YouTuber Compares Apple Pro Display XDR to $43K Sony Reference Monitor, Says It's a 'No Go' for Professional Colorists

[theluggage]

LOL. Really, made 50?

No, not really. D'oh!

If they had only made 50 and sold 55 then there would be a backlog (especially after they'd sent the first 50 to breathless youtubers). You can't tell how many they have sold simply from the fact that there is a backlog. Or how big a success its going to be after the first month or two of sales.

Would you like a diagram with that?

NB: The trashcan had a long backlog in its first few months, too... and that turned out well. :->

 

[rkuo]

I know exactly what I'm talking about you have literally zero perspective. Color accuracy is something that is not as objective as certain people pretend it is, nor is it as important as certain people pretend it is.

Until/unless people are carrying around smartphones and tablets and laptops with the same color accuracy as the $43k reference monitor, then your elitest nonsense is nothing more than that: elitest nonsense. You can master media on a 5K iMac and it be more than adequate for the entire world to consume, and that is an absolutely irrefutable fact.

There's literally hardware and software to calibrate the accuracy of displays. It's very objective. That's how DisplayMate conducts its reviews ... not that I would have to mention any of this who actually had any basic knowledge whatsoever ... the whole tone of this is like trying to explain the earth is not flat. In fact, one of Apple's main selling points across their entire line is how well they calibrate their consumer devices out of the box.

 

[rkuo]

No, not really. D'oh!

If they had only made 50 and sold 55 then there would be a backlog (especially after they'd sent the first 50 to breathless youtubers). You can't tell how many they have sold simply from the fact that there is a backlog. Or how big a success its going to be after the first month or two of sales.

Would you like a diagram with that?

NB: The trashcan had a long backlog in its first few months, too... and that turned out well. :->

Exactly ... it's ridiculous to suggest we know the monitor is a success just because it's hard to get right now. In fact, just common sense tells you the market for a 5000 dollar monitor probably isn't very large. Choosing to believe it's purely high demand and not poor supply stinks of blatantly biased fanboyism.

And don't get me wrong, I wouldn't kick this monitor out of the room, but the marketing for this XDR monitor is the kind of hyperbole I would have expected out of a budget TV maker, not Apple. There was some assumption of credibility on Apple's part that they weren't going to draw that comparison without taking some real steps to justify it, and it's very very disappointing to see how they dropped the ball on this one.

 

[I7guy]

...but the marketing for this XDR monitor is the kind of hyperbole I would have expected out of a budget TV maker, not Apple. There was some assumption of credibility on Apple's part that they weren't going to draw that comparison without taking some real steps to justify it, and it's very very disappointing to see how they dropped the ball on this one.

It's called fluff. Those that want the monitor, for their own reasons, will purchase it. Those that are disappointed in Apple, so be it.
[automerge]1581975174[/automerge]

No, not really. D'oh!

If they had only made 50 and sold 55 then there would be a backlog (especially after they'd sent the first 50 to breathless youtubers). You can't tell how many they have sold simply from the fact that there is a backlog. Or how big a success its going to be after the first month or two of sales.

Would you like a diagram with that?

NB: The trashcan had a long backlog in its first few months, too... and that turned out well. :->

So you're going with the "they only made 50" with a corporation that's the worlds experts in supply chains? Ok, then.

One will never be able to accurately measure the success as the sales will be buried. But Apple does not seemingly just go willy-nilly into new markets.

 

[chucker23n1]

...which would mess up your perception of the image, especially if you're at the "find minute mistakes" stage. Do you get annoyed if someone in front of you in the theatre fires up their phone? Right,

Well, that's why pro apps tend to have a dark UI. But, yes, there's value to a full-screen no-chrome experience.

Apple set the tone when they claimed it was "the best pro display in the world".

Yeah, Apple exaggerated, and it's rightfully backfiring. No argument there.

 

[PickUrPoison]

That's great(well not really), but you didn't explain how using XDR specifically translates into time saved. Nor did you answer any of my other questions/requests for clarification. You've just re-worded the same vague statements and added some theoretical math to the top.

