I'm genuinely surprised by the negative reviews of the Studio Display

[fuchsdh]

The main criticisms seem to be around price and lack of HDR which I think are fair enough. You can get HDR on much cheaper panels, but they're often just HD rather than 4K. You only have to look at these forums over the last x number of years to see that as screens get larger, Mac users really want nice crisp displays with high PPI which give you a "retina-like" experience.

These also have speakers, webcam and mic built-in which are selling points for some, not to mention they are design to work with Macs so shouldn't have any resolution issues/strangeness or wake-from-sleep issues.

The question is, are those things worth the price premium over other screens? That's down for each user to decide and isn't an eventuality they can cover in every review.

The other thing is that lots of reviews mention how old the panel is. Which is true, but it does still look great for those who don't need an HDR screen.

I can see both sides of this discussion and the webcam bug around the quality and centre stage doesn't help the case for these.

Ultimately there's a ton of pent-up demand for an Apple display, combined with the fact that there's a ton of variation in monitor tech out there and there's not really a magic bullet or even "jack of all trades" option right now. Apple's ProMotion displays are close (I think once you're past 120Hz outside of gaming the vast majority of people care much more about better color display or HDR) but ProMotion to the caliber of their small displays hasn't even made it to the expensive XDR, so expecting it in a sub-$2K monitor was always unrealistic.

If you're fine with a 27" 4K display, then there's plenty of cheaper options that have most of the same features or can certainly get you to 80% of them for much less than 80% of the price. But as usual with Apple, you pay a premium for niceness.

The other bitter thing here is in some ways this is really the monitor Apple could have shipped years ago instead of having people deal with the LG 5K display that was only ever okay.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The other bitter thing here is in some ways this is really the monitor Apple could have shipped years ago instead of having people deal with the LG 5K display that was only ever okay.

^^^ This right here folks...

 

[Analog Kid]

Honestly, I'm not a graphics pro. It looks excellent for me, but I've seen folks comment on the fact that it is not a true 10-bit panel like the pro-display XDR. DP review though highly of it's color accuracy which is good enough for me and my Excel spreadsheets.

Apple Studio Display review: An excellent monitor at a steep price

Apple's new Studio Display is an extremely color accurate IPS LCD with a bunch of unique features and exceptional build quality. But with a price tag of $1,600, you really have to value those extra features. For Apple, this is a missed opportunity to give the creative community a smaller, more...

www.dpreview.com

Yeah, I think the take away is that the ASD is color accurate, it's just targeted at the P3 color space (which it covers very well compared to the cheaper displays being thrown around as alternatives) and doesn't cover as far into the greens as AdobeRGB. I can see why that would be important for some people, and there are monitors with that ability that are reasonably affordable with their own sets of tradeoffs.

It'll be fine for me, and will make a better photography oriented display than anything I currently have. It's not a reference monitor for pro layout shops. Remember when the XDR wasn't good enough? Now people are complaining that they want all the XDR features, plus more, at an ASD price.

I think people put all their hopes and dreams into a consumer Apple display and aren't dealing well with compromise.

 

[k995]

Neither of which is due to a limitation of thunderbolt

DSC enables high refresh rate, full 10bit color at 5k even on TB3

Apple use DSC now, they can do this if they want

Page 20

https://www.apple.com/pro-display-xdr/pdf/Pro_Display_White_Paper_Feb_2020.pdf

Depends on what tb3 port you have, older ones were dp1.2 newer are 1.4 .

DisplayPort - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hbr3 can do 5k 60hz

 

[Unregistered 4U]

can't speak for everyone but when the studio display was released, if it had no speakers/webcam/processor/internal psu and instead had mini-led and HDR, I would have been willing to pay around $2,000, depending on performance, for a VESA model and likely would have bought 2.

Looking at what Apple currently charges for mini-led and HDR without some of those other features, $2,000 wouldn’t have even been in the ballpark. Which goes back to what I was saying… folks that already think that $1,599 is a bad deal for the value MUST realize that how Apple determines how to price their products are going to be out of synch with them regardless of what the features provided are. It’s always going to be “I’d pay less than what Apple charges” for millions of people. Luckily for Apple, there are billions of potential customers, and likely a paltry 10 million that will pay Apple’s price for this monitor over it’s entire life on the market.

