What Would a New Consumer Display Look Like?

[satchmo]

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).

The dearth of quality 5K monitors is probably why this company is seizing on an opportunity.

The last standalone Apple display was only 2K and discontinued in 2016.
Today, 4K is the norm and even 4.5K on the consumer targeted iMac.

I just hope Apple might want to address the millions of Mac mini, MBA, and MBP owners who have limited options to connect a RETINA level display to.

 

[macsplusmacs]

I just hope Apple might want to address the millions of Mac mini, MBA, and MBP owners who have limited options to connect a RETINA level display to.

I mean come on apple. LOW HANGING FRUIT HERE.. (pun intended). Just make the same 5K as an external. sell for 1299$. done. of course, if they are changing the size of the new imac m1x to 30.5-32" then they may be waiting for that I guess.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I mean come on apple. LOW HANGING FRUIT HERE.. (pun intended). Just make the same 5K as an external. sell for 1299$. done. of course, if they are changing the size of the new imac m1x to 30.5-32" then they may be waiting for that I guess.

I'm with you!
But - I think it'd probably be more like $2499 from Apple at this point.

 

[macsplusmacs]

I'm with you!
But - I think it'd probably be more like $2499 from Apple at this point.

can't be that high though. that will be the low end imac m1x price.

 

[turbineseaplane]

can't be that high though. that will be the low end imac m1x price.

Sure it can. It really depends on who/what they are targeting it for.

I don't think it'll be for iMac buyers (from Apple's perspective)
Could be targeted as a notch below the Pro XDR - and in that case, anything from $2-3k would slot right in.

As we've seen with the LG "partnership", Apple have no issue at all telling some segments to sod off and go buy "that thing over there" if one doesn't like their offering/pricing.

Also, the M1 iMac is only a 24" screen - I suspect they'd be making a standalone that's larger and has more pixels (5k at 27", etc)

All the above said, I'd like to see them **also** launch a 24" standalone monitor targeted at more home/casual users to go along with their iMac 24 and/or MacBooks (non pro)

 

[tornado99]

27 inches is just too large for me, even if it was an 8K. I feel like I'm looking at a TV.

24-25 inches is the sweet spot for computer usage, unless perhaps you do CAD or graphics design.

 

[satchmo]

Sure it can. It really depends on who/what they are targeting it for.

I don't think it'll be for iMac buyers (from Apple's perspective)
Could be targeted as a notch below the Pro XDR - and in that case, anything from $2-3k would slot right in.

As we've seen with the LG "partnership", Apple have no issue at all telling some segments to sod off and go buy "that thing over there" if one doesn't like their offering/pricing.

Also, the M1 iMac is only a 24" screen - I suspect they'd be making a standalone that's larger and has more pixels (5k at 27", etc)

All the above said, I'd like to see them **also** launch a 24" standalone monitor targeted at more home/casual users to go along with their iMac 24 and/or MacBooks (non pro)

The Pro XDR is well out of the reach of most except pros.
A notch below it would be iMac owners. If you’re going to spend $2000+ you’d be silly not to just buy an iMac.

So the remaining target is the lower end consumer base. And it would be exactly as Apple did with LG...not cheap but within the reach of Mac mini, MacBook Air/Pro owners.

As someone else calculated based on screen resolution and PPI, the larger iMac will likely be 28.5” rounded up to 29”
I could see Apple offering a standalone using the same display and selling it for $1500.

 

[turbineseaplane]

A notch below it would be iMac owners. If you’re going to spend $2000+ you’d be silly not to just buy an iMac.

You're assuming one wants an all in one desktop, at any price (a lot of people don't)

 

[turbineseaplane]

24-25 inches is the sweet spot for computer usage, unless perhaps you do CAD or graphics design.

Honestly not sure the rest of the computer world is agreeing with you at this point.

Gamers, editors (audio and video), spreadsheet users...
People are falling in love with larger and more widescreen formats.

There's a reason so many monitor makers are pushing out large and very widescreen options (they sell)

FTR - I generally agree with you about the 24-27" range being rather optimal - but I will say that even I have gone bigger so I can turn up the relative size of things and make it a little easier on my aging eyes, but while still retaining great amounts of onscreen real estate.


Heck even two of the three ATP guys have gone to the XDR and fallen in love with the larger size and amount of screen real estate.

It's sort of like people that get bigger phones. People have a hard time going back.
(I say this as a devout iPhone SE1 user to this very moment)

 

[turbineseaplane]

It should be noted that the smallest Apple Cinema Display (20") debuted in 2004 for $1299

That is nearly $1900 in todays dollars.

