Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I'm just an enterprise website developer who knows the screen resolutions and PPI values of dozens of devices off by heart, and have access to an entire suite of monitors for automated testing processes.

But yeah, I'm the uninformed one here. :rolleyes:

But have you understood of macOS handles hi-res display?
It's really particular to resolutions and 4K is not a resolution macOS likes.
 
A display that starts at $1599 is not a consumer device, its pro-sumer at best.
Which is why is was released with the Mac Studio. It’s also in part a replacement of the iMac Pro when paid with the Mac Studio.

This device as well as others fills the lower end consumer market that apple left open likely on purpose.
 
I have the M7, which is the precursor to this model. It is also 4k, 32", USB-C but features a thick (for 2022) and clunkier black plastic display. I have it on a VESA mount adjacent to my 24" M1 iMac, and it works "well enough" for a second screen. The M7 regularly goes for $300 or less and is a great entry point for someone who wants most of the same features in a less attractive design.

I never use the built in Samsung Smart-TV features, but I could see this being a really nice option for someone who did. The interface is identical to Samsung TVs and is highly featured, intuitive, and easy to use.

As a monitor, I find it overall to be a lot less easy to read on than my iMac -- the 5k is just so much better for text and web work. The color profiles on the M7 are also a bit off -- I find the easiest to read is their "eye saver" mode, but this also makes everything look a bit washed out or sepia-toned.

At major software updates, the USB-C connection is lost, and I need to hard reset the M7 monitor, as unplugging and replugging the USB-C or restarting the Mac doesn't seem to do the trick.

It's a great monitor for $300 - especially for the size. I would be less excited about the current price point for the new model unless one was enamored with the aesthetics, especially as the internals are so similar.
 
Also check: https://www.designcompaniesranked.com/resources/is-this-retina/ - if your eyeballs are 25" away from a 32" 4k UHD screen then it is retina by Apple's own yardstick. Maybe you'll see pixels, maybe you won't, but going higher puts you into diminishing returns... which is why 5k hasn't taken off outside the Mac market so you can't get cheap 5k displays.

I'm on average 19" from my 5K iMac and in addition I like to lean into my screens.

I know why I want 5K in a monitor for a Mac. I have tested 4K and it isn't the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dogface1956
We don't want a monopoly. We just want people who don't like Apple's stuff to not complain about it when there are competitive options from others. Just buy these monitor instead of demanding Apple to make stuff they want.

I'd say a majority of people here don't dislike Apple or their stuff in general, me included. But the way Apple has built its product line-up to be meticulously integrated, any weak link is bound to be criticized.

The entire ecosystem is only built to work best when it's Apple-only and the entire experience is noticeably inferior when you throw other brands' products in the mix. So if you give your trust to the Apple ecosystem and they create a substandard product, I think mild, realistic grievances are fairly justified.
 
Love it ! I do not need 5K, like 90% of the userbase probably.
One could argue that 90% of the user-base probably does not 'need' 4k and 1080p would be sufficient for most use cases/workflows. One could also argue that 90% of the people who bought M1 Pro or M1 Max MacBook Pros don't 'need' all of that processing power. Need rarely enters into these purchase decisions. I don't 'need' AirPod Max headphones, but I like the way they sound and the features I get and they are in my price range, just like I don't 'need' the Studio Display but I like the way it looks and the features I get and it is in my price range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: panther quest
So I'm considering this as a primary display for WFH purposes, today I use a 27" LG 4K monitor with a MacBook at scaled 2560 x 1440 resolution. About 5% of the time, I do also use it with various Windows PCs I have, which makes the Studio Display not optimal.

What should I expect from scaling (downgrade?) going from 4K 27" 2560 x 1440 to this Samsung at 32"?