 

[KPOM]

Looking at what Apple currently charges for mini-led and HDR without some of those other features, $2,000 wouldn’t have even been in the ballpark. Which goes back to what I was saying… folks that already think that $1,599 is a bad deal for the value MUST realize that how Apple determines how to price their products are going to be out of synch with them regardless of what the features provided are. It’s always going to be “I’d pay less than what Apple charges” for millions of people. Luckily for Apple, there are billions of potential customers, and likely a paltry 10 million that will pay Apple’s price for this monitor over it’s entire life on the market.

Apple is only reluctantly in the monitor business. Of course they aren’t going to sell a monitor for “cheap.” The ASD has little competition and Apple will undoubtedly be satisfied with its financial performance.

 

[haruhiko]

Looking at what Apple currently charges for mini-led and HDR without some of those other features, $2,000 wouldn’t have even been in the ballpark. Which goes back to what I was saying… folks that already think that $1,599 is a bad deal for the value MUST realize that how Apple determines how to price their products are going to be out of synch with them regardless of what the features provided are. It’s always going to be “I’d pay less than what Apple charges” for millions of people. Luckily for Apple, there are billions of potential customers, and likely a paltry 10 million that will pay Apple’s price for this monitor over it’s entire life on the market.

$2,000 is impossible from Apple. Even Lenovo is asking for $2,600 for a 27" 4K mini LED in a generic black plastic shell with unknown camera / speaker quality and no integration with macOS.

 

[CalMin]

Apple is only reluctantly in the monitor business. Of course they aren’t going to sell a monitor for “cheap.” The ASD has little competition and Apple will undoubtedly be satisfied with its financial performance.

I agree with this. It's a commodity market and Apple steadfastly refuses to play by the rules of that game. The ASD exists because they killed the iMac Pro by introducing the Mac Studio line, but still wanted to offer a fully integrated ecosystem solution for those customers who were ready to drop ~$4k on semi-pro setup for creative work.

This isn't some sort of play at taking on the whole monitor market. It's a niche product offering for those who want a companion monitor with their Mac Studio. And it's priced accordingly. They aren't going after Dell, LG, BenQ, Samsung and the rest of them who play in the 'value' space. Smart.

 

[cinder]

Is there a single other monitor out there that is 5K with this resolution other than the LG?

I realize it doesn't have HDR nor 120hz but . . . does any other display out there have those features AND the exact same pixel dimensions? I think the current selection of panels and limitations of the current iteration of Thunderbolt mean that you can't have those things and a 5k screen.

Which, in a sense, is maybe gonna be kinda sad if the upcoming M2 supports Thunderbolt 4, cuz that means all of these 'new' Macs don't support it.

 

[bushman4]

While the Mac Studio has its merits unfortunately it’s not for the average user like the iMac 27” was
Mac Studio has great capabilities for graphics and gamers
most people are casual users and are not going to pay the price

 

[k995]

While the Mac Studio has its merits unfortunately it’s not for the average user like the iMac 27” was
Mac Studio has great capabilities for graphics and gamers
most people are casual users and are not going to pay the price

For gamers : Alienware AW3423DW is cheaper and better in every way for gaming.

For people profesionally busy with graphics: sure but even there its still quite expensive for what it delivers.

 

[Cashmonee]

Is there a single other monitor out there that is 5K with this resolution other than the LG?

I realize it doesn't have HDR nor 120hz but . . . does any other display out there have those features AND the exact same pixel dimensions? I think the current selection of panels and limitations of the current iteration of Thunderbolt mean that you can't have those things and a 5k screen.

Which, in a sense, is maybe gonna be kinda sad if the upcoming M2 supports Thunderbolt 4, cuz that means all of these 'new' Macs don't support it.

There isn't. Which is very disappointing and honestly feels like Apple of the 90's and early 00's with their proprietary connections like ADC, ADB and FireWire (I know that wasn't Apple exclusive, but it was basically non-existent outside of Macs). Right now, there is no great solution for an external monitor for a Mac because of the insistence on integer scaling. They bet on 5K and it looks like they backed the wrong horse. If Apple would have accepted 4K as the future, they could have worked on scaling solutions for that resolution. It is especially frustrating since 4K is plenty of resolution for a 27" screen on a desk if the scaling is done well.

 

[turbineseaplane]

They bet on 5K and it looks like they backed the wrong horse. If Apple would have accepted 4K as the future, they could have worked on scaling solutions for that resolution.

And if we connect with the timeline (first 5k released in late 2014), we are right in the middle of the Trashcan MacPro mistakes on direction (the all/dual GPU "future", etc) and heading into the butterfly keyboard disaster (likely being worked on in the labs at that time).