I will, quite happily, eat some massive crow here if Apple release a new first party standalone monitor that isn't at least that expensive.

 

[tornado99]

Honestly not sure the rest of the computer world is agreeing with you at this point.

Gamers, editors (audio and video), spreadsheet users...
People are falling in love with larger and more widescreen formats.

There's a reason so many monitor makers are pushing out large and very widescreen options (they sell)

FTR - I generally agree with you about the 24-27" range being rather optimal - but I will say that even I have gone bigger so I can turn up the relative size of things and make it a little easier on my aging eyes, but while still retaining great amounts of onscreen real estate.


Heck even two of the three ATP guys have gone to the XDR and fallen in love with the larger size and amount of screen real estate.

It's sort of like people that get bigger phones. People have a hard time going back.
(I say this as a devout iPhone SE1 user to this very moment)

you're missing an important point. the average desk depth in most homes and offices i've seen is 20 inches, maybe 25 inches in a few offices. That means you physically cannot view a 27 inch screen without moving your head to see either side. Simply the limitations of the human FOV.

i've worked a lot with 24 inch monitors, and also a very nice qhd 25 inch monitor, and even at 25 inches i was turning my head a little more than i would like when scanning my screen.

Same as how a 7 inch phone is never going to fit comfortably in one hand, no matter how many pixels it has.

 

[turbineseaplane]

the average desk depth in most homes and offices i've seen is 20 inches, maybe 25 inches in a few offices.

In "most" homes and offices that "I've seen" isn't great data, to be honest.

The fact remains - manufacturers are making big and wide monitors and they are selling like hotcakes.

And you roped in 27" as "too big"?

The 27" iMac sure seems to be a smashing success - and has been for over a decade now.
Let's also not forget the 27" Thunderbolt Display - increased in size from the previous generations 24" (Cinema Display).

The 27"-28" class of desktop monitors, of varying resolutions, is FULL of models.
Somebody is buying them!

I get that maybe you'd prefer something sub 27", but we need to acknowledge that the 27" (and larger) sizes are very popular.

As I said above - I'd like Apple to have several size options for this type of product.

 

[tornado99]

In "most" homes and offices that "I've seen" isn't great data, to be honest.

Open any office supply catalogue and you will see my point verified. And in the typical home, especially in Europe, people don't have space for extra-deep desks.

Where did I argue that the 27 inch iMac wasn't popular? I was pointing out the biological impossibility of being able to see the entire screen at once if it is 20 inches away from your face.

There's a reason that Apple choose 23.5 inches for their mainstream iMac, and it has a lot to do with the typical space people have available. Look at the Apple iMacs ads, none of the desks/countertops are particularly deep.

Personally I don't want a massive desk taking up half my room, just to accomodate my computer.

 

[salamanderjuice]

Open any office supply catalogue and you will see my point verified. And in the typical home, especially in Europe, people don't have space for extra-deep desks.

Where did I argue that the 27 inch iMac wasn't popular? I was pointing out the biological impossibility of being able to see the entire screen at once if it is 20 inches away from your face.

There's a reason that Apple choose 23.5 inches for their mainstream iMac, and it has a lot to do with the typical space people have available. Look at the Apple iMacs ads, none of the desks/countertops are particularly deep.

Personally I don't want a massive desk taking up half my room, just to accomodate my computer.

You don't need a massive deep desk for a 27" monitor. A $50 monitor arm will take it off the desk and free up room. My dual monitor setup takes up less desk space than the new iMac. And it's height adjustable for better ergonomics .

The recommended sitting distance for a 27" 1440p monitor is 2.6 ft which is easily hit on a 20" desk especially when you add a keyboard tray into the mix. Nobody sits with their eyes directly at the edge of the desk.

 

[tornado99]

Assuming there is a wall behind your desk, as is the case for many home scenarios, your monitor will be a few inches forwards from the back. So your eyes would need to be 15 inches forwards from the front to get a 32 inch distance.

I don't know about you, but I've never seen anyone use a desk in that manner.

There's also the question of eye fatigue if your computer screen fills both your normal and peripheral vision. Being able to focus on a difference surface occasionally, without moving your head, is quite important for long term comfort.

 

[macsplusmacs]

My story is such that I have used 3 27" displays since they made 27" displays I will never go back to anything less than that.

Just my story. YMMV.

24 is too tiny for me!

Again. YMMV.

 

[salamanderjuice]

Assuming there is a wall behind your desk, as is the case for many home scenarios, your monitor will be a few inches forwards from the back. So your eyes would need to be 15 inches forwards from the front to get a 32 inch distance.

I don't know about you, but I've never seen anyone use a desk in that manner.

