What Would a New Consumer Display Look Like?

[sethmacbookuser]

I've been reading the scant coverage of the rumored new consumer-level display from Apple.

My own LG Ultrafine 5K display just died. So, I'm curious about what Apple might be doing. Even if Apple itself doesn't release a display, it seems like it might be time for LG (or some other third-party display company) to produce something better than the Ultrafine 5K (which is almost five years old).

What should we expect from such a display (whether sold by Apple or a third-party)?

I presume it would represent a meaningful improvement over the Ultrafine 5K. But if I understand correctly, the Ultrafine 5K and the Apple Pro Display have roughly the same resolution in pixels per inch (218, although if I'm wrong, please correct me). So, it's not reasonable to think that the resolution will improve. I can imagine it getting bigger than the Ultrafine 5K (which is 27"), but then again, it probably can't be 32" (the size of the Pro Display). 29" or 29.5" makes sense as a nice medium.

Price? The Ultrafine 5K is currently $1,299, and it's had that price since its release in 2016. Would Apple (or LG or whoever) sell a display for the same price as a 5-year old display if it was only 2 or 2.5 inches bigger? Maybe. I'm sure some of the technologies that improve the performance for the Pro Display will trickle down into a consumer display. I also imagine that nano-etching will be an option (as it is in some of the iMacs).

But, of course, I don't understand the tech as well as many of you in here. Does anyone have any educated guesses about what to expect and when?

 

[velocityg4]

If the 5K was profitable I expect LG will make another one. Maybe two to match the 24 and possibly 30" iMacs.

I doubt Apple is going to make one.

If the iMac is 30". It'll probably be something like 5.5K. which means the LG will probably cost more.

LG can charge so much because it's a niche market. No on else has panels which match the size and resolution of the iMac.

I'm sort of surprised they don't have a 4.5K. I'm guessing with supply shortages and the custom resolution. Apple's using all their capacity for the iMac.

 

[sethmacbookuser]

Thanks.

I can't imagine that Apple has sold many Pro Displays. Who would have bought them? Really rich people with status issues and design professionals for whom it's worthwhile to spend the extra $4,000. I'm guessing that the project was just Apple's first attempt to get the new technology to market, at the sorts of prices that could recoup some of their investment. It would appear that the long game was making new displays for iMacs and MacBooks once they'd gotten the price of the technology down (and they seem to have sort of done that with the iMac).

I seem to recall a lot of discussion about a new Apple-branded display just before Apple announced that LG would be producing the next generation of display for them. So, I wouldn't be surprised to see a consumer display, containing stripped-down versions of the technology from the Pro Display, geared for Apple users but manufactured and sold by a third-party, possibly LG, possibly someone else. But maybe Apple will crunch the numbers and find that it's worth their while to sell their own displays to the many Mac Mini, Mac Pro, and MacBook users.

 

[tornado99]

The LG Ultrafines were always flawed in my opinion. A glossy display really needs a fully laminated glass panel bonded to the LCD with no air gap. That gives the 5K iMacs their great contrast and sharpness. Also glass is a great surface for adding a sophisticated anti-reflective coating on top. However, the Ultrafines just had a thin plastic sheet placed over the lcd. Side by side they always looked worse than the iMac. You wouldn't buy a laptop with a non-laminated panel unless you were at the budget end of the market, so why put up with that on a Pro display?

An interesting new option for me is the Hauwei Mateview. It's a downgrade in terms of pixel density (160 dpi instead of 218 dpi). But it's an upgrade in terms of screen real estate (3:2 ratio instead of 16:9). For me, getting working done is always the highest prirority. A 16:9 display always feels a little cramped to me.

HUAWEI Monitors - HUAWEI Global

Explore the latest technologies in monitors with Huawei. Check out HUAWEI MateView, HUAWEI MateView GT, HUAWEI Display 23.8''... Buy and get support from Huawei.

consumer.huawei.com

 

[Royksöpp]

The LG Ultrafines were always flawed in my opinion. A glossy display really needs a fully laminated glass panel bonded to the LCD with no air gap. That gives the 5K iMacs their great contrast and sharpness. Also glass is a great surface for adding a sophisticated anti-reflective coating on top. However, the Ultrafines just had a thin plastic sheet placed over the lcd. Side by side they always looked worse than the iMac. You wouldn't buy a laptop with a non-laminated panel unless you were at the budget end of the market, so why put up with that on a Pro display?

