Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
And Nilay is Debbie Downer on the Studio Display.
Frankly the uniformity of the backlight also looked like ****. Apple haven’t really done enough with this monitor compared to the Mini-LED displays used in the iPad Pro 12.9”, MacBook Pro 14”, MacBook Pro 16” and the 6K XDR Display.

Hopefully QD-OLED will soon hit higher resolutions. The Dell AW3423DW is a 34” QD-OLED (3440x1400@175Hz) that goes for $1299. It does GSYNC Ultimate and HDR1000.
 
Last edited:
Apparently the reason the Display sits so high is so that people can fit the fat Mac Studio computer underneath the monitor. But that's also a design phail since it is ergonomically damaging the primary purpose to achieve a secondary purpose.
 
Frankly the uniformity of the backlight also looked like ****. Apple haven’t really done enough with this monitor compared to the Mini-LED displays used in the iPad Pro 12.9”, MacBook Pro 14”, MacBook Pro 16” and the 6K XDR Display.

Hopefully QD-OLED will soon hit higher resolutions. The Dell AW3423DW is a 34” QD-OLED (3440x1400@175Hz) that goes for $1299.
That suggests that high-res displays using QD-OLED will be very expensive.
 
Apparently the reason the Display sits so high is so that people can fit the fat Mac Studio computer underneath the monitor. But that's also a design phail since it is ergonomically damaging the primary purpose to achieve a secondary purpose.
That actually is the reason or the monitor's height, but considering that you don't know the height of the user's desk and chair or how tall the user is, calling the display stand height a fail simply demonstrates the holes in your argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jax44
Lol - it's so high you have to stand to use it. And it cannot even be lowered AT ALL. Design PHAIL (on an otherwise nice unit)
View attachment 1975048
Maybe it has to do with Apple Fitness + challenge?

Atleast you won’t be receiving these stand up reminders anymore 😌
 

Attachments

  • 1647526161762.jpeg
    1647526161762.jpeg
    41.4 KB · Views: 65
it would suck to be someone who spent $13,000 on a mac pro ? well i suppose if you have that much money you probably wouldn't care or maybe you just have more money than brains.

just pay another $400 to be able to adjust the height, duh.

it's Apple and incase you hadn't noticed they will cut the most basic **** out and ask you to pay stupid prices for it. a glorified matte display? that'll be $300. want to adjust the angle and height of your display? $400 please and thanks.
As some with a Mac Pro (and a Mac Studio arriving soon), it really doesn't suck to be someone who owns a Mac Pro - there's plenty it can do that the Mac Studio can't, even for creative professionals.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: krspkbl
Apple tries to justify the price by comparing it to what now looks like very overpriced intel hardware. Thats probably the best argument right there. But at its core, compared to the case, CPU and cooling system of an M1 mac mini that is $700, Apple is saying that an M1 Max is worth $1,300 over the price of a base mini for having twice the amount of aluminum, metal, and silicon. How are the M1 chips cheaper than intel when Apple commands such a high price for them? How many hundreds out of that $1,300 is profit and how much is CPU cost? I don't think intel was charging that much. They surely arent being sold on how much more they cost to produce, they are being priced by how much you think they are worth compared to other Apple products. How much more profit is Apple making out of each unit, double from before? Seems like it.
That's the whole point of business. You don't simply price a product based on how much it costs to make; you price it based on the value you believe it brings the customers. The two aren't mutually exclusive here. Apple can be earning a handsome margin from them, and they can still provide incredible value compared to an Intel desktop of equivalent price, and chances are, you won't quite get the same performance in as compact a form factor either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: citysnaps
I like it but I am moving away from the desktop and back to the laptop clamshell with my next purchase..
 
I find it amazing that on tech enthusiast sites like this there are always people claiming that no-one could ever need performance like this and what we have now is perfectly fine for all use cases.

Lets be clear, you can't know what every persons use case is and someone who wants extra performance does not need to justify it to you.

After owning Macs for a few years I'm now back to being 100% PC but even though I don't intend to buy a Mac again I love to see how Apple are pushing the performance with their chips as it will lead to their competitors needing to do the same, which is good for everyone....or should we tell Intel, AMD and Apple to just shutdown their R&D divisions because we really don't need any more performance!?
Yeah I'm very surprised to see this sentiment. I suspect it might be young kids who don't really have an understanding of how the world or various creative industries work. Everyone's needs are different.

