why is apple monitor so expensive? worth it vs others?

[gagaliya]

So i have a late 2012 iMac 27 and the latest dell ultrasharp 27 next to each other, both same 1440p native resolution. While if you just look at the dell ultrasharp by itself it looks excellent, cant find any faults or issues. But next to the iMac, the apple monitor just looks better, i dont know if it's because of software or hardware or what, but it just looks better....and that's a 10 year old monitor.

So my question is does anyone know the actual technical why apple monitors are just better, i dont understand. Considering they cost 3x vs a "regular" good monitor like the dell ultrasharp.

I am at a cross roads of waiting for a new 27" iMac that may never come, or buy a mac studio/mini and hook up to a monitor. Just cant decide if the price premium of an apple monitor is worth paying vs something like dell ultrasharp. If apple released a new iMac 27 then my decision becomes easy (just buy it), but without it i am forced to buy a standalone mac and pick a monitor.

thanks

 

[FNH15]

So i have a late 2012 iMac 27 and the latest dell ultrasharp 27 next to each other, both same 1440p native resolution. While if you just look at the dell ultrasharp by itself it looks excellent, cant find any faults or issues. But next to the iMac, the apple monitor just looks better, i dont know if it's because of software or hardware or what, but it just looks better....and that's a 10 year old monitor.

So my question is does anyone know the actual technical why apple monitors are just better, i dont understand. Considering they cost 3x vs a "regular" good monitor like the dell ultrasharp.

I am at a cross roads of waiting for a new 27" iMac that may never come, or buy a mac studio/mini and hook up to a monitor. Just cant decide if the price premium of an apple monitor is worth paying vs something like dell ultrasharp. If apple released a new iMac 27 then my decision becomes easy (just buy it), but without it i am forced to buy a standalone mac and pick a monitor.

thanks

There are a few reasons why, I think:

• Regarding your 2012 iMac vs. the UltraSharp:
  • The iMac has laminated glass with a glossy finish, this makes the colors more vibrant and “pop"
  • Apple is known for having very high standards when it comes to color accuracy, and often times negotiates a “first pick” when it comes to display sourcing. I know with the old Apple Cinema Displays their rejected panels from LG / Sharp were then offered to other display manufacturers (eg. Dell)
• Regarding the latest crop of monitors:
  • There simply isn’t a competitor to the Apple Studio Display, aside from LG's UltraFine 5K. No other monitor on the market has a 5K display at 27”, simply because no one aside from LG currently makes a panel with that resolution. That panel is high-end anyway, with P3 color gamut and pretty high brightness (600 nits on the Studio, 500 nits on the UltraFine).
    • I have an UltraFine 5K; if I hadn’t got an exceptional deal on it I would definitely have gone with the Studio display. Build quality is much better on the Apple panel, and the display itself is much better (my 5K suffers from image retention and a pink border). If something does go wrong, I’d much rather go through AppleCare than through LG or even Dell.
    • It’s worth noting the UltraFine 5K uses the same panel that the 5K iMac used. The Studio Display has an updated panel which hopefully won’t exhibit retention issues down the line.
• For smaller 4K panels, you have a lot more choice, of course. I will say the 24” UltraFine is quite a good panel, with nice macOS integration, and has a lot of what you’d expect from your old iMac - native brightness control, glossy finish, etc.
• In my shopping experience, pricing out a display with the same quality of the built-in Apple monitors gets to be quite expensive. Not a lot of panels on the market have high brightness and P3 color gamut, for instance. These are the things you probably are noticing between your Dell and Apple panels.

Hope this helps!

 

[gagaliya]

There are a few reasons why, I think:

• Regarding your 2012 iMac vs. the UltraSharp:
  • The iMac has laminated glass with a glossy finish, this makes the colors more vibrant and “pop"
  • Apple is known for having very high standards when it comes to color accuracy, and often times negotiates a “first pick” when it comes to display sourcing. I know with the old Apple Cinema Displays their rejected panels from LG / Sharp were then offered to other display manufacturers (eg. Dell)
• Regarding the latest crop of monitors:
  • There simply isn’t a competitor to the Apple Studio Display, aside from LG's UltraFine 5K. No other monitor on the market has a 5K display at 27”, simply because no one aside from LG currently makes a panel with that resolution. That panel is high-end anyway, with P3 color gamut and pretty high brightness (600 nits on the Studio, 500 nits on the UltraFine).
    • I have an UltraFine 5K; if I hadn’t got an exceptional deal on it I would definitely have gone with the Studio display. Build quality is much better on the Apple panel, and the display itself is much better (my 5K suffers from image retention and a pink border). If something does go wrong, I’d much rather go through AppleCare than through LG or even Dell.
    • It’s worth noting the UltraFine 5K uses the same panel that the 5K iMac used. The Studio Display has an updated panel which hopefully won’t exhibit retention issues down the line.
• For smaller 4K panels, you have a lot more choice, of course. I will say the 24” UltraFine is quite a good panel, with nice macOS integration, and has a lot of what you’d expect from your old iMac - native brightness control, glossy finish, etc.
• In my shopping experience, pricing out a display with the same quality of the built-in Apple monitors gets to be quite expensive. Not a lot of panels on the market have high brightness and P3 color gamut, for instance. These are the things you probably are noticing between your Dell and Apple panels.