An interesting new option for me is the Hauwei Mateview. It's a downgrade in terms of pixel density (160 dpi instead of 218 dpi). But it's an upgrade in terms of screen real estate (3:2 ratio instead of 16:9). For me, getting working done is always the highest prirority. A 16:9 display always feels a little cramped to me.

HUAWEI Monitors - HUAWEI Global

Explore the latest technologies in monitors with Huawei. Check out HUAWEI MateView, HUAWEI MateView GT, HUAWEI Display 23.8''... Buy and get support from Huawei.

consumer.huawei.com

Have you ever actually tried an Ultrafine display? The monitor has superb sharpness and contrast and the design looks much better in person. It's the best panel out there right after Apple's. All of those 4K Dell, HP, and even LG's other panels can't hold a candle to the sharpness and color of the Ultrafine. I've used them for many years and have been spoiled by the quality. Everything else looks like sh*t compared to them. No matter how hard someone tries to butter up any other panel, they simply do not compare picture wise and they never will. As for the design, it's more utilitarian rather than flashy. I think it looks more professional and substantial than those creaky LG's with their god awful white backs and oversized stands. Once you use an Ultrafine Panel and get used to the Retina Screen everything else will always look awful. It may not have all of the bells and whistles of other Panels, but what it lacks in those areas it makes up for in it's beautiful screen. Isn't that the most important thing after all?

 

[Amethyst1]

But if I understand correctly, the Ultrafine 5K and the Apple Pro Display have roughly the same resolution in pixels per inch (218, although if I'm wrong, please correct me). So, it's not reasonable to think that the resolution will improve.

This is because macOS is currently optimised for about 220 ppi so pixel-perfect scaling gives about 110 ppi. Increasing ppi would necessitate e.g. 2.5× or 3× scaling which was possible in earlier versions (10.4, 10.5, 10.6) of macOS but has been eliminated for the current 2× (HiDPI) modes introduced in 10.7. Case in point: the Dell UP3218K has 280 ppi. 2× scaling gives 140 ppi which might still be too much for some people.

LG can charge so much because it's a niche market. No on else has panels which match the size and resolution of the iMac.

The main reason 27" 5K panels exist is because... macOS is optimised for ~220 ppi and non-integer scaling has issues. On Windows, a 27" 4K scaled to 150% is perfectly OK, which is why 27" 5K panels are such a niche otherwise. Of course, it's less sharp than 5K due to a lower pixel density, but still a lot better than a 2560×1440 panel.

 

[Amethyst1]

It's the best panel out there right after Apple's.

Apple doesn't make these panels. LG does.

 

[tornado99]

Have you ever actually tried an Ultrafine display? The monitor has superb sharpness and contrast and the design looks much better in person. It's the best panel out there right after Apple's. All of those 4K Dell, HP, and even LG's other panels can't hold a candle to the sharpness and color of the Ultrafine. I've used them for many years and have been spoiled by the quality. Everything else looks like sh*t compared to them. No matter how hard someone tries to butter up any other panel, they simply do not compare picture wise and they never will. As for the design, it's more utilitarian rather than flashy. I think it looks more professional and substantial than those creaky LG's with their god awful white backs and oversized stands. Once you use an Ultrafine Panel and get used to the Retina Screen everything else will always look awful. It may not have all of the bells and whistles of other Panels, but what it lacks in those areas it makes up for in it's beautiful screen. Isn't that the most important thing after all?

Admittedly I haven't tried one out, I would if it was easy to do so. However I've seen numerous user reports and videos from users who have one side-by-side with an iMac. It's very obvious from their comments and videos, in viewing angles and contrast the Ultrafines fall short.

