What Would a New Consumer Display Look Like?

[anshuvorty]

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.

In regards to the bolded part - I don't think so. Mark Gurman himself has reported that Apple is working on releasing a cheaper version of the Pro Display XDR and I'm sure we are going to see it. I think, like with the iMac Pro, the partnership with LG, was a stop-gap until they can release their own 1st party consumer-orientated next-gen "Cinema Display" or whatever marketing name they decide to go with.

I really do think that Apple won't ally 3rd party sellers to sell their displays long-term. Why share the profit margin when you can have it completely to yourself?

 

[Amethyst1]

or whatever marketing name they decide to go with.

"Display"?
"iDisplay"?

😂

 

[tornado99]

No disrespect to Steve Jobs, but "Retina" is just a marketing name that Apple uses for "optimal experience with your device".

Yes, Retina is a marketing term, but when Steve Jobs said "Retina is >= 57 pixels per degree" that was based on the resolution of the human eye with 20:20 vision.

There are plenty of people who claim to hear the difference between uncompressed audio and 320kbps MP3, or between 96kHz audio and 48 kHz audio. Yet when you put them to a blind test, very few humans can actually tell the difference.

I feel there is something similar with monitors. Most people are comparing a 220dpi monitor to a 96dpi monitor, or native to non-native resolution. There are also a whole host of other variables like contrast ratio and screen coating to muddy the waters. If you had 140 dpi, 160 dpi, 180dpi, 200 dpi and 220 dpi monitors, equal in all other respects, in front of you I think your real limit would be somewhat lower.

220 dpi wasn't chosen for biological reasons, it was because it enabled easy pixel doubling of the OS X desktop without Apple haven't to adjust anything. They could instead choose to make the menu bar height, widget sizes, UI font size etc, all adjustable. I can run Linux on any dpi monitor and get perfectly proportioned windows because everything is rendered separately. Apple choose to render the entire desktop as a doubled canvas and then scale it down as one chunk, which I think yields poorer results outside of 220 dpi.

 

[Amethyst1]

220 dpi wasn't chosen for biological reasons, it was because it enabled easy pixel doubling of the OS X desktop without Apple haven't to adjust anything.

FWIW the early 16:10 Cinema Displays were around 100 ppi (the 24" being the exception at just 94 *shudder*). October 2005 saw the release of 'high-res' PowerBooks which first pushed it to 113 or 116, and later up to 136 ppi (11" MBA), so that was presumably when OS X began to be optimised for that higher ppi range.

 

[tornado99]

Another historical thing to mention is that Microsoft early on corned the market on sub-pixel font rendering, which supposedly gives "up to 3x greater resolution horizontally". Apple didn't want to step on the toes of Cleartype, and their own approach (font dilation) was never that great on 100 dpi monitors.

At work I have to use 96 dpi monitors connected to Windows or Linux machines most of the day. With Cleartype/Freetype well adjusted the font quality is very sharp and decent (you do need a few hacks to make sure cleartype is being used systemwide). Obviously not approaching HiDPI monitor font quality, but better than OS X at 100 ppi.

So, in some ways, the need to run OS X at 220 dpi to get a decent experience is self-imposed from the way that the OS has been designed.

 

[JDHiro]

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.

I have a Pro Display XDR in my main setup and LG UltraFine 5K in my second office, so I don't have much to wait for I would replace the UltraFine if it happened.

I'm just commenting on what I think makes sense from a business standpoint. I think if it's going to happen, it would come along with the first wave of Apple Silicon hardware. We'll see - I hope they do it.

 

[turbineseaplane]

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.

I totally agree

I just went back to a 30" 2560x1600 monitor specifically to get the 16:10 back

Why on earth we need to have 16:9 everywhere is beyond me, particularly on desktop computers where the idea should be to get things done (not watch movies).

That lost vertical real estate is super valuable!

If I can ever get my hands on that HUAWEI MateView here in the States, I'm all in

 

[salamanderjuice]

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).

I doubt many Mac mini buyers are interested in a display that costs more than the computer. It just doesn't make much sense. I would be surprised if 1% of Mac mini buyers bought a Cinema Display or Thunderbolt display when that was an option to go with it.

You can get way better teleconferencing gear for less not built into the monitor too. Unless you're absolutely anal about everything looking as minimalistic chic or whatever I don't see the point. I paired my Mac mini with a 4K display, bookshelf speakers and a $30 web cam. Sounds better than any monitor speakers (or TV even) ever made, web cam is better than what's in my MBP and the display is good enough and it all cost less than computer.