Your only attempt at an explanation is "...lets them see more, have more UI elements/controls on screen, and keeps them from having to scroll around as much." and that doesn't hold up at all. (Re)Read post #367. Almost every creative is already on 4K, you literally just argued against yourself. So according to your logic purchasing the most expensive desktop screen would result in reduced productivity for the sake of 218ppi eye candy.

It's another perfect example of you not know what you're talking about despite insulting everyone else by saying "What I see mostly in this thread is a lot of non-pros, who know little about who would use this monitor and why...". And you have the audacity to be the one complaining about 'ad hominem attacks' while also signing off every reply with some snooty 'I understand everything and you understand nothing' attitude when nothing could be further from the truth.

You’re the one who resorted to name calling when you ran out of gas.

You still got nothing, apparently 🙄

 

[BlueTide]

I love how so many experts here are making point blank assertions and proclamations about "reference monitors," yet have most likely never used or even seen one, and until very recently (thanks to google search), never knew what they are or where and how they're used.

Haha, ain't that so! I've figured this place is mostly good for laughs. Just look at the 6k/4k knee-jerk discussion which makes it obvious that the peeps have no real idea how that Sony would even be used and why. Or they try to turn the discussion to something else. And the comments that just say that price is no issue for companies. And how these monitors should display the UIs. This place is a true comedy club at times.

 

[PickUrPoison]

...now try and collect on that notional "saved" money. Are you going to cut the employee's pay since they get the job don in fewer hours? Or, can you guarantee bringing in extra work to fill those extra hours? Then there are all those other demands on the equipment budget, like upgrading all the networking, which will save 5x as much time for every employee, or fixing the air con in the server room before it dies and you loose several days of business...

Ultimately, you have $4500 of real cash-y money that has to be spent this quarter vs. $maybe that you'll recoup over 5 years... In any business bigger than a mom & pop outfit, equipment and salaries are different budgets (even for a one-man-band 'sole trader' you have to account for them separately) and the bigger the company the less the person responsible for the equipment budget gives a wet slap about payroll vs. meeting their own target of shaving 10% from the equipment spend. ...and that is assuming rationality (my favourite was being told that I couldn't order a 19" display - back when that was big-ish - for a colleague doing extensive page layout work but that I could order two 17" displays because policy - no, don't look for any rationality in that one).

Yes, you are correct in general that equipment costs less than people and its stupid to nickel-and-dime on getting people the kit they need - but that isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card to rationalise wasting money on over-priced equipment because of some vaguely-defined promise of improved productivity. You need a really strong case as to why that 6k display is so much better than a 4k or 5k display - or even the 8k Dell that costs $3000-$4000.

Edit: Apparently the Dell doesn't work on the Mac. Maybe Apple should fix that rather than producing weird neither-fish-nor-fowl displays.

Poorly run companies do stupid things like not letting an employee have the 19” monitor they need to do their work most effectively. I don’t work for them.

When I’ve been in charge of IT, the policy—per the CEO—was that people get what they need to do their jobs. That doesn’t mean we didn’t have budgets. But the budget was sufficient for our people to get what they needed.

When you bring someone on, you know there are costs involved. The software often exceeded the cost of the hardware. But there’s no use hiring someone if you can’t outfit them with necessary tools, or don’t have work for them.

I’m not saying everyone gets a 6K monitor; far from it. But it really doesn’t take much to cost-justify it when you’ve got expensive engineers, scientists and employees in the other occupations I mentioned.

 

[throAU]

No one is going to buy their employees this monitor unless they really really need it. That’s just common sense. I’m not gonna spend my credibility points justifying a 5000 dollar monitor for someone that doesn’t really need one. A 1000 dollar monitor is more than enough.

And that's the thing.

Who "needs" this monitor? It isn't accurate enough for high end work, and it isn't cost effective for people who don't need that level of colour accuracy. You can buy alternatives in that "i just need something good enough" segment that are WAY less expensive.

Apple made the comparison to pro-level reference displays and it just doesn't hold up. Its in this uncomfortable middle-ground where its too expensive for most and just simply not good enough for those who need a properly accurate device.

 

[Adult80HD]

And that's the thing.

Who "needs" this monitor? It isn't accurate enough for high end work, and it isn't cost effective for people who don't need that level of colour accuracy. You can buy alternatives in that "i just need something good enough" segment that are WAY less expensive.