There is a review up on Rtings.com where they also point out that the Ultrafines have poor reflection handling compared to the iMacs. Again no surprise given the air gap between the plastic cover and the panel. Perhaps you work in a very light-controlled environment?

Thirdly, there are many user reports, particularly with the 5K model, of the control board dying after <2 years, and being unable to get the monitor repaired. So I have no desire to invest, given that.

Also, I simply prefer matte monitors. Glossy ones certainly look good in a showroom, and create a great first impression. But if you read text and code a lot, a matte is far less fatiguing after many hours. I even read a review from a guy who bought the Dell 8K monitor for $5000, and he wished it was matte!

 

[Amethyst1]

I even read a review from a guy who bought the Dell 8K monitor for $5000, and he wished it was matte!

I wish it ran at 60 Hz on macOS!

 

[sethmacbookuser]

Does the nano-etching on the Pro Display (and on various iMacs) make the screen more like matte?

 

[Colstan]

Admittedly I haven't tried one out, I would if it was easy to do so. However I've seen numerous user reports and videos from users who have one side-by-side with an iMac. It's very obvious from their comments and videos, in viewing angles and contrast the Ultrafines fall short.

Everyone has a different preference and perspective, so I'm simply sharing mine. Like yourself, I also very much prefer matte finishes, but that's not always an option. That's the case with the UltraFine line, but if you want "Retina" quality with approximate 220ppi, then you have few options. A couple of weeks ago I managed to get my hands on a brand new boxed 21.5-inch LG 4K, the discontinued smaller brother to the current 27-inch 5K. I have no idea where this technological leprechaun was hiding for over two years and why nobody had opened it, but I got a good price on it, half the original MSRP.

It's allowed me to compare it to my previous Dell, which had a full matte finish, and the 21.5-inch iMac, with its glass cover. To me, the LG appears to be semi-glossy. From my observations, it's a good balance between too reflective and too grainy. I was very concerned that I wouldn't be able to handle the glare, but to my eyes, it's a pleasant medium between the two, and hasn't caused me any issues. Keep in mind that I don't work in a heavily lit environment, and only keep a small desk lamp situated behind me, along with a lamp for biased lighting behind the monitor, so I do try to control the viewing environment.

I'd probably prefer the nano-texture process that Apple applies to the XDR and larger iMacs, but those are costly options. The nano-texture process alone costs over half of what I paid for this LG.

 

[Colstan]

Does the nano-etching on the Pro Display (and on various iMacs) make the screen more like matte?

That's Apple's answer to users who want a matte finish. In typical Apple fashion, they couldn't do what the rest of the industry does and apply an additional treatment to achieve that goal. Instead, they had to implement a whole new process. Since Apple are using a new technique, the cost is much higher. It's not as expensive as when it was introduced, but it is still costly. The nano-texture displays even require a special Apple-approved cloth to clean the screen with.

The next time I'm looking to purchase a new monitor, I'm hoping for an Apple branded model that supports the nano-texture option, but it won't come cheap. Assuming such a product ever gets released, it won't be as much as the XDR, but I wouldn't be shocked if it costs more than the $1,300 LG 5K.

 

[Fishrrman]

OP asks:
"What should we expect from such a display (whether sold by Apple or a third-party)?"

I wouldn't expect anything.
At all.

Apple left the printer business some years ago -- probably because they decided there wasn't enough profit for them to remain in it.

I sense the same applies for their "consumer display" line.
Just "not enough money in it" to be worth it for them.

The "high-end"... perhaps. Let's see how long the Pro Display remains in the product line.
But "consumer"?
Not a chance.

 

[tornado99]

but if you want "Retina" quality with approximate 220ppi,

Keep in mind that I don't work in a heavily lit environment, and only keep a small desk lamp situated behind me, along with a lamp for biased lighting behind the monitor, so I do try to control the viewing environment.

Retina quality was defined by Steve Jobs as 60 ppd (pixels per degree). At a distance of 20" you only need 157 ppi to meet that. If you have 20:20 vision you will not be able to tell the difference between a 160 ppi monitor and a 220 ppi monitor.

