It cannot do HDR if it produces 400 nits. Calling that HDR is marketing BS and I am happy Apple does not get into that business!
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.
Samsung's iMac-Style 'Smart Monitor M8' With AirPlay Now Available to Pre-Order
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
While the M8 has lots of entertainment apps, including Apple TV, I only see a speaker in the specifications, no audio output is cited. That would preclude it from being a decent entertainment system or even much for gaming. I assume it has audio blutooth output but still do not see it in the spec. We will find out when it is reviewed.
All the time? Probably not. Sometimes? Yes, it can help, especially if working in a bright environment or if you want a "real" HDR experience. 400 nits HDR is okay but not very impressive. 600+ is much more impressive.
I’m not arguing more resolution isn’t sharper. However, there are people running monitors that are only 1440p vertical resolution and are already working under that pixel density. Just look at the vertical resolution of all the ultrawide monitors and the number of people still running a 2560 x 1440 27” monitor. This is a consumer monitor and the resolution is still a jump up. I run a 5k iMac next to a apple Thunderbolt Display. While I prefer the iMac, it’s not like I’m crying everytime I work of the other display.
People complain for Apple not being consumer friendly enough and then when they do, complain there is nothing special about it. It didn’t really matter what Apple did with their display as people would have complained. Samsung however, created a display clearly intended for the average consumer and with that some sacrifices had to be made.
I don't think so.
10 years old one can't beat new one.
However I'm not interested in 32" 4K monitor. 27" 4K is limitation for the Mac.
Could be the companion monitor for a Mac mini or any MacBook. Looks cool.
so the display on an iPhone 3G is perfectly fine compared to an iPhone 4?
at 4K resolution, the screen size should be 21“ and nothing larger. thats the parameters that Apple has for a “retina” display, and it’s clear the industry is nothing going in with hidpi because of costs. this display will look horrible with MacOS. of course, not an issue with Windows users since the OS can scale properly.
that being said, i love the industrial design. had it been smaller it would pair perfectly next to a 24” iMac.
One would think, it even at $400 there is a nearly 3 month backorder. People will pay.
This is the kind of technology Apples competitors can release but Apple can never release, for this price. I hope it is very successful and they produce more products like this. Aluminum is so much better than plastic because you don't need to waste space with a frame and a plastic shell, the shell is the frame.
I hear what you’re saying, but some Mac users don’t care about proper scaling and 5K resolution.
I’m not one of them, but those who use a Mac for spreadsheets and general productivity would likely welcome an affordable 32” monitor.
Funnily enough, the promo photo shows it with a spreadsheet app running on the screen.
I'm just amused that they didn't just copy the base design and colours, they also used Apple TV+ to advertise it. 
As for the pixel density, 140 ppi is too high for macOS IMO, but I suppose it could be used as a 70 ppi equivalent. But then everything would look ginormous. Not ideal for macOS, but usable for some on macOS in some scenarios.
I'm not a big fan of the 5K Studio's 27" size either though. It's 218 ppi Retina, which I find a bit small at times for default font sizes, although it's been getting better of late. (I say this while typing on my 218 ppi 5K iMac.) My preference is somewhere around 100 ppi non-Retina or 200 ppi Retina.
To get 100/200 ppi, for a 1080p/4K screen that means 22" and for a 2.5/5K screen that means 29". Interestingly, Apple used to sell monitors like this, but then changed course for whatever reason.
I just hope in the next couple of years, more computers come with the ability built-in to support 5K monitors at high pixel density, and finally we'll get more proper "Retina" 5K monitors on the market at other pixel densities than Apple's preferred 218 ppi. The problem right now is that after all these years they still aren't popular, because of cost, because of the inability of older computers to run them, and because of Windows' historical limitations with support.
As for the pixel density, 140 ppi is too high for macOS IMO, but I suppose it could be used as a 70 ppi equivalent. But then everything would look ginormous. Not ideal for macOS, but usable for some on macOS in some scenarios.
I'm not a big fan of the 5K Studio's 27" size either though. It's 218 ppi Retina, which I find a bit small at times for default font sizes, although it's been getting better of late. (I say this while typing on my 218 ppi 5K iMac.) My preference is somewhere around 100 ppi non-Retina or 200 ppi Retina.
To get 100/200 ppi, for a 1080p/4K screen that means 22" and for a 2.5/5K screen that means 29". Interestingly, Apple used to sell monitors like this, but then changed course for whatever reason.
I just hope in the next couple of years, more computers come with the ability built-in to support 5K monitors at high pixel density, and finally we'll get more proper "Retina" 5K monitors on the market at other pixel densities than Apple's preferred 218 ppi. The problem right now is that after all these years they still aren't popular, because of cost, because of the inability of older computers to run them, and because of Windows' historical limitations with support.
Yes, the HDR labeling is bogus, but this monitor does do 98% DCI-P3 and is compatible with HDR inputs and downsamples as necessary. This is a big deal IMO.
The M7 which preceded it had a "satin finish anti-reflective screen". So if the M8 is the same, I think that's a no.
I was thinking the same thing. I thought you had to have at least 1000 nits of peak brightness to comply with the HDR spec...?
HDR with only 400 nits of brightness? ??
As others have already mentioned, that display is incapable of properly displaying HDR content - albeit not for the reason they mentioned.
Maximum number of nits as specified on a spec sheet is not a good indication of whether or not a display can properly display HDR content.
As the name implies the one characteristic that makes a display "HDR" first and foremost is the contrast ratio (including the local contrast ratio to some extent). A display might reach 10 000 nits, if its contrast ratio is 1000:1 (typical of most IPS displays), it won't properly display HDR content, full stop.
It seems that the Samsung M8 is specified with a 3000:1 contrast ratio (https://news.samsung.com/global/sam...s-m8-the-new-and-stylish-smart-monitor-series), while theoretically that's better than regular IPS displays, it remains to be seen how it performs in practice (I'm not hoping for much). In all cases that isn't enough for HDR content anyway.
This display can't reach much above 250cd/m2 with a 100% white image and yet you'll get a better HDR experience with it than anything Apple has to offer, as long as you watch it in a dark environment : https://www.lg.com/ca_en/desktop-monitors/lg-27ep950-b
VESA's HDR400 certification is a joke, but the HDR400 True Black isn't
. I'd argue that of the three characteristics often brought forward to describe the HDR experience, ie contrast ratio (including local), wide colour gamut / volume, high maximum brightness, the latter is the least important, particularly for something you'll use indoors.
Apple's marketing for the XDR display in regards to its HDR capabilities is dubious as well. The XDR's number of local dimming zones isn't enough to properly display some HDR content (worst case scenario, a star field for example) and can introduce inaccuracies when creating content (even SDR BTW).
I quite like the design, and especially the price. I could see myself buy this.
If you hold down the "option" button, you can select other display settings when clicking "Scaled" in "Display Settings"
Huh? I'm quite happy with my Mac Mini (Studio tomorrow!) hooked up to my 32" 4K HDR10 monitor
This is what a CONSUMER monitor from Apple should have been. The average user doesn't need the fancy features a designer or developer does. At $700 I think they will still make a nice profit.