Most people don't even use monitors with their laptops at home. And I've seen a lot of people do gross things like mirror their 1366x768 laptop on their 1080p LCD at work. Like way too many. And they like it like that.

 

[senorbroom]

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.

Yes, that's effectively what I'm asking for. It's also essentially what the Thunderbolt Display was. For me it solves the use case of:

• Having a high quality display with native functionality (speakers, brightness settings, scaling)
• Maintaining portability (I can use with a laptop so my data is not attached to the screen)
• Can be used with multiple devices (iPad Pros now support thunderbolt)

For Apple, the research, development and tooling is already done. They just need to price it in a way that doesn't cut into their iMac sales. It just seems crazy to me that a company that bangs on about sustainability won't release a device that allows you to reduce component wastage.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It just seems crazy to me that a company that bangs on about sustainability won't release a device that allows you to reduce component wastage.

I'm just happy to see someone saying this out loud.
The Apple "sustainability" angle really is only a thing when it benefits whatever narrative they are pushing at the moment.

If they really cared about sustainability as a first principle, they'd change a lot of ways they do and design things across the board -- which they don't -- mainly for "making more money" reasons.

 

[sethmacbookuser]

I'm just happy to see someone saying this out loud.
The Apple "sustainability" angle really is only a thing when it benefits whatever narrative they are pushing at the moment.

If they really cared about sustainability as a first principle, they'd change a lot of ways they do and design things across the board -- which they don't -- mainly for "making more money" reasons.

I'm not even sure why this is a question. Of course, Apple is a profit-making company; it also aims to have market significance beyond its profit (i.e., it has a corporate culture that wants for it to be important both at the current time and in the long term -- this was always something Steve Jobs talked about in interviews). But in both cases, it's about producing goods that consumer wants. And one of the things it does to ensure its profitability and its importance is to present itself as a different kind of company.

I think a lot of people believe that Apple truly is such a different kind of company because they remember (correctly) that Apple, in its early days viewed itself (correctly) as revolutionary and in conflict with established companies. From this, they infer (incorrectly) that Apple had some moral aspirations beyond merely wanting to displace IBM, etc. They also look at the culture of Silicon Valley and see (correctly) people who are often at odds with traditional views about culture and economics. From this, they infer (incorrectly) that those people have some moral aspirations beyond merely wanting to live their own lives on the best terms they can for themselves. Well, I guess there are worse things to think about.

The result of these misinterpretations of facts is that people not only believe but expect others to believe that companies like Apple are motivated by higher values than Du Pont or Boeing or Raytheon.

And who knows? The people who work there and help manufacture that presentation strategy might even believe it is. And it's also true that for some things, Apple probably is ahead of the curve (environmentally, etc.) but mainly because those things are what its consumers want.

I love Apple. It's provided me with consistently great products that are well-worth the premium prices. And I'm not the sort of person who typically pays premium prices for anything. The reverse is true in fact. I'm usually content to buy the cheapest version of something, even if it's of lower quality, risk having to repair or replace it sooner than I would otherwise, and keep the extra money in my bank account (or spend it or otherwise use it in some other way).

So, my guess is that my future phones, computers, tablets, and possibly displays will all be from Apple. But one thing I'm not expecting them to do is have any particular altruistic motives or to exercise any judgments with a greater view to the common good than the guy who runs my corner deli does.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I'm not even sure why this is a question.

I think a lot of people believe that Apple truly is such a different kind of company because they remember (correctly) that Apple, in its early days viewed itself (correctly) as revolutionary and in conflict with established companies.

You asked and mostly answered your own question there... 👍

 

[senorbroom]

I doubt many Mac mini buyers are interested in a display that costs more than the computer. It just doesn't make much sense. I would be surprised if 1% of Mac mini buyers bought a Cinema Display or Thunderbolt display when that was an option to go with it.

You can get way better teleconferencing gear for less not built into the monitor too. Unless you're absolutely anal about everything looking as minimalistic chic or whatever I don't see the point. I paired my Mac mini with a 4K display, bookshelf speakers and a $30 web cam. Sounds better than any monitor speakers (or TV even) ever made, web cam is better than what's in my MBP and the display is good enough and it all cost less than computer.