Of course, some people particuarly teenagers, have better than 20:20 vision so may benefit from 220 ppi. But the difference is not the same as between 100 ppi and 160 ppi. It's diminishing returns.

I like to work near a window without blinds during the day (blank wall behind monitor, window to one side). I don't have the space to position lamps behind the monitor. If you have to adjust your environment a lot to suit the monitor, I don't think that's ideal.

Here is a video comparing ultrafine to iMac:

 

[sethmacbookuser]

Even if Apple doesn't produce a new display (as they didn't in 2016 when it was long rumored that they would), wouldn't it make sense for LG to produce one? And if not LG, some other third-party display manufacturer? Wouldn't it make sense for them to put out something specifically designed for Mac users? Even if Apple doesn't want to be in the display business, there must be a market of Mac Pro and Mac Mini users (and MacBook users like me) who want an improved display but who won't pay the $5000 for the Pro Display. The technology isn't stagnating. Why should the market stagnate?

 

[the future]

Retina quality was defined by Steve Jobs as 60 ppd (pixels per degree). At a distance of 20" you only need 157 ppi to meet that. If you have 20:20 vision you will not be able to tell the difference between a 160 ppi monitor and a 220 ppi monitor.

Not everyone sits at the same distance from their display(s). I‘m using a 160 ppi display right now and I‘m absolutely able to tell the difference (I had an 5K iMac before). 160 ppi is quite usable, though.

Even if Apple doesn't produce a new display (as they didn't in 2016 when it was long rumored that they would), wouldn't it make sense for LG to produce one? And if not LG, some other third-party display manufacturer? Wouldn't it make sense for them to put out something specifically designed for Mac users? Even if Apple doesn't want to be in the display business, there must be a market of Mac Pro and Mac Mini users (and MacBook users like me) who want an improved display but who won't pay the $5000 for the Pro Display. The technology isn't stagnating. Why should the market stagnate?

Mark Gurman (from Bloomberg) already reported that Apple is working on a cheaper (than the Pro) display. I would assume they will use the same panel the bigger iMac we‘re still waiting for gets.

 

[Amethyst1]

Even if Apple doesn't produce a new display (as they didn't in 2016 when it was long rumored that they would), wouldn't it make sense for LG to produce one?

The LG UltraFine 5K is that display as of now. And it's the only 5K display still in production AFAIK.The new UltraFine 4K sadly has been "downgraded" to 185 ppi which isn't ideal for macOS (but still fine to me FWIW).

 

[tornado99]

From what I've seen of lcd panel development, LG are slowly being eclipsed by BOE. So if you're looking for a cutting edge new Apple display it's not necessarily going to be in partnership with Lucky Goldstar!

 

[sethmacbookuser]

Mark Gurman (from Bloomberg) already reprted that Apple is working on a cheaper (than the Pro) display. I would assume they will use the same panel the bigger iMac we‘re still waiting for gets.

Yes, but what does that mean? Tech companies, especially ones like Apple with huge cash reserves, are able to work on all sorts of projects, even ones that they expect won't turn out, just because any patents they produce along the way can be profitable or because the lessons they learn are worthwhile or because they think the project might pan out.

It's like the Apple Car. Maybe it'll come out one day. Maybe it won't. Apple doesn't have to decide right now. In the meantime, doing the resesarch and development on the project might situate it very well even if it doesn't come out. Maybe it'll produce a huge number of patents that it can sell to Toyota or Nissan or Tesla or GM. Maybe it won't produce any patents with any value but the lessons learned will be worthwhile for Apple to have learned.

I definitely recall (and I'll be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong) that in the year or so leading up to LG's release of the 5K Ultrafine Display, the rumor sites discussed a forthcoming successor to the Apple Thunderbolt Display. That obviously didn't happen.

So, Mark Gurman may well be correct. Apple may well be working on a display cheaper than the Pro. But they don't have to expect or even want for it to come to market.

