Small is relative. Many Mac users will buy this display. In this regard it will sell like hot cakes.
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
Honestly, I think you've missed the point. I've noticed that others mentioned it to you so I won't be repeating it here
I don't think so. My work is mainly Office-based too. I stare at text all day. My 27" 5K monitor gives me 2560×1440 real estate (which I consider necessary to have at least two windows side-by-side) and pin-sharp text, which is just perfect for my needs. A "4K" monitor only gives me pin-sharp 1920×1080 real estate; that's not enough for me (yes, I tried).
So, the Studio Display's price aside, a 27" 5K monitor is definitely not overkill for that kind of work IMO.
A "1080p" monitor doesn't provide pin-sharp text on macOS BTW.
I must be the only person that runs their 5k iMac at native resolution
. I do for a couple of reasons... 1. I can't stand 2560×1440 on a 27" screen, way to much space used.
2. In terms of scaling it ruins viewing photos in the preview app and on the web. While apps like LightRoom handle scaling correctly (still showing you the true image size) other apps don't (like preview) and viewing photos on the web will show the images at 2x.
I have two additional monitors, but I totally get yoir point.
I also do it for viewing pictures in Preview, for that very reason:I must be the only person that runs their 5k iMac at native resolution
Negative reviews are IMO very understandable: for the price you used to (almost) get a 27 5K screen with a computer all-in-one (processor, motherboard, memory chips, disk drive + webcam + speakers) you now get: a 27 5K screen + somewhat beter webcam & speakers.
Even had Apple implemented improved technology (like higher refresh rate), this price would be quite high. But asking so much for a literally 8 year old panel is ridiculous.
Even had Apple implemented improved technology (like higher refresh rate), this price would be quite high. But asking so much for a literally 8 year old panel is ridiculous.
This is me exactly. I want an iMac for the simplicity on my desk, but I also want the power of the upgraded M1 chips that are available in the MBP and Studio. Both of those options would require me to have an external monitor and everything I'm seeing on the market is just...not cutting the mustard.
I'm still holding out hope for an iMac Pro (preferably with Target Display Mode, if I'm dreaming) or an upgraded iMac with a Pro, Max, or Ultra chip. If that product is truly dead, I'm not sure what I'll do. The Studio is enticing, but becomes less so when I'm tacking on $1500+ for a screen to go with it. The MBP has a screen, but I'll still want something bigger for more real estate so it doesn't really change anything on that front. To me, aesthetics are also an important factor otherwise I'd go for a non-Apple monitor. Frankly, everything else I've seen out there is ugly, thicker than an LED monitor should be in 2022, or (most likely) both. The closest thing I've seen come close to being a consideration is the NexMonitor but there are too many unknowns for me to seriously consider it.
I was really expecting Apple's new monitor to come in at $1k like the Thunderbolt Display but they overengineered this one and drove the cost up past what I'd believe many people are willing to pay. I understand the disappointment people have over the features that it's lacking that really should be there at this price point (HDR, mini LED, a height-adjustable stand that doesn't add an extra $400 to an already pricey display).
I checked eBay for bare 5K panels and what I found was around $500 to $600. Considering that these are priced as high as the market will bear for buying from an unreliable source, I wouldn’t be surprised if LG charges $800 or more for the panels brand new. And, that kinda aligns with them making a reasonable profit at $1,299.
Finally got round to going to a Apple store today, took the 5K iMac shown in the signature with me to side by side it.
It says it all when even the store's own staff aren't interested in buying them, even if they could scrape up the money for it.
I used a side by side comparison of them on max brightness using the Apple Display DCI P3 profiles then inspecting the Eizo test - https://www.eizo.be/monitor-test/
Gradient intervals at 256 steps were considerably more noticeable on the Studio Display than the iMac, especially in Cyan and Magenta. So i'm fairly sure the panel in the Studio Display is a cheaper one than that in the iMacs.
No it's not. Mac users account for about 9.5% of the desktop computer market, only a small segment of which are actually going to be able to cough up the price for this screen, let alone those who are looking at the practical elements of the screen and absolutely going "WTF?".
It says it all when even the store's own staff aren't interested in buying them, even if they could scrape up the money for it.
I used a side by side comparison of them on max brightness using the Apple Display DCI P3 profiles then inspecting the Eizo test - https://www.eizo.be/monitor-test/
Gradient intervals at 256 steps were considerably more noticeable on the Studio Display than the iMac, especially in Cyan and Magenta. So i'm fairly sure the panel in the Studio Display is a cheaper one than that in the iMacs.