Essentially it was "prime Ive" time on direction..

 

[cinder]

There isn't. Which is very disappointing and honestly feels like Apple of the 90's and early 00's with their proprietary connections like ADC, ADB and FireWire (I know that wasn't Apple exclusive, but it was basically non-existent outside of Macs). Right now, there is no great solution for an external monitor for a Mac because of the insistence on integer scaling. They bet on 5K and it looks like they backed the wrong horse. If Apple would have accepted 4K as the future, they could have worked on scaling solutions for that resolution. It is especially frustrating since 4K is plenty of resolution for a 27" screen on a desk if the scaling is done well.

I don't fault them for the choices they made - except now I really have to question their decision to 'end of life' the 27" iMac in all forms which they supposedly have done . . . even though that's the ONLY way they could ship a pro-sumer Mac at 5K 120hz HDR.

 

[fuchsdh]

There isn't. Which is very disappointing and honestly feels like Apple of the 90's and early 00's with their proprietary connections like ADC, ADB and FireWire (I know that wasn't Apple exclusive, but it was basically non-existent outside of Macs). Right now, there is no great solution for an external monitor for a Mac because of the insistence on integer scaling. They bet on 5K and it looks like they backed the wrong horse. If Apple would have accepted 4K as the future, they could have worked on scaling solutions for that resolution. It is especially frustrating since 4K is plenty of resolution for a 27" screen on a desk if the scaling is done well.

4K might be "plenty" of resolution for a 27" display, but it's also not retina resolution by Apple's own specifications. They long ago decided the simple integer scaling option was the simplest and nicest option versus resolution-independent graphics, and it's hard to argue with them given how Windows is only now starting to gracefully handle HiDPI displays.

People who want Apple to make worse and cheaper products fundamentally misunderstand Apple's business. Could they make a 4K 27" display for $1K? Sure. But why would they?

 

[CalMin]

While the Mac Studio has its merits unfortunately it’s not for the average user like the iMac 27” was
Mac Studio has great capabilities for graphics and gamers
most people are casual users and are not going to pay the price

I think the Mac Studio is a replacement for the 27" iMac Pro not the 27" iMac based on pricing alone. The iMac Pro was squarely aimed at those who needed more horsepower, for whom a budget of about $4,000 made sense. That is not a casual user - it's someone who uses their computer to make money.

The (base) Mac Studio and ASD cost about the same as the iMac Pro used to. This is a machine designed for graphics work, video work etc. It provides more computing power than most users need, but again, if you make money with your Mac it makes total sense to spend the extra over an M1 machine.

We are now missing a current equivalent of the 27" iMac in the line up. I suppose you could get that by pairing a Mac mini with an ASD, but my guess is that Apple has something else in mind for that niche, they just haven't released it yet.

 

[Cashmonee]

4K might be "plenty" of resolution for a 27" display, but it's also not retina resolution by Apple's own specifications. They long ago decided the simple integer scaling option was the simplest and nicest option versus resolution-independent graphics, and it's hard to argue with them given how Windows is only now starting to gracefully handle HiDPI displays.

People who want Apple to make worse and cheaper products fundamentally misunderstand Apple's business. Could they make a 4K 27" display for $1K? Sure. But why would they?

Retina is nothing more than a marketing term that Apple came up with that is not supported by the realities of what the human eye can and cannot see. That aside, I never said Apple should make 4k monitors instead of 5k. I was saying that they designed macOS in a way that made it not work with any resolution that could not offer integer scaling for reasonably sized screen elements. At the time I can see what they were thinking. I suspect they were going to be getting out of the business of offering headless Macs (they went to retina in 2012 around the time the trash can was released and the mini was about to go into dormancy). More recently they clearly changed course and now are offering a full array of headless Macs, but they painted themselves into a corner monitor-wise. They created an OS that only scales well to screen resolutions that no one outside of Apple makes.

I don't expect Apple to offer a 4k monitor. I expect them to either offer a reasonably priced 27" 5k monitor or bring back text smoothing and improve non-integer scaling in macOS.

 

[petvas]

For everyone not understanding the value of the Studio Display I suggest you read this: https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays2/
It explains pretty well why many of us wanted a 5K 27“ display. 4K is not enough when using macOS, if you value sharp text and images.

 

[vddobrev]

For everyone not understanding the value of the Studio Display I suggest you read this: https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays2/
It explains pretty well why many of us wanted a 5K 27“ display. 4K is not enough when using macOS, if you value sharp text and images.