I also agree with the competitiveness. I always need more power working as a freelancer. I like it when companies push the envelope and make others react. I happen to live in both worlds with a little M1 MacBook Pro for business-y stuff and my PC for the heavy creative work. Not even a hardcore gamer needs the setup I have. Everyone's needs are different. It's like some of these kids commenting here think that their needs must be everyone's needs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wnorris and BurgDog
ArsTechnica also has their “review” up. Just thoughts and benchmarks, nothing with regards to actual workflow.
That workflow is the part preventing me from being able to move our office into the Mx-era Apple. Until Apple takes over Dassault Systemes or AutoDesk and forces them to write a version of Solidworks or Inventor, or any of a dozen other pro design apps & a hundred other utilities that only run on x86, all this top dollar M1ultra horsepower would be limited to checking email, which any old iPad can do just as well.
 
No one said the m1 max was slow; things can always be faster but who cares if you can export 2min quicker
Dude. That means everything when you're a freelancer.

Say for example I'm rendering a 3D animation. Say on my rig I can render a frame in 18 seconds. Another rig can do a frame in 2 minutes and 18 seconds. Say we're rendering a 15 second animation at 24fps. That's 360 frames.

That would mean I could render the animation in 1.8 hours and the other computer would do it in 13.8 hours.

If you can't see the difference or why someone like me would care about that, I don't know what to tell you. Often times even on higher end hardware when a render is taking place it's typically not a good idea to continue other creative work for stability reasons and to give the render as many resources as you can. Render time is EVERYTHING in this field of work. When rendering is happening, you're not creating. When you're not creating, you're not progressing on projects. And when you're not finishing projects, you're not getting paid. And that's not even taking into account all the GPU-accelerated features and add-ons that exist. I use Mocha Pro all the time for match moving and that's GPU-accelerated. When you're waiting less time for things like tracking a subject you're more efficient and efficiency is everything.

Do you understand now? Sorry for the tone but I'm taken aback by how powerfully misinformed you are.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who is used to drumming their fingers during a render I imagine. Those 2 mins will add up over the life of a job.
Yep. I was once a pro video editor and time was money. The time spent rendering was time I wasn’t working. As a freelancer, that was more important than you can possibly imagine. A 2 minute render vs a 30 second render makes a big, big difference.
 
I bought the M1 mini last year when I absolutely needed a new computer and was a little low on funds. If I had to make that decision today I would buy the Studio with the M1 Max. At $1,999 and 32GB, that is the absolute sweet spot in the Mac desktop line up right now. I upgraded my mini to 16GB memory and a 1TB SSD and it came in at $1,099. The base level Studio with 1TB is $2,199, only $1,100 more, and it’s a beast. I’m an app developer, audio engineer, and occasional video editor. The M1 works well for me, but the Max would give me that extra oomph to help speed up my workflow. I’m recommending it to anyone looking for a desktop Mac and does more than basic office functionality. But the M1 alone is still pretty impressive, especially when I have to go back to my 2015 MacBook Pro and want to put my fist through it it’s so slow now.
 
I do wish Apple would step out and make an interesting-looking new computer instead of just saying "double the height of a Mac Mini" but I really appreciate the ports on the front. Function is finally getting its due over form.
 
  • Like
Reactions: icwhatudidthere
Yep. I was once a pro video editor and time was money. The time spent rendering was time I wasn’t working. As a freelancer, that was more important than you can possibly imagine. A 2 minute render vs a 30 second render makes a big, big difference.
Not to mention, if your Studio can give the client multiple options in the length of time your Mini could only give one, that's a massive improvement.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Orange Bat
All I want to know is this: when you scroll the timeline in FCP, can it ‘keep up’ drawing in the wave forms? Because despite the M1 Mac Mini’s promise, it can’t. And it infuriates me!
 
That workflow is the part preventing me from being able to move our office into the Mx-era Apple. Until Apple takes over Dassault Systemes or AutoDesk and forces them to write a version of Solidworks or Inventor, or any of a dozen other pro design apps & a hundred other utilities that only run on x86, all this top dollar M1ultra horsepower would be limited to checking email, which any old iPad can do just as well.
I've often thought the same thing. Now I only do photo work and occasionally dabble in video a few times a year as an artist/semi-pro. I have a day job.
I'm sticking with my 2018 Intel Mini with eGPU and Mojave for now as I don't see the point in switching to M based system as there is no benefit and losing 32-bit support would just make me switch to Windows.

Now things have probably changed in the field since I was last immersed in it more 8-9 years ago but I'm surprised to see something as big as Adobe's AE still being Intel based and requires Rosetta 2. Alot of smaller utilities and plugins will never be ported to M which is why I think the M series has so much horsepower to begin with.
Apple knows they lost a TON of software in PPC-Intel switch. They were a smaller market then, the Intel-M switch is huge compared to that and having all this extra horsepower to emulate Intel code seems like their solution to the problem.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.