There's also the question of eye fatigue if your computer screen fills both your normal and peripheral vision. Being able to focus on a difference surface occasionally, without moving your head, is quite important for long term comfort.

I do every day? My desk is 20" deep, my slide out keyboard tray is about 9" from the edge of the desk when fully extended and my monitor floats about 2" from the edge of the desk so even if my eyeline was directly above the edge of the keyboard tray it'd already be at 27". Obviously I don't sit jammed straight against the keyboard tray because that's awful typing posture. Even if I were to be typing on the desk surface, proper typing posture would have me at the correct distance away.

A 27" monitor does not fill your vision or at least mine from even 20" inches away. They are really not that much bigger than a 24" display. I have one of each on my monitor arms.

 

[tornado99]

I think you're stretching a point here. If your monitor is hanging off the back, and you need a keyboard tray out the front, I mean why not just get a deeper desk!

So why not use a 32" monitor then?

I've used many different monitors over the years, in various workplaces, and it just seems to me that 24 inches is the happy medium in terms of size for the average consumer. Again, I'll mention that, outside America, people tend to live in smaller shomes and apartments. There just isn't the space for big setups. Your home office is often also your bedroom.

Give me a 24-25 inch, 3:2 ratio, at least 160 dpi, and I'll be happy.

 

[salamanderjuice]

I think you're stretching a point here. If your monitor is hanging off the back, and you need a keyboard tray out the front, I mean why not just get a deeper desk!

So why not use a 32" monitor then?

I've used many different monitors over the years, in various workplaces, and it just seems to me that 24 inches is the happy medium in terms of size for the average consumer. Again, I'll mention that, outside America, people tend to live in smaller shomes and apartments. There just isn't the space for big setups. Your home office is often also your bedroom.

Give me a 24-25 inch, 3:2 ratio, at least 160 dpi, and I'll be happy.

For ergonomics? Most desk surfaces are too high. A keyboard tray allows me to have the keyboard set at the proper height. And it saves space since it slides to fit under the desk. I live in a tiny studio apartment.

And a 3:2 25" monitor is going to be two inches less wide than a 16:9 27" monitor and just as tall. It's almost the same size.

 

[satchmo]

I think you're stretching a point here. If your monitor is hanging off the back, and you need a keyboard tray out the front, I mean why not just get a deeper desk!

So why not use a 32" monitor then?

I've used many different monitors over the years, in various workplaces, and it just seems to me that 24 inches is the happy medium in terms of size for the average consumer. Again, I'll mention that, outside America, people tend to live in smaller shomes and apartments. There just isn't the space for big setups. Your home office is often also your bedroom.

Give me a 24-25 inch, 3:2 ratio, at least 160 dpi, and I'll be happy.

I think this is where your argument fails. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[theSeb]

So why not use a 32" monitor then?

• Lack of available choices at that size
• Concerns about losing PPI - currently the only > 30" monitors available for me are 4K or weird gaming resolutions. 5K2K was an interesting experiment that does not seem to be gaining tractor and people are having many issues with monitors at that resolution. Therefore one is left with 27" 4k vs 32" 4k - clearly I'll be losing PPI.
• Most of the innovation and new models is happening in the 27" space - clearly that is what is selling to the consumers. Once Apple releases a larger iMac I expect 30/32" to become the new norm within a few years, just like 27" became the new norm.

 

[tornado99]

And a 3:2 25" monitor is going to be two inches less wide than a 16:9 27" monitor and just as tall. It's almost the same size.

Except a 3:2 25" has the same horizontal FOV as a 16:9 25", it just increases the vertical FOV. So you could position the monitor at the same distance as a 16:9 25", i.e. quite close. The current crop of monitors actually waste your vertical FOV which is very much underfilled.

I saw a study somewhere that concluded that the optimal monitor ratios for filling your near vision are 16:10 and 3:2.

Lack of available choices at that size

Dell sell an 8K 32" monitor. It's $5000, but if you're prepared to pay Apple $2500, it's not too much of a stretch. If larger size = better, then surely that's the ultimate monitor?

 

[theSeb]

Dell sell an 8K 32" monitor. It's $5000, but if you're prepared to pay Apple $2500, it's not too much of a stretch. If larger size = better, then surely that's the ultimate monitor?

What Mac can I use to drive an 8K monitor in MacOS?

 

[tornado99]

A Mac Pro with a modern GPU.

 

[Amethyst1]

A Mac Pro with a modern GPU.

The Dell 8K only runs at 30 Hz (ugh!) in macOS. The dual-cable solution it needs for 60 Hz doesn't work in macOS (yet).