Does Apple actually manufacture any of the displays or their portables, or are they all purchased from companies like Samsung?
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.
Studio Display Add-On Height-Adjustable Stand Costs an Extra $400, Nano-Texture Glass is $300
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The world is awash in cheap montiors that apparently meet your needs. You are being quite contradictory when you ask for Apple build quality at cheap monitor prices.
And Apple doesn't sell cheaply built anything. You can't name a time where any of their monitors sold at a "reasonable price" compared to cheap plastic competition.
Guy, I hate to break it to you. But this is a cheap monitor. It has a 60hz refresh rate in 2022. That is completely unacceptable to anyone with a pair of eyeballs who is currently used to modern monitors.
The question is more what is the alternative? Most "HDR" monitor priced less than this have actually not enough nits or local dimming to be considered true HDR and are 4K at best as far as I've seen.
That iMac Pro actually has.. you know.. a Mac included with it.
The alternative was they slightly reduce the resolution and double the refresh rate but instead they went with the cheaper option: use the existing 5K panels they were already getting from LG and sell them for $2000 to misguided fanboys like that Swift guy who thinks this is a top of the line monitor.
Well at 27" you're not going to see the difference between 4k and 5k with the naked eye from viewing distance, so narrow your search to 4k IPS monitors with 120hz or higher refresh rates.
That's more wishful thinking though: I'd have for sure preferred a 5K ProMotion HDR 1000 nits monitor from Apple, but that's not what Apple delivered. The problem is, no one else is delivering such a product either.
Many are making comparisons with cheaper monitors, but most are 4k and have much lower nits making them IMHO not really "HDR" although they are marketed as such.
I was thinking to myself, I can purchase the base Studio Display with the tilt-only stand and purchase the title/height stand later on.... but NOPE. Read the fine print.
Curved? no thank you! I work on UI and editing photos, I hate see a curves photos, I need a totally straight linear screen.
a 38 wide but NOT curved, it would be perfect, is like have the height of a 27 but with 30% more horizontal space, but I bet it never happen from Apple.
Sure - Apple doesn't sell any equivalent to the $150 HD monitors that you see everywhere, but they certainly always had at least one pro-consumer level monitor at a sub-$1000 price-point on offer before the TB displays came out.
As far as "Apple build quality" vs. "cheap after-market" goes, let me tell you what I would have in mind, just for comparison. What I have in my setup right now are a trio of 23" BenQ monitors which, at the time (four years ago) retailed for about $330CAD a piece ($275 US, give or take). They run at 2560x1440x60Hz, are very well colour-calibrated, include various modes (I use Low-Blue-Light for work, Movie for gaming - both are incredibly good for what they do). They included rotating HAS as well as VESA mounts. Outside of gaming (because they're 60Hz). These are incredibly good productivity monitors.
If Apple were to take the display out of these monitors, make it run at 120Hz, add a decent camera, wrap it up into their aluminum chassis, and make it work with their OS-integrated display software, I would gladly pay $600-$800CAD a piece for them in a heartbeat. Apple's build quality in terms of just their internal components and the integration with the MacOS would still essentially double the asking price compared to the equivalent monitor by BenQ, and it would be a great value for people in my "target market".
Of course, if Apple were to do that, they'd basically be selling a slightly-modified version of the 27" Cinema Display that they released 12 years ago.
I think it's because Apple sells 200+ million iPhones per year. That's why you get nice screens on phones. That and iphone screens are small and the top iphone pricepoints now exceed $1k.
Apple also sells 40+ million iPads per year. And screens are still small and pricepoints reach $1k there too.
They sell 18 million Macs per year.
I have a feeling the 27-32" monitor market for OLED 120hz HDR at any price isn't a large enough market.
Come now. 5k is clearly better than 4k. It says it right there in the specs.
The speakers also go up to 11.
Big TVs use less dense panels for the same resolution, easier and cheaper to produce. Also they are mass produced in quantities that make midrange and up PC displays look pathetic, so they get the cost advantages there too
My office has a bunch of old 1080p monitors (all different brands and designs, as if we raided a clearance sale at NewEgg), all connected to desks with the same VESA arm.
Apple is more concerned about the color accuracy. Plus, it takes a LOT of bandwidth to push 5K displays, which have 77% more pixels than a 4K display.
How many other 5K displays have >60Hz? How many other 5K displays are there at all? I would like to see MicroLED, but that would push the price well over $2,000. This is essentially the 27" iMac sans the Mac (but with an A13 chip). Plus the VESA option is a better value, IMO, than getting the stand.
It doesn't matter that the display is 5K. You will never see the difference between 4K and 5K. What you will the difference in is the awful janky feel of 60hz. A refresh rate less than CRT monitors built in 1999.
I just noticed that this monitor comes with an old Tech, TB3 port and, even then, only one of them. Why not TB4 instead of TB3? Why not at least 2 so the monitor can act as a single connection, laptop dock. Why too are the USB-Ports limited to 10Gbps? Why are the USB 3.2 ports limited to USB 3.2 Gen 2? Why not USB 3.2 Gen 2x2? Then there is the size. Why is there still no 32 inch 5K monitor that is targeted toward the consumer market?
Hmmm.
Hmmm.