What I do think is true is that the market is ready for the next leap in consumer displays whether Apple is a part of it or not. I find it very difficult to believe that the best the display producers (as a whole) can come up with is the LG Ultrafine 5K, especially when the Pro Display of two years ago suggests so many enhancements. If Apple can profitably be a part of the leap, I imagine they'll want to be, just like I imagine they would have wanted to be part of the development of laser printers after 1988 (when they dropped their own B&W laser printers) and like they tried to be in the mid 1990s when they sold the color laser printers.

But that's not really the point. I like the idea of an Apple branded display because, in general, I trust Apple branded products. I trust them to be compatible with each other. I trust them to be durable (for the most part -- every once in awhile there's a butterfly keyboard). I trust them to be fixable if they do break. If that's what Apple produces, great. If Apple develops a project and then lets LG or a company like LG take the reins, that would be fine too. If some other company gets out in front of both Apple and LG, I'll accept that too.

I'm not thrilled, however, with the idea of buying a display that's more or less identical to the best display I could buy (and did buy) five years ago. But that appears to be what's on the market. If that's my only option, then I'll have to live with it. But if there's a reason, a good reason, to think there's something on the horizon worth waiting for, I'll wait.

 

[the future]

Yes, but what does that mean?

It just means that the best source we have for Apple rumors (together with Kuo) gave us some hope for an Apple branded consumer display. Is it set in stone that they will actually release it? No.

It's like the Apple Car. Maybe it'll come out one day. Maybe it won't. Apple doesn't have to decide right now.

Well the Car is a project that is so much bigger and more complicated that this comparison really doesn‘t make a lot of sense. It is very easy for Apple to make a display. The only question is if they see a big enough market for it to be worth their while.

What I do think is true is that the market is ready for the next leap in consumer displays

I don‘t think so, at all. The vast, vast majority of the market is a) more than happy with a cheap-ish 4K (or even lower) display and b) would never ever pay what Apple will certainly ask for a new standalone display. This is why Apple stopped making displays in the first place.

I find it very difficult to believe that the best the display producers (as a whole) can come up with is the LG Ultrafine 5K, especially when the Pro Display of two years ago suggests so many enhancements.

What are those enhancements, though? The big new feature of the Pro Display is the HDR brightness, which is (mostly) only interesting for HDR video creators/cutters etc. The resolution is the same 220 PPI we got before and no-one is asking for more than that. So what is it exactly that you think this „next leap“ should give you/us?

Me, personally, I just want the biggest „normal“ (non-pro, vaguely affordable) first party Apple retina display possible. Fingers crossed we‘ll get it.

 

[senorbroom]

My personal wish list is:

• Aluminium chassis in the style of the new 24" iMacs
• VESA-mount compatible
• Space grey colour
• 27" LG panel (keep the same LG panel - the quality is better than 99% of other consumer monitors and it should keep costs down)
• Updated 1080p webcam
• Updated beam-forming microphones
• Updated Atmos speakers
• 2x USB-C ports
• 2x Thunderbolt ports

What I don't understand is why Apple don't capitalise on their growth in laptop sales by selling a matching monitor. I have worked at agencies where every staff member was equipped with Macbooks but had to pair them with crappy monitors. Likewise, why isn't there are easy upgrade path for Mac Mini owners? An entry Mac Mini at $699 + Apple monitor at $1299 surely results in a larger profit for Apple than the 27" iMac (entry price $1799) where Apple needs to provide keyboard + mouse.

Now my thinking is with a panel first released in 2014 and reuse of the 24" iMac componentry, that they could keep the price the same. My ideal price would be $999 but would be happy with up to $1299. I don't really need mini-led or HDR, just a solid display with nice scaling, and built-in teleconferencing components (webcam/microphones/speakers).

 

[JDHiro]

OP asks:
"What should we expect from such a display (whether sold by Apple or a third-party)?"

I wouldn't expect anything.
At all.

Apple left the printer business some years ago -- probably because they decided there wasn't enough profit for them to remain in it.

I don't think this is true at all. They left the printer business because they didn't see a way to innovate there, and they knew it was going to be a race to the bottom with HP giving away printers to sell ink.