Hope this helps!

thank you for the detailed explanation, looks like there is quite a bit of difference which added all together translates to the "just looks better" compared side by side. Still, quite a tough pill to swallow spending $1600 vs $400 on a monitor, apple is really not letting up on the price. That's why I miss the 27 iMac so much, if i just get a baseline model around $2500+ (which is all i need), it includes this $1600 monitor in it already. Something for me to ponder, maybe wait another year or 2 if still no iMac bite the bullet

 

[Royksöpp]

It takes a lot more processing power to handle 5K resolution, that’s going to add a premium. Considering LG’s plastic version of a 5K monitor cost 1299, I would say the Studio is quite reasonable. Plus the Studio has better speakers and connectivity. The webcam is not worth mentioning. For 2022 the price seems appropriate. Another positive about an Apple display is that they will hold their value if you ever decide to upgrade.

 

[ascender]

I think it comes down to whether or not the differences are worth paying that extra money for.

As much as the webcam could be better, I find it perfectly adequate for conference calls and having it built-in, with decent speakers, is definitely a bonus.

Compared to non-Apple screens, it also wakes from sleep quickly, every time... looks pin sharp at all the scaled resolutions and the speakers are pretty good too. Its design is very nice compared to a lot of the plasticky monitors out there, but that's usually the case for Apple displays.

 

[CyberDavis]

I upgraded my late 2014 27" iMac to a Mac Studio with Studio Display.
I have been very pleased with the combination.

The display is very well made, and feels much better that the 24" LG display I have as well for use with my work laptop.
The build quality is far ahead of any display I have seen or used, and I include my older and previous iMacs which I loved.

For me the speakers, microphone and camera are excellent meaning I need less accessories on my desk.
I know the camera has had some negative comments, but I find it excellent for Teams, Zoom and Facetime, and again better than my old iMac.

 

[Basic75]

Just cant decide if the price premium of an apple monitor is worth paying vs something like dell ultrasharp.

That's a choice that only you can make. For my office work I'm happy with a pair of 27" 1440p IPS displays that I got for less than 500 USD/EUR. Do they look as good as the Studio Display? No. But they are IPS, colours are good, viewing angles are good, desktop real estate is the same, and I can read all text even if it's slightly jaggy. It's way ahead of anything I used before the first 27" iMac. And under 500 for the pair of them is really a lot less than even a single Studio Display.

 

[Fishrrman]

It's Apple.
They know that people will pay extra to have that "logo" on the display...

 

[crowe-t]

On Apple's website it says the Studio Display is compatible with macOS Monterey 12.3 or later. I don't understand why it can't be used with an older OS than Monterey.

 

[CyberDavis]

On Apple's website it says the Studio Display is compatible with macOS Monterey 12.3 or later. I don't understand why it can't be used with an older OS than Monterey.

I’m guessing it’s a driver and port issue on older OS versions.

 

[nquinn]

There really are no other 5k monitor alternatives unless you look at LG ultrafine.

I'm considering picking up a cheap Dell ultrafine 24-27" 4k monitor which will land the PPI around 163-183. Not quite the 220ppi of the 5k monitors, but still pretty good and you can find reasonable monitors for under $300.

I think I might just scour used forums for lightly used LG ultrafine 5k or Apple Studio monitors.

I could try to combine some gift cards/discounts/etc for a new apple mointor, but at $2k for the tilt even with 15% off it would be $1700+tax.

I'm mostly annoyed my work gives us crappy $190ish 1080p monitors to pair with our $2800+ m1 macbooks. $100 more could get such a nicer monitor.

 

[Zest28]

Because nobody besides Apple computers needs a 5K display to function correctly. So Apple has created basically a “monopoly” position which is why the prices are so high.

 

[nquinn]

Because nobody besides Apple computers needs a 5K display to function correctly. So Apple has created basically a “monopoly” position which is why the prices are so high.

I'd disagree. If by "function correctly" it means you can simply see any text on a screen, sure. But a 5k 27" monitor @ 217ppi vs. a 4k @ around 160ppi is VERY noticable in every day use. Especially if you have a good retina laptop screen right next to it.