Asking this crowd will get you opinions that it's complete junk, continuously wobbles like you are computing in a non-stop earthquake, text will be impossible to read, graphics will be terrible and at that nit difference you better be an owl masquerading as a human because you'll need owl or better night vision to see anything. ;)

However, Samsung makes great screens. Many times in the past when some Apple device had a combination of Samsung and somebody else's screen and there was some yellowing or other issue, the general hope among this crowd was hoping their replacement would get the Samsung screen. We can appreciate Samsung quality when it serves us and/or is directly endorsed by Apple using it in their own devices.

"We" hate this only because Apple has stepped into this general territory. Had Apple not rolled out the new monitor, this would be competing with the Apple-endorsed LG monitor which was fine (too) right up until Apple rolled out their own (and now it's a "wobbly, pile of plastic junk"). It's always the same. If Apple started making handkerchiefs and priced them for- oh say- $20 each, we quickly start rationalizing why those are the best handkerchiefs in the world and all other hankies are inferior garbage.

As a long-term iMac owner and pretty much Apple everything (else), I went ultra-wide Dell recently: 40" screen. I've seen all of the "everything else" bashing since Apple rolled this one out and much of it is simply untrue. Text isn't blurred. Repeat: isn't... as in IS NOT. In fact, text looks as good on this Dell as it did on my old iMac in spite of this Dell having LESS resolution in the vertical and spreading that 5K over 40" diagonal vs. 27". A big slice of us seem to be in Apple marketing or unpaid, closet Apple marketers operating like if this monitor doesn't sell to every possible person wanting a monitor, Apple may go under. It's not 1996 anymore. Apple doesn't need us to do that. Apple will survive & thrive right on to $3 Trillion if no one else buys this one monitor.

My advice: let your order arrive. Hook it up and judge with your own eyes. From 2560x1440 you'll be getting a big resolution UPGRADE in BOTH dimensions. And for the price- if you liked- you could buy a SECOND one for a 2-monitor setup for about the same price as one of Apple's new monitors.

If it arrives and you don't like it, return it and get something else. I can offer first hand with certainty (and 20:20 vision) that monitors not branded Apple can be quite great monitors too. 4K to 8K pixels jammed into 24"-4X" screens is packing a lot of resolution into a relatively tiny space.
 
Last edited:
A few things people seem to forget. Most people I see with a 5k display is running it in scaled mode for 2560x1440. Sure, pictures and text are sharper. This 4k natively on a 32” display has a native ppi of 137 compared to 109 on a scaled 5k display. I know there are other factors, but running native at this size of a screen actually provides a pretty good resolution to use. Price seems pretty good as well. I have the studio display on order but this seems like a viable option for most people.
That’s not how UI scaling works. The screen resolution does not change from 5120x2880. It remains a 5K display at 218 dpi. They just double the size of all UI elements to simulate how big text and UI elements are as if the display were 2560x1440 at 27”. Just because you change the UI scaling doesn’t mean the dpi changes. The main reason most users use the scaled resolution of 2560x1440 is because scaling 2x is just perfect scaling. They only have to pixel double without doing fractional scaling. Any scaled UI on the Apple Display is going to look a lot sharper than what you see on a 4K display, especially one at 32” since the 137 dpi is not great.
 
Or Apple simply didn't produce them in large quantities... give the illusion of demand via limited supplies.
Marketing 101 ;)
Interestingly Apple haters always seem to rerun this one with every new product. Then, the sales figures shut them down. Ironically, I Have never come across a quote when the haters come back to admit they were dead wrong. Nope, instead they go and find something new to complain about.
 
Yes, this Samsung display is merely 4K at 400 nits, but...

it has built-in smart TV, has thinner bezel, comes standard with height adjustable stand, can also charge laptops and most importantly, is priced reasonably. Studio Display with the height adjustable stand is 2.85x more expensive ($1999 vs $700) and can't be used independently.

Competition is good. :)

But these kinds of monitors have been out for years. No reason to get an Apple monitor if all you needed were good 4K monitors.

It's a reason why it's called M8.
 
These look nice! Really hope they offer a smaller size.

Bout time someone other than Apple tried to modernize the display business a bit. Its ridiculous that we have $500-1000+ displays wrapped in the cheapest plastic possible.

