minimum.
If you want a gaming monitor with 100 PPI and 240 refresh rate, that is an entirely different market from the Studio Display. Reviews should understand the market of a product when reviewing.
I'm glad you picked up on that. Marques Brownlee (mkbhd on YT) made the observation also, in that he was more drawn to use his 14/16 MBP displays, which are vastly superior, despite being smaller.
I have to think many folks in the buying demographic for the Mac Studio also have the latest MBPs and it will likely not be lost on them how much better their laptop screen is -- in all ways other than size.
I think a Studio Display Pro is coming for sure.
Last edited:
Here are the specs for Thunderbolt 4.Display Stream Compression (DSC) is how that works.
Thunderbolt 4 Explained | Eaton
Thunderbolt 4, the latest connectivity standard from Intel, gives you fast data transfer, high-resolution video and charging, all at the same time. If you're thinking about buying a Thunderbolt 4 laptop, read this first!