Most people don't even use monitors with their laptops at home. And I've seen a lot of people do gross things like mirror their 1366x768 laptop on their 1080p LCD at work. Like way too many. And they like it like that.

I unfortunately don't have a view of the inner workings of Apple, but the fact that Apple haven't released one yet could due to one of two explanations: (a) the monitors are not cost effective for Apple, or (b) this decision occurred during a period where Apple miscalculated the needs of the pro/prosumer market (i.e. trash can Mac Pro, butterfly keyboards, macbook touch bar, removing escape key).

The monitor would not just be for Mac Minis but also Macbook Air/Pro and iPad Pro. I understand that the market may not be large for Mac Minis but it appears that Macbooks make up an increasingly large amount of Mac sales.

Re: better teleconferencing. I agree you can get individual componentry that is of a higher quallity than what Apple offers as a package - but that isn't why people buy Apple. People trust that Apple components are of decent quality with great interoperability.

The speakers are required to round out basic teleconferencing capability. I wrote Atmos speakers to indicate that they could use the 24" iMac Atmos speakers, but in reality they just need to meet a decent standard.

 

[tornado99]

What do people think about this monitor? It uses the exact same laminated glass panel as the iMac 5K but with a controller board that allows normal Displayport HDMI etc. Not cheap though - over $1000, but better quality than the LG Ultrafine 5K!

I wonder if Apple has some kind of deal with LG that doesn't allow this type of monitor to be officially sold outside the chinese market? It is exactly what many people on here are asking for.

Geekon 27-inch 5K monitor swivel lift professional design ThunderBolt Thunderbolt 3 power supply

X27, GEEKON, Brand New, National Joint Insurance, China Mainland, 16:9, HDMI, DP, USB2.0, TYPE-C, Audio, 178°, AH-IPS, 500, 178°, 5 Ms, 5 Ms, X27ProStand Bracket, X27FusionStand Bracket, X27ProliteStand Bracket, Official Standard, No, Level 1, No Camera, Rotatable, Built-in Speakers, Wall...

www.ebuy7.com

 

[turbineseaplane]

I've seen those advertised for a while (not locally of course).

I'm pretty sure it's just a company buying raw LG panels and doing their own enclosure around it.

What would concern me is the quality of the panel (and likely lack of meaningful warranty).
A lot of times these sorts of products are using sub Apple/LG grade panels (rejects that didn't make it into a normal LG Ultrafine).

 

[tornado99]

I've seen those advertised for a while (not locally of course).

I'm pretty sure it's just a company buying raw LG panels and doing their own enclosure around it.

What would concern me is the quality of the panel (and likely lack of meaningful warranty).
A lot of times these sorts of products are using sub Apple/LG grade panels (rejects that didn't make it into a normal LG Ultrafine).

But the LG Ultrafine doesn't use the same panel as the iMac. The iMac and the Geekon use QQ1 glass covered panel. The Ultrafine uses QQ2 plastic covered panel.

And as for warranty, the 5K Owners thread on MR is full of people who have a paperweight on their hands as their Ultrafine controller board stopped working after >2 years, and they can't get a repair. I wouldn't hold LG up as a benchmark of high quality.

 

[turbineseaplane]

But the LG Ultrafine doesn't use the same panel as the iMac. The iMac and the Geekon use QQ1 glass covered panel. The Ultrafine uses QQ2 plastic covered panel.
View attachment 1802320

And as for warranty, the 5K Owners thread on MR is full of people who have a paperweight on their hands as their Ultrafine controller board stopped working after >2 years, and they can't get a repair. I wouldn't hold LG up as a benchmark of high quality.

My point about warranty is that, regardless of LG reputation, at least you have "some option at all" with buying an UF locally.

Re: Panel

Have you gotten confirmation written positive confirmation from them on this?

Exact panel data from the foreign sources on this stuff is notoriously fraught and often subtly incorrect.

I have no idea how they'd be using an iMac panel, as those literally come from the factory with the glass laminated on (including the webcam hole up top) -- I've gone far down this rabbit hole and would be very surprised if Geekon isn't using the same panel as the LG UF 5k

Now that I'm on that site, which exact model are you referring to?

The X27 Pro (photo in your link) is using the QQ2

 

[tornado99]

I think there may be two versions of the "X27 Pro". I found some publicity material somewhere where one of the words translated as "laminated" and the guy in the youtube video above is definitely using as glass-covered display. He even mentions the webcam hole at one point.