Would definitely buy one of these at 27" and with a VESA mount.
 
You know numbers. Expirience is a different story. I also use various screens in different resolutions. The point is that however the apple display 5k is nice is not 2000 euro nice.
The point to the original commenter was that everyone has different uses and requirements, and that there is nothing wrong at all with a 4K display at this size.
 
But these kinds of monitors have been out for years. No reason to get an Apple monitor if all you needed were good 4K monitors.

It's a reason why it's called M8.
Actually, I'd say the M8 is different in that they are directly copying the 24" iMac now. Yeah, it's lame copycat stuff, but then again, it does look a lot better than their previous M-series monitors.

One of the problems with a lot of the monitors out there, including the LG UltraFines, is most of them look like crap. I'm not talking about the image quality, but the appearance of the frame, etc.

BTW, I wonder how good the camera is. The camera on the Studio Display is apparently crap.
 
Another 4K display. No one but Apple and a few others ever thought to make a 5k and higher display huh
Unfortunately everything still is mostly 4K panels. This is also only 400 nits with 60 Hz refresh rate. Yes wish we had 5k displays to give LG some pressure to price more competitively.
 
But have you understood of macOS handles hi-res display?
It's really particular to resolutions and 4K is not a resolution macOS likes.
I have a 4K display plugged into the 5K iMac I’m using right now. It looks fine for me, no issues with blurry text or elements at all.

Also, Apple shipped an iMac with a 4K display for years. No problems at all.
 
It’s only 4k so it isn’t even remotely on my radar. I could however see it in a kids room connected to their Xbox and PC to save space.
 
Does anyone actually want to look at a 1000 nits 32" display?
Probably yes. Unless your screen is showing pure white all the time on the whole screen, you’re not actually looking at 1000 nits. The brightness only describes the brightest possible parts of the screen. If you have a rated 1000 nit brightness, the blacks are still going to be near 0 nits (actually 0 on mini-LED or OLED) or probably average around 300-400 nits on most parts of the screen. On my MacBook Pro, I keep it at maximum 600 nit brightness just because I like bright screens. I measured most of the typical things on the screen and most of them are around 200-300 nits or dimmer.

The only time the 600 nit screen bothers me is if I’m just waking up and my eyes haven’t adjusted. Then it’s just blinding, but that passes after a few minutes. I’m one of those who cannot stand movie maker modes or cinema modes on TV’s. Everything just looks too dark to see anything. I know purists will see this as sacrilege, but that’s just how my eyes operate, especially after multiple surgeries on them.

I also have a Samsung Galaxy Tab S8 Ultra that maxes out at 400 nits with average screen brightness around 150 nits. It’s ok, but rather dim and I keep wishing it were brighter.
 
I love how some people have to keep reminding everyone that "competition is good". We get it. Safari is snappier, Powerbook G5s are coming soon, and completion is good. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: panther quest
Unfortunately everything still is mostly 4K panels. This is also only 400 nits with 60 Hz refresh rate. Yes wish we had 5k displays to give LG some pressure to price more competitively.
I think for 90% of the population, 400 nits and 60 Hz is fine. Higher Hz and higher brightness seems to be more popular amongst gamers and computer nerds, but isn't really all that necessary for mainstream consumers at the lower to mid end.

I must say I am a computer nerd too, but personally I don't actually care that much for high brightness or 120 Hz in my computer monitors. For example, I typically use my 2017 iMac at the 1/4 to 1/3 brightness setting, and this thing is only a 500 nit display.

People talk about high brightness on their iPhones, but that is a flawed comparison. I personally don't use my iMac outside in the bright sunlight.

BTW, I have 120 Hz Pro Motion on my iPad Pro, but I could easily do without it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tobybrut
If this was an Apple product it would have been ridiculed for being "old-tech" and overpriced.
Its ridiculous that we have $500-1000+ displays wrapped in the cheapest plastic possible.
Also equally ridiculous to wrap a $200 Smart TV in expensive machined Aluminum.??
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.