No it's not. Mac users account for about 9.5% of the desktop computer market, only a small segment of which are actually going to be able to cough up the price for this screen, let alone those who are looking at the practical elements of the screen and absolutely going "WTF?".
if my memory serves me correctly, Windows has always been based on a 96dpi user interface so 5k 27" never had a chance in the Windows world. See the Surface Studio's display - 28" 4500 x 3000 (192 PPI for 2x scaling).
and as you mention, Samsung and Sharp have discontinued their panels so there is somewhat of a supply constraint working in apple's favor. complete speculation but I could see apple buying up most/all of LG's production for the next 6 months given that supplies are already tight, they know there likely won't be any competition for this monitor for the foreseeable future and they have a captive market to charge a premium price to. i hope later this summer/fall there may be another LG model or perhaps something from Dell.
in terms of price, there is definitely an apple tax but as as been mentioned by a few other posters there is just alot of "stuff" in this package that doesn't improve its capabilities as a display first and foremost. I have no interest in software updates every 8 weeks for my display. also when did height adjustment become a "premium feature"? I can see on $149 acer displays why theres no height adjustment but at this price point?
id have to disagree here. a small random seller making one off sales is going to shoot for a way higher margin than LG selling in quantities of 10s or 100s of thousands to apple. If the small seller is charging $500 no way apple is paying more than $300 in my opinion.
This didn’t prevent a slew of “4K” monitors ranging from about 104 (42.5”) to 185 ppi (23.6”) from appearing though.
And Windows can do fractional scaling.Unfortunately Panelook lists that panel as discontinued:
104.219.172.33 - Please verify yourself to continue
This didn’t prevent a slew of “4K” monitors ranging from about 104 (42.5”) to 185 ppi (23.6”) from appearing though.
very true. my response would be the mammoth size of the PC market and gamers looking for "the next new feature" make it much less risky to put out a hodgepodge of specs.As new interesting (to me) 27" monitors are suggested in this thread I'm adding them to a spreadsheet. However I really can't get past not having 5k (as I said a few posts up I run my iMac 5k in native resolution so going down to 4k will mean I'm losing screen area). If you have one you think should be on the list let me know.
Anyway, the two monitors so far that kind of stand out in terms of something dramatically better then the ASD are the Asus ($3k) and the Spectrum ($799-$997). The Spectrum being the only one that comes with a Glossy screen (which I prefer). Of course there are the concerns with how long it takes to get the Spectrum and customer support.
I'll keep adding and reposting if people are interested.. if people feel like it's spam I'll just keep it to myself
Anyway, the two monitors so far that kind of stand out in terms of something dramatically better then the ASD are the Asus ($3k) and the Spectrum ($799-$997). The Spectrum being the only one that comes with a Glossy screen (which I prefer). Of course there are the concerns with how long it takes to get the Spectrum and customer support.
I'll keep adding and reposting if people are interested.. if people feel like it's spam I'll just keep it to myself
| Model | Current Price | Resolution | Refresh Rate | Panel Type | HDR Support | Brightness | Contrast | Adobe Coverage | Notes |
| Dell U2720Q | $589 | 4k | 60 | IPS LED Backlit | HDR 400 | 350 | 1300:1 | 83% | |
| Dell UP2720Q | $1,519 | 4k | 60 | IPS White LED edgelight (?) | No HDR Support | 250 | 1300:1 | 100% | |
| ASUS ProArt PA27UCX-K | $2,999 | 4k | 60 | MiniLED | HDR10/HLG/Dolby Vision | 300-1000 | 1000:1 1m:1 | 99.50% | |
| BenQ PD2725U | $949 | 4k | 60 | IPS LED Backlight | HDR400 | 250-400 | 1200:1 | Not listed on their site. Found references from 77%-80% | |
| BenQ SW271 | $1,099 | 4k | 60 | IPS LED Backlight | HDR 10 | 350 | 1000:1 | 99% | |
| Studio | $1599-$2199 | 5k | 60 | IPS LED Backlit | No HDR Support | 600 | 1205:1 (based on 2019 iMac)* | 85% | While no HDR support you can view HDR content on YouTube for some reason (same with my 5k iMac) |
| Spectrum Eve | $799-$997 | 4k | 144 | Nano IPS Oxide TFT LCD | HDR10 | 450-750 | 1000:1 10m:1 | 71% | 16 Edge Lit Dimming Zones Comes in Glossy or Non-Glossy |
Last edited:
Consider that the 27” iMac didn’t have a height-adjustable stand option. It was fixed or VESA.