The pandemic has forced people into their homes for work, and monitors are a key part of almost everyones workflow. The standard setup is laptop + monitor, for everyone. This is an area where they can make small ecosystem innovations to milk a huge profit out of a pretty low bill of materials.

Apple overcorrected on displays. They know this, and the Pro Display is how they are re-establishing the value of their displays before dipping down into consumer offerings.

I have no idea what Apple is going to actually offer, but I have a theory that there is no next gen 27" iMac. We're going to see a ~30" display at the ~$2k price point to compliment the next generation of MacBookPros and MacMiniPros.

 

[tornado99]

My personal wish list is:

• Aluminium chassis in the style of the new 24" iMacs
• VESA-mount compatible
• Space grey colour
• 27" LG panel (keep the same LG panel - the quality is better than 99% of other consumer monitors and it should keep costs down)
• Updated 1080p webcam
• Updated beam-forming microphones
• Updated Atmos speakers
• 2x USB-C ports
• 2x Thunderbolt ports

Apple would never use a plastic polarizer like LG. Their XDR display is fully laminated glass, so essentially what you're asking for is a 27" iMac with the processor taken out. Unlikely they'll do that.

 

[Fishrrman]

JD Hiro wrote:
"I don't think this is true at all."

Then, just keep... waiting.

Because waiting for a new consumer-grade display from Apple will be like...
Waiting for Godot.

 

[Colstan]

Retina quality was defined by Steve Jobs as 60 ppd (pixels per degree). At a distance of 20" you only need 157 ppi to meet that. If you have 20:20 vision you will not be able to tell the difference between a 160 ppi monitor and a 220 ppi monitor.

No disrespect to Steve Jobs, but "Retina" is just a marketing name that Apple uses for "optimal experience with your device". It's much like LED vs. WLED, they're both the exact same backlight technology, but some marketing genius thought that WLED would sell better, and it caught on within parts the industry. In regards to the current state of the Mac, Apple defines the optimal experience as roughly 220ppi. Unfortunately, as we all know, choices in that density range are quite limited.

Of course, some people particuarly teenagers, have better than 20:20 vision so may benefit from 220 ppi. But the difference is not the same as between 100 ppi and 160 ppi. It's diminishing returns.

Most agreeable, I'm hardly a teenager, but do see a noticeable difference between 220ppi and lower density displays at scaled resolution. It's a matter of personal tolerance, and I fully admit that I can be OCD about these things. When I replaced my old Dell with this LG UltraFine, I was the only person that actually noticed that I had replaced the monitor, since they are both approximately the same size. We tech nerds can be quite particular, when for most folks they just need "good enough".

I like to work near a window without blinds during the day (blank wall behind monitor, window to one side). I don't have the space to position lamps behind the monitor. If you have to adjust your environment a lot to suit the monitor, I don't think that's ideal.

That would indeed drive me insane. While the LG UltraFines do have an anti-glare coating, it's not something that would be tolerated with open windows; the reflections would be maddening, from my perspective. Since I keep a much darker environment, I find the LG tolerable compared to the glass cover of the iMac, but would consider a matte finish to be ideal.

Here is a video comparing ultrafine to iMac:

Thank you for the video, I'm not dismissing other experiences, only speaking of my own. Also, I didn't make this clear, but I was only talking about matte vs. glossy, and how I see the LG UltraFines as an acceptable middle ground, from my own experience. I apologize if I wasn't clear about the narrow viewpoint I was offering.

As I said previously, I'd much prefer an Apple display with the nano-texture process applied for a somewhat reasonable price. I'd also like a purple unicorn that craps gold, but I'm not getting one of those, either. The best we can probably hope for is a consumer level monitor from Apple, at some point in the future, which will likely cost at least $1,500. That's not nearly as bad as the XDR, but still significant. That's why I jumped at the chance at an unopened 21.5-inch UltraFine 4K for a considerably lower price, but I realize that's like finding a pink elephant. Even still, I hope to have more options in the future for 220ppi displays (or whatever Apple considers to be "Retina" in the future).

Regardless, thank you for your response and feedback.