Not even to mention the differences in brightness, color gamut, etc. Cheap monitors just look like garbage next to good macbook mini-led screens, and even older macbook basic LCD screens.

 

[Zest28]

I'd disagree. If by "function correctly" it means you can simply see any text on a screen, sure. But a 5k 27" monitor @ 217ppi vs. a 4k @ around 160ppi is VERY noticable in every day use. Especially if you have a good retina laptop screen right next to it.

Not even to mention the differences in brightness, color gamut, etc. Cheap monitors just look like garbage next to good macbook mini-led screens, and even older macbook basic LCD screens.

I disagree. My Samsung 4K TV despite it’s low PPI looks far better than most Apple displays except for the mini-LED displays (Pro XDR and the 16” M1 screens). Even subtitles looks very sharp.

The only time this low PPI becomes a problem is when I connect a Mac to this 4K TV. It just looks very weird.

So Apple computers are doing something really strange.

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

Depending on your requirements, wealth, and willingness to wait, there are some new stuff coming next year. Courtesy of TFTcentral:

AU Optronics: A new panel, the M320MAN01.0 is planned for production from Q2 2023 which will be 32″ in size and offer a very high 8K resolution (7680×4320). This will be combined with a new AmLED backlight with an impressive 4608 dimming zones. It’s a 60Hz only panel before any gamers get too excited, but will offer 99% Adobe RGB / 99% DCI-P3 colour gamut and HDR 1000 support. Expected monitors using this to be very expensive and aimed at the professional market as and when they are announced.

BOE:
Linked to the above OQD Film panels and perhaps most interesting is a planned 34″ ultrawide model with a 5120 x 2160 (WUHD) resolution. This will be a generation 2 OQD panel with 99.5% Adobe RGB and DCI-P3 colour gamut coverage and Eyesafe 8.0. This is expected to go in to production in Q1 2023.

There is also a suggestion that there may be another version of this panel with HDR600 support and a slightly smaller colour gamut of 98% DCI-P3. This version seems to be listed for Q4 2022 production.

High PPI and 8K Resolutions​

BOE are also focusing on increasing the resolution of their monitor panels in line with what we see happening in video recording, streaming services and mobile/tablet devices. There are plans for several new panels.

• 31.5″ panel with a 7680 x 4320 resolution (280 PPI), 350 cd/m2 brightness (400 cd/m2 peak) and a wide colour gamut covering 99% DCI-P3 and Adobe RGB. This should now be in production as of Q2 2022.
• 27″ panel with 5120 x 2880 resolution (210 PPI), 350 cd/m2 brightness, HDR 600 support (600 cd/m2peak), 98% DCI-P3 colour gamut. This is listed for Q4 2022 production.
• 31.5″ panel with 6034 x 3384 resolution (210 PPI), 350 cd/m2 brightness, HDR 600 support (600 cd/m2peak), 98% DCI-P3 colour gamut. This is listed for Q1 2023 production.
• The 34″ ultrawide panel discussed above as well, with 5120 x 2160 resolution (160 PPI), 400 cd/m2brightness, HDR 600 support (600 cd/m2 peak), 98% DCI-P3 colour gamut. This is listed for Q4 2022 production.

BOE miniLed:

• 27″ with 5120 x 2880 high PPI resolution, 60Hz refresh rate, 98% DCI-P3 gamut – this will have 2304 dimming zones but with 9216 LED’s, and is scheduled for production from Feb 2023.

 

[crowe-t]

I'll be setting up 2 Mac Minis and need to run both on one monitor with a KVM switch. One Mini will be the upcoming M2 Mini and the other is a 2018 Mini running Mojave.

I'd like to use an Apple 27" Studio Display. It says it requires OS Monterey or higher. Is this to mainly run the monitor's camera or something like that. I can't see why the image won't show coming off of Mojave on the monitor.

 

[nquinn]

I disagree. My Samsung 4K TV despite it’s low PPI looks far better than most Apple displays except for the mini-LED displays (Pro XDR and the 16” M1 screens). Even subtitles looks very sharp.

The only time this low PPI becomes a problem is when I connect a Mac to this 4K TV. It just looks very weird.

So Apple computers are doing something really strange.

That's probably because you're sitting 10 feet away from it.

I use 1080p monitors at work with my macbook and they suck. I've also looked at 1440p monitors at Microcenter and the text looks bad to me.