I love sharp text and sharp images, I have seen this chart many times, and it does not make any sense to me. Retina display is a factor of screen resolution and distance to the screen, i.e. at what distance you will not be able to see the pixels. End of story. I can see the pixels of my iPhone if I bring it too close. In the same way, I can see pixels on 5K up-too-close. If we go back to 1080 displays - yes we can see pixels, but at 4K and above - no if you set up at proper distance.

Today I went to see the ASD in person, as well as compare the Dell 32" U3223QE. I wanted to like the ASD. I was not impressed, to say the least, I was even disappointed. This is the same old iMac glossy screen (well a little better) that is complete mirror in bright daylight working conditions, such as my office and living room. I sold the iMac, I was tired of seeing myself, and every other reflection. Apples nano-texture implementation is poor on the ASD, it is very fuzzy. Perhaps the nano-texture is better on the XDR - I have not seen it, but have a friend who swears it is very good.

I chose the Dell 3223QE - a 4K display. I set it up on my desk, at exactly 78cm viewing distance at full 4K resolution, and I do not see pixels. It is perfect. This is retina to me! And I have way more real estate than 2560x1440.

Not to speak of the single input of the ASD, compared to 3 inputs of the Dell monitor, and included: tilt, height, and swivel stand, a USB-C hub, and a KVM switch.

Price wise, in local currency the Dell was 1950 compared to 4999 of the ASD.

Once again, this is my opinion only, not trying to put down the ASD, but to me personally 32" 4K at the proper distance is retina. Sorry, 5K or not, the ASD is a poor value in 2022 from my point of view.

Edit: And one more thing... fans in display is equal to sucking in dust and getting in between the screen and the glass, resulting in dark stains. iMac 5K screen was not fully laminated to the glass, it was isolated with tape, and it was a common problem. I had the screen replaced for dust stains, only to have the same problem a few months after. Unless the LCD is fully laminated to glass in the ASD (I doubt it) it will, sooner or later, develop dust stains because of constant forced airflow. So I don't see a value in this first iteration of the ASD, no.

 

[lcubed]

I love sharp text and sharp images, I have seen this chart many times, and it does not make any sense to me. Retina display is a factor of screen resolution and distance to the screen, i.e. at what distance you will not be able to see the pixels. End of story. I can see the pixels of my iPhone if I bring it too close. In the same way, I can see pixels on 5K up-too-close. If we go back to 1080 displays - yes we can see pixels, but at 4K and above - no if you set up at proper distance.

Today I went to see the ASD in person, as well as compare the Dell 32" U3223QE. I wanted to like the ASD. I was not impressed, to say the least, I was even disappointed. This is the same old iMac glossy screen (well a little better) that is complete mirror in bright daylight working conditions, such as my office and living room. I sold the iMac, I was tired of seeing myself, and every other reflection. Apples nano-texture implementation is poor on the ASD, it is very fuzzy. Perhaps the nano-texture is better on the XDR - I have not seen it, but have a friend who swears it is very good.

your situation is a perfect fit for the nano-textured ASD.

 

[vddobrev]

your situation is a perfect fit for the nano-textured ASD.

I am sorry to break it to you, but Dell's Anti-glare 3H Hard Coating is superior to Apple's nano-texture BS on the ASD. Dell's anti glare, while not perfect, preserves sharpness. Once again, Apples $1000 nano-texture on the XDR may be superior, but I have not had the chance to see it. But nano-texture on the ASD - no, a fuzzy mess.

 

[lcubed]

your complaint was regarding the standard glossy glass.
did they actually have examples of the nano-textured for you to judge?

 

[Golf7-R]

I love sharp text and sharp images, I have seen this chart many times, and it does not make any sense to me. Retina display is a factor of screen resolution and distance to the screen, i.e. at what distance you will not be able to see the pixels. End of story. I can see the pixels of my iPhone if I bring it too close. In the same way, I can see pixels on 5K up-too-close. If we go back to 1080 displays - yes we can see pixels, but at 4K and above - no if you set up at proper distance.

Today I went to see the ASD in person, as well as compare the Dell 32" U3223QE. I wanted to like the ASD. I was not impressed, to say the least, I was even disappointed. This is the same old iMac glossy screen (well a little better) that is complete mirror in bright daylight working conditions, such as my office and living room. I sold the iMac, I was tired of seeing myself, and every other reflection. Apples nano-texture implementation is poor on the ASD, it is very fuzzy. Perhaps the nano-texture is better on the XDR - I have not seen it, but have a friend who swears it is very good.