On the warranty I agree that if something goes wrong you have a problem, but no more so that a DIY 5K or an Ultrafine out of warranty. Personally I don't think I'd buy this, but it's pretty much the only option if you want the best quality 5K display possible.

Edit: So I think the "X27 Pro" is the QQ2 and the "X27 Fusion" is the QQ1. Makes sense! If you look at the bezel in the video it's even different to the one in the pic you posted (curved at the bottom)

 

[turbineseaplane]

I think there may be two versions of the "X27 Pro". I found some publicity material somewhere where one of the words translated as "laminated" and the guy in the youtube video above is definitely using as glass-covered display. He even mentions the webcam hole at one point.

Yep.
Has to be.

Laminated glass will absolutely and only be the iMac panel
No webcam hole and a more traditional shape (normal rectangle with no room for webcam hole up top) will be the LG UF Panel.

There really can't be any alternatives here due there only being one manufacturer of the panels and only two commercial buyers/users (LG & Apple).

The only other options are the panels from the Dell & HP 5k's -- but both are so old and out of circulation that it'd be surprising (if not impossible) for anyone to be sourcing and using those at this point.

Believe me - I'm on your side - the lack of 5k standalone options is tremendously frustrating.

I spent 12-15 months scouring all over and in my experience almost all of these companies (like GeekOn) are using rejects or returned panels.

Don't be fooled by their glossy marketing.

They all have to get the panels from somewhere and I've yet to see one of these third party monitor creators using anything other than second hand or rejected panels.

 

[tornado99]

If you do even more digging you can find consumer comments from people who bought GeekOn. Chinese consumers are quite harsh critics who often go into a very high level of technical detail (i1Display Pro measurements etc.), and GeekOn seems to be regarded as one of the better internal manufacturers. There seems to be moderate satisfaction with their products, although i recall very scarce reviews of the "Fusion" model.

It is worth pointing out that there is a growing market of wealthy chinese consumers who are willing to pay for high-quality locally produced products if they exist.

If you want to go the DIY route, I've also noticed some aliexpress sellers grading their panels as A1, A2, B etc. I can't see a reason why the best quality panels would only be available to Apple. It just seems a question of navigating the minefield and a bit of luck.

 

[turbineseaplane]

If you do even more digging you can find consumer comments from people who bought GeekOn. Chinese consumers are quite harsh critics who often go into a very high level of technical detail (i1Display Pro measurements etc.), and GeekOn seems to be regarded as one of the better internal manufacturers. There seems to be moderate satisfaction with their products, although i recall very scarce reviews of the "Fusion" model.

It is worth pointing out that there is a growing market of wealthy chinese consumers who are willing to pay for high-quality locally produced products if they exist.

If you want to go the DIY route, I've also noticed some aliexpress sellers grading their panels as A1, A2, B etc..

All sounds fine to me!
People should spend their $1,000 however they want, you included.

Are you trying to convince people, or what is your point?

Ultimately GeekOn has to procure panels from somewhere, and I've yet to see any evidence anywhere online in the last 2 years that any of these third parties have access to new, flawless, right off the line, LG panels in the way Apple does (and obviously LG's monitor division itself).

Have you seen anything to indicate that?
That surely would be news if true, for sure.

 

[turbineseaplane]

@tornado99

Are you going to buy one of the GeekOn 5k's?

If you do, please let us know what you think when you get it and test it out!

 

[tornado99]

I guess my point is simply that dream consumer monitors do exist (5K, glass, all the connections you could want), and whatever quality panels they use it seems to keep consumers reasonably happy. They even have a "return if dead pixel" policy. The catch is that unless you live in China, it's too much of a risk.

Nope, I'm not buying one, just floating the idea.

 

[turbineseaplane]

They even have a "return if dead pixel" policy. The catch is that unless you live in China, it's too much of a risk.

At $1000, that's for sure too big of a risk, for me anyways.

One good thing about a DIY iMac monitor route is that you can source those stateside from places like ebay (and other resellers) who have a return policy if the panel doesn't meet expectations.

 

[tornado99]

I have looked at the DIY route by its so "hacky". I shudder every time I see one because the backside always looks a mess. The worst one was a guy who wanted to use the original power supply and power button. He hot glued everything, and from the comments section it seemed he'd done it so that you might electrocute yourself touching the case!

If the eDP cable from the screen to the controller was a metre longer I might be tempted. You could have a neat external box to house all the controller stuff.