The longevity of the display concerns me a little bit as far as the A13 and internal components not being adaptable to newer hardware 5-10 years down the road. Obviously the biggest issue would be the speakers and camera not working but I guess only time will tell.
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
They redesigned that in 2020 or 2021? After 4 or 5 years, you think it's the complainers that got Apple to redesign it, or do you think it was ready to be redesigned on Apple's schedule?
…because otherwise it would be a different panel.
Higher brightness is likely just better cooling, and the A13 has no effect at all on the image quality.
I've been looking for a while for a monitor to buy and you are correct. I was actually thinking of buying a TV to use instead of a monitor because the monitor market is stuck in a money making rut instead of being inventive. I cannot wait to get my Apple Studio monitor.
No commentWith or without the straightjacket......
The display it replaced with inflation is $1599…
The only negative I can see it no front facing Apple logo. I am very happy I ordered it. I'm sure i'll be even more thrilled once it gets here in 2056.
So is it possible that apple deliberately settled on a resolution that only a few monitors will show natively, so they can control that market share better? Does anything prevent them from fine tuning macOS so it looks just as good in 4k?
4K is 4x the resolution of 1080p. macOS displays 1080p content in perfect "Retina" quality at 4K. The 5K one-ups it by quadrupling QHD (1440p). Windows takes 1440p content and multiplies it by 2.25 (1.5^2) at 4K. Apple's move meant that developers didn't have to do much to make their apps compatible with "Retina" displays. There are Windows apps to this day that still don't handle high-resolution displays well (certain elements show up with tiny text, etc.).
They’d have to rework the way non-integer scaling works on macOS (unless you’re happy with “1080p” real estate).
macOS can look just as great on a 4K monitor as on a 5K one — on the 218-ppi 21.5” LG UltraFine 4K. That 218-ppi pixel density is key here.
Last edited:
The fact that I can buy a used 2015 or 2017 iMac, buy a display controller, and with some elbow grease get similar functionality for less than half the price makes this seem like a problematic deal. Admittedly, I may be the only one considering that kind of replacement with major electronic surgery. I would have liked at least a new display tech for the studio display’s price.
You shouldn’t be surprised
A lot of folks seem to have a very personal connection to Apple and can’t handle it when Apple releases anything they personally cannot use. Like, Apple could release a good quality Apple wheelchair and folks not even looking for a wheelchair would go ballistic about the poor quality of the product, how Apple’s lost their way and how they hope that no one buys it and that it leads to Apple’s destruction. A point of view might be that the LG was already overpriced to begin with (particularly given the woeful quality).
I think a better comparison is with the iMac 27", since this is basically an iMac 27" with a better webcam, speakers and backlight heat dissipation management, but without the whole computer and accessories, and for only $200 less.
Strictly speaking it rather is a certification from VESA, not a spec per se. The regular HDR 400 certification seems to me indeed as a marketing gimmick as it doesn't feature any of the three major areas of advancement that makes HDR quite interesting (wider colour gamut, higher contrast ratio, higher maximum brightness).
That being said, maximum brightness, either full screen or only a portion of it, in my opinion is a grossly overblown fixation and doesn't ensure in the slightest a decent HDR experience. If your environment is rather dark and controlled, you probably don't need to go much brighter than 600 nits peak for a portion of the screen (and IMO even lower) provided the display still has a high contrast ratio - including local - something OLED panels are pretty good at. Most films are graded in HDR to be watched in such environments and it's very rare that the maximum value reaches 1000 nits as it's just too uncomfortable to watch anyway. Much more important IMO in such environment is that the panel can reach very low black values, is properly calibrated, including near black (big problem), has a wide colour gamut, and that the tone mapping preserves the artistic integrity of the content.
That's what the "True Black 400" and "600" VESA certification recognises. It's tailored made for displays capable of a high contrast ratio, including local, even with a moderate maximum brightness.
In a darker environment I'd rather be using such a screen than the pro XDR which local dimming isn't fine-grained enough to provide a good enough HDR experience (or even be used for grading applications IMO).
HDR isn't just about making stuff brighter, it's a lot more interesting than that, and the push to make displays better at rendering HDR content benefits SDR rendering as well for the most part.
I think it makes a whole lot of sense for Apple's HDR displays to target high brightness values (and therefore rely on LEDs + local dimming for larger displays) as most of them are portable, but I'd love to see Apple make an external, indoors display that deliberately forgoes high brightness values in favour of other benefits (such as an OLED / QD OLED display), at least until mini-LED can reach a high enough density to make this a moot point, particularly since Apple tends to be quite careful about factory calibration and that their implementation of HDR throughout their ecosystem is quite user-friendly.
Are the part numbers exactly the same for the raw panel?
The A13 could have an impact on image quality, assuming they use it to enhance the image driver. Could have less image noise, improve lag/tearing, etc.
You see the “biggest problem” not as what’s wrong with the physical makeup of the device OR it’s price, but, instead, the fact that there are people buying a pile of trash and liking it?
Not everyone is going to like everything Apple produces. Many think that the $1499 price point for a 27 inch monitor, even a 5k one is too high.
Inflation does not apply to electronics in a 1:1 fashion. In fact, most electronics are inversely related to inflation. They usually get cheaper with time. Also, the LG was also overpriced when it was released and still is today. Now, some people are clearly willing to pay the premium. Others are not. I think it is great that we can all voice our opinion!
The available information suggests that the part numbers are one apart (the last number). That usually signifies an evolutionary update. In other words, they are the same panel with minor updates.
Same reason people bitch and whine about apple then buy a no brand $200 android handset every 9 months...
A want doesn’t change the fact that the monitor is $1599, not $1999. Stop trying to move the football, that sh*t doesn’t fly.
No, this group here is going to complain about it now matter how much it costs. There are people here who think it should cost $600, which belies just how out of touch people here have with supply, demands, economies of scale, market size and cost of materials. This literally happens every time Apple introduces a new product. People are still bitching about the 2016 MacBook Pro only having 4 Thunderbolt ports up until the M1 Pro/Max MacBook Pros were released.
I wish they would go build their PCs and be happy with that, but the sheer amount of whining and entitlement with certain sectors of commenters here makes me wonder how much longer society has until total collapse.
This is a monitor that is hard to get behind at the price in my opinion. I purchased a 4k monitor with VRR 144Hz and it's HDR for ~$799. One of the highest rated monitors at rtings.com (can't recommend them enough). I'm not surprised it's more, but double?
Ever since they moved to retina displays Apples offerings have always been top notch. They also hit it out of the park with their original aluminum studio displays. But like with so many of Apples products, you are being charged extra for the ability to use today what will be common and very inexpensive compared to Apple's 5 years after it comes out. So this new monitor is giving you access to something you will be able to buy for about $600 5 years from now. And for that you need to pay Apple extra for hogging the supply chain and swallowing up new technologies for years before others get access to them.
But sometimes their stuff is just that good that getting early access is great, if someone else is footing the bill like your customers or your employer. For home use its a rip off unless you are debt free and have your retirement money already lined up.
But sometimes their stuff is just that good that getting early access is great, if someone else is footing the bill like your customers or your employer. For home use its a rip off unless you are debt free and have your retirement money already lined up.
Except 5K displays have become less common in the past 5 years. It wouldn't surprise me if the market jumps to 8K, which seems like overkill, but that's where large TVs are headed.