 

[tornado99]

There are a few reasons why, I think:

• Regarding your 2012 iMac vs. the UltraSharp:
  • The iMac has laminated glass with a glossy finish, this makes the colors more vibrant and “pop"
  • Apple is known for having very high standards when it comes to color accuracy, and often times negotiates a “first pick” when it comes to display sourcing. I know with the old Apple Cinema Displays their rejected panels from LG / Sharp were then offered to other display manufacturers (eg. Dell)
• Regarding the latest crop of monitors:
  • There simply isn’t a competitor to the Apple Studio Display, aside from LG's UltraFine 5K. No other monitor on the market has a 5K display at 27”, simply because no one aside from LG currently makes a panel with that resolution. That panel is high-end anyway, with P3 color gamut and pretty high brightness (600 nits on the Studio, 500 nits on the UltraFine).
    • I have an UltraFine 5K; if I hadn’t got an exceptional deal on it I would definitely have gone with the Studio display. Build quality is much better on the Apple panel, and the display itself is much better (my 5K suffers from image retention and a pink border). If something does go wrong, I’d much rather go through AppleCare than through LG or even Dell.
    • It’s worth noting the UltraFine 5K uses the same panel that the 5K iMac used. The Studio Display has an updated panel which hopefully won’t exhibit retention issues down the line.
• For smaller 4K panels, you have a lot more choice, of course. I will say the 24” UltraFine is quite a good panel, with nice macOS integration, and has a lot of what you’d expect from your old iMac - native brightness control, glossy finish, etc.
• In my shopping experience, pricing out a display with the same quality of the built-in Apple monitors gets to be quite expensive. Not a lot of panels on the market have high brightness and P3 color gamut, for instance. These are the things you probably are noticing between your Dell and Apple panels.

Hope this helps!

I'm not sure that the LG Ultrafine is fully laminated though? It seems to be an air gap with a shiny plastic sheet stuck on top, although I haven't seen one in person.

 

[jabbr]

It’s expensive because the entire market for monitors is absolutely atrocious and Apple gets to take advantage of this fact.

They can offer a half-assed, non-innovative, overpriced display because there is no competition out there. This opinion coming from a fairly happy ASD owner.

 

[Zest28]

That's probably because you're sitting 10 feet away from it.

I use 1080p monitors at work with my macbook and they suck. I've also looked at 1440p monitors at Microcenter and the text looks bad to me.

Has nothing to do with distance. Because Mac on the same distance looks bad.

Apple computers only work correctly on their own displays which is a big flaw with Apple computers.

 

[EugW]

Depending on your requirements, wealth, and willingness to wait, there are some new stuff coming next year. Courtesy of TFTcentral:

• 31.5″ panel with a 7680 x 4320 resolution (280 PPI), 350 cd/m2 brightness (400 cd/m2 peak) and a wide colour gamut covering 99% DCI-P3 and Adobe RGB. This should now be in production as of Q2 2022.
• 27″ panel with 5120 x 2880 resolution (210 PPI), 350 cd/m2 brightness, HDR 600 support (600 cd/m2peak), 98% DCI-P3 colour gamut. This is listed for Q4 2022 production.

• 31.5″ panel with 6034 x 3384 resolution (210 PPI), 350 cd/m2 brightness, HDR 600 support (600 cd/m2peak), 98% DCI-P3 colour gamut. This is listed for Q1 2023 production.
• The 34″ ultrawide panel discussed above as well, with 5120 x 2160 resolution (160 PPI), 400 cd/m2brightness, HDR 600 support (600 cd/m2 peak), 98% DCI-P3 colour gamut. This is listed for Q4 2022 production.

BOE miniLed:

• 27″ with 5120 x 2880 high PPI resolution, 60Hz refresh rate, 98% DCI-P3 gamut – this will have 2304 dimming zones but with 9216 LED’s, and is scheduled for production from Feb 2023.

Hmm... I already have a Retina 27" iMac at 5120x2880. Note that list is incorrect since it's not 210 ppi. It's 218 ppi. While I like the display, that 218 ppi just is a touch too high for my preferences. I'd prefer something closer to 200, or else probably something much higher like that 31.5" 7680x4320 280 ppi monitor. At that pixel density you could run any scaled resolution with no significant text clarity problems. Heck, even ~230 ppi would be fine. However, running a 218 ppi Retina display at a scaled resolution just seems a little "off" to me.

The problem is no current Macs support 8K monitors. That will probably change with the 2023 Mac Pro, but how many of us would actually buy a horrendously expensive 8K monitor AND a horrendously expensive Mac Pro to drive it? I just bought my M1 Mac mini so I'm not about to get another computer any time soon. Mind you, that 6K 32" 220 ppi monitor could be an option if priced reasonably, if I sat back a few inches, scaled to something like "looks like" 2880x1620. I predict it will be far out of my price range though, unfortunately.

In the meantime, I've ordered a 32" non-Retina 92 ppi 2560x1440 165 Hz HDR600 Asus ProArt PA328CGV monitor to replace my 101 ppi Apple 30" Cinema HD Display. Hopefully the Asus ProArt doesn't suck.

BTW, most of these monitor names suck.