I chose the Dell 3223QE - a 4K display. I set it up on my desk, at exactly 78cm viewing distance at full 4K resolution, and I do not see pixels. It is perfect. This is retina to me! And I have way more real estate than 2560x1440.

Not to speak of the single input of the ASD, compared to 3 inputs of the Dell monitor, and included: tilt, height, and swivel stand, a USB-C hub, and a KVM switch.

Price wise, in local currency the Dell was 1950 compared to 4999 of the ASD.

Once again, this is my opinion only, not trying to put down the ASD, but to me personally 32" 4K at the proper distance is retina. Sorry, 5K or not, the ASD is a poor value in 2022 from my point of view.

Edit: And one more thing... fans in display is equal to sucking in dust and getting in between the screen and the glass, resulting in dark stains. iMac 5K screen was not fully laminated to the glass, it was isolated with tape, and it was a common problem. I had the screen replaced for dust stains, only to have the same problem a few months after. Unless the LCD is fully laminated to glass in the ASD (I doubt it) it will, sooner or later, develop dust stains because of constant forced airflow. So I don't see a value in this first iteration of the ASD, no.

I use both displays: the Dell at work and the ASD at home! Guess where I am working from most of the time now! The difference in sharpness is very obvious and so much better on the ASD. Yes even with the 78cm viewing distance!! Btw even with 'More Space' scaling on the ASD the text is still sharper than on the Dell.
I can even see the difference between 27 4k vs 5k. But 4k at 32 and then calling it retina?! Guess to each their own..but the ASD is worth it to me!

 

[vddobrev]

I use both displays: the Dell at work and the ASD at home! Guess where I am working from most of the time now! The difference in sharpness is very obvious and so much better on the ASD. Yes even with the 78cm viewing distance!! Btw even with 'More Space' scaling on the ASD the text is still sharper than on the Dell.
I can even see the difference between 27 4k vs 5k. But 4k at 32 and then calling it retina?! Guess to each their own..but the ASD is worth it to me!

Yes of course, to each their own, and I admit that the ASD has a higher PPI. But the Dell is sharp enough for me.

I clearly stated my opinion, not putting down the value of the ASD that people may hold to it. In my own opinion, and in my setup it is a poor value in terms of price vs performance. And that is subjective, because each and everyone of us has a different scale of what that is.

Another example I can present is the speakers, web cam, and microphones that are built in the ASD. Some people value those, others like me don't. I do my zoom calls on headphones only, and rarely use a web cam if at all, my meetings are usually with a team of 30, and we don't do video. If I have to zoom with video, I use my iPad. For me, those features are added nonsense to the ASD and only drive the price up. But again that is me. For me personally, the Dell U3223QE is the better value, it is 2.5 times cheaper. If the ASD was $999 with no speakers, web cam, microphones, A13 chip, etc. and had multiple inputs, then perhaps I might have been in favour of it.

 

[Golf7-R]

Yes of course, to each their own, and I admit that the ASD has a higher PPI. But the Dell is sharp enough for me.

I clearly stated my opinion, not putting down the value of the ASD that people may hold to it. In my own opinion, and in my setup it is a poor value in terms of price vs performance. And that is subjective, because each and everyone of us has a different scale of what that is.

Another example I can present is the speakers, web cam, and microphones that are built in the ASD. Some people value those, others like me don't. I do my zoom calls on headphones only, and rarely use a web cam if at all, my meetings are usually with a team of 30, and we don't do video. If I have to zoom with video, I use my iPad. For me, those features are added nonsense to the ASD and only drive the price up. But again that is me. For me personally, the Dell U3223QE is the better value, it is 2.5 times cheaper. If the ASD was $999 with no speakers, web cam, microphones, A13 chip, etc. and had multiple inputs, then perhaps I might have been in favour of it.

And I clearly stated my opinion about the Dell. For 600€ less where I live this monitor has no better value! Less PPI, no cam, no speakers, plastic build and shaky stand! ASDs unique selling feature is 5k! 14,7 Millionen vs 8,3 Millionen pixels is a huge difference! There are 2 monitors with 5k at 27! What is the unique selling feature of the 1000€ Dell?! I rather spend 200€ more and just get the LG 5k! or just spend way less for any other 4k out there..