You shouldn’t assume that a small random seller making one off sales is getting these direct from LG.
I'm not sure that I buy this argument. I mean, who needs an expensive $1,000 iPhone to make phone calls when a cheap $200 Android device will do? Who needs an expensive BMW when a Toyota will do? Isn't a Rolex watch overkill when an inexpensive quartz watch keeps better time?
We buy these things because they are nice, and not because they are needed.
In my case, I have an 8-year old Dell Monitor. Sure it was fine, but it was getting long in the tooth and I had longed for an Apple branded display that worked as well as the old 27" Thunderbolt Display did. One cable, full MacOS integration (autobrightness, keyboard adjustable brightness and volume settings, and TrueTone are really nice to have).
I had actually ordered a Dell U3223QE before Apple announced the ASD. Unfortunately, Dell seems unable to get it made and has pushed out my delivery date to late April. I had planned to run the two displays head to head and keep the best one. However, I have been happy with the ASD and will keep it and cancel the Dell.
FWIW, Iiyama and Planar used 5120×2880 panels that were destined for iMacs — their monitors have the exact same glass front and unpopulated camera hole! — but scrapped due to... quality issues. This enabled them to sell the monitors for ≈$900 but buyers had to be prepared for surprises: my Iiyama had many “stuck” green pixels, for instance.You shouldn’t assume that a small random seller making one off sales is getting these direct from LG.
My point is: when buying “cheap” panels from someone, you may not know what you’re getting.
Last edited:
I was disappointed for sure. Yeah if you compare it to the LG it's not outrageously priced, but the LG is nearly 3 years old. You'd think they would be able to get the price of that panel down a bit since then, or release a much improved version if they were going to keep that price. Prices of all other types of monitors have plummeted in that time. I never use the WebCam or speakers, so those are a waste. The stand is nice, but it looks like the adjustable piece is a requirement (for me at least) or it will be too low, but $400 for that is outrageous, so I'd buy the Vesa option, but why isn't that less money since it has no stand?! I wish they'd make a more basic monitor, even if 4k, in 27 and 32 inch options. Basically just a glossy, Apple looking version of one of the Dell or LG 4k monitors and price it much lower. That paired with a Mini would suit most semi-pro user needs.
I think MKBHD summed it up pretty well. The ASD is not a good deal, but if you want a quality 27" 5k screen, this is now your only option, now that the 27" iMac is discontinued (other than refurb). (The LG 5K ultrafine is not the same quality package.)
For those coming from a 27" 5k iMac, lower your expectations for any meaningful display improvement.
Why would they lower the price? The cost of the Apple display is not based on the price they have to pay for the panel and all other parts. It's based on their market research what the target audience will likely pay for a monitor like this.
Argue about specs is fine, but arguing about the price is pointless and leads to nowhere. Either you find the monitor too expensive, then just don't buy it. Or you find it good value, go ahead and enjoy. The monitor is not too expensive. It may be too expensive for you (not you personally). And I don't mean that in a condescending way of being rich or too poor to buy the monitor. I mean the price is subjective, people value things differently. For some this monitor doesn't provide enough value for the price and for some it does. Like with everything in life.
However, I do have to say it is silly from Apple to go through the trouble of developing a height adjustable stand and still offer the standard non-adjustable as the basis. Objectively, the adjustable one is superior in every way so an inferior solution should not even be an option for a company like Apple, this does look poor for them and indeed a sad attempt to milk customers even more for something that should be standard.
No. THey made a display for people who want 5K resolution at 27" AND who want fancy speakers, a webcam, Siri, etc etc. They did NOT make it for people who really just wanted a very good 5k, 27" screen without all that.
I don't get why this is so hard for some of you to understand. If someone wants all of the stuff packed into the SD it's not badly priced but it's packed with things that do nothing to make it better as a monitor.
If there were several other good 5k monitors out there, this would be much less disappointing but there is, as far as i can tell, just one other choice and many of us were hoping Apple would hit a home run with this. Instead, it's a blooper single that might turn into a stretch double.
Last edited:
Exactly this. If Apple meets an internally projected rate of sales of these monitors at retail price, that means they priced it correctly from their perspective. If you do see Apple lower the price, that means they screwed up. Or they're selling B-stock at slight discount.
Well, nobody forces you to use the webcam and speakers (which are btw amazing). Personally I wouldn't buy the Mac Studio if the Studio Display didn't have integrated speakers and webcam. I just don't want to have extra things on my desk that take up space and do not integrate well with macOS. As soon as I heard that the Studio Display had an integrated camera and speakers, I went out and ordered it.