Apple made the comparison to pro-level reference displays and it just doesn't hold up. Its in this uncomfortable middle-ground where its too expensive for most and just simply not good enough for those who need a properly accurate device.

And you and many others seem to completely MISS the point that is this is a wide-open space no one has targeted. It's *exactly* the reason Apple made it. If you think they don't do their market research and seek out opportunities then you don't know how real businesses operate.

Who wants/needs this? Try anyone who wants a large retina-resolution monitor with high color accuracy. That's a lot of people: Photographers, small-time video and VFX shops, developers and scientists who are looking for a large high-resolution screen, etc. Just because it doesn't make sense to YOU doesn't mean it isn't a smart buy for many others. There are plenty of people that don't need a $30k+ reference display but would love higher color accuracy in a large high-resolution display--and yes, the color accuracy is much better than your average cheap display.

Why is that so hard to wrap your head around? Besides an obvious Anti-Apple bias, that is.

 

[blackadde]

I know exactly what I'm talking about you have literally zero perspective. Color accuracy is something that is not as objective as certain people pretend it is, nor is it as important as certain people pretend it is.

Until/unless people are carrying around smartphones and tablets and laptops with the same color accuracy as the $43k reference monitor, then your elitest nonsense is nothing more than that: elitest nonsense. You can master media on a 5K iMac and it be more than adequate for the entire world to consume, and that is an absolutely irrefutable fact.

Not everyone is making work for iPhones, friend. Some people are doing work for cinema, film restoration, color-sensitive branding / print, prepress, matching fabric tones for production, art reproduction, museum curation ...

All of those require very accurate color and tone representation with an emphasis on uniformity and repeatability. Many of them involve fully color managed workflows with spectrophotometers, calibrated lighting, and even neutral room paint. Your monitor really does need to be on point for purposes such as these. It's not elitist nonsense.

 

[PickUrPoison]

And that's the thing.

Who "needs" this monitor? It isn't accurate enough for high end work, and it isn't cost effective for people who don't need that level of colour accuracy. You can buy alternatives in that "i just need something good enough" segment that are WAY less expensive.

Apple made the comparison to pro-level reference displays and it just doesn't hold up. Its in this uncomfortable middle-ground where its too expensive for most and just simply not good enough for those who need a properly accurate device.

It holds up just fine. “A no-go for colorists” eliminates what, maybe 1 or 2% of potential customers?
[automerge]1581985447[/automerge]

Not everyone is making work for iPhones, friend. Some people are doing work for cinema, film restoration, color-sensitive branding / print, prepress, matching fabric tones for production, art reproduction, museum curation ...

All of those require very accurate color and tone representation with an emphasis on uniformity and repeatability. Many of them involve a fully color managed workflows with spectrophotometers, calibrated lighting, and even neutral room paint. Your monitor really does need to be on point for purposes such as these. It's not elitist nonsense.

You’re right about the people who need reference grade monitors of course. They won’t be tossing their $30-40k monitors anytime soon.

 

[Adult80HD]

It holds up just fine. “A no-go for colorists” eliminates what, maybe 1 or 2% of potential customers?

It's humorous how the guys on here ranting about how the XDR is no good think that the market for it is tiny and yet somehow the even tinier market for the uber-expensive reference displays is a non-issue? The market for a $5K high end 32" display is vastly larger than the one for a true reference display.

Meanwhile they also ignore the ASUS ProArt displays, targeting the same market and at a very similar price point. Apparently the market for these displays is so tiny that two vendors are now targeting it.

 

[blackadde]

You’re right about the people who need reference grade monitors of course. They won’t be tossing their $30-40k monitors anytime soon.

These people, by and large, do *not* have 30-40K monitors. The reason is simple: only HDR reference displays cost that much. SDR reference displays are more in the 3-10K range - competing right there with the XDR in price. Many of these workflows have no use for HDR, but do demand regular calibration that can be validated.

 

[rkuo]

It's called fluff. Those that want the monitor, for their own reasons, will purchase it. Those that are disappointed in Apple, so be it.

I'm simply saying that they lose credibility, especially at the higher end of the pro market, when they make claims like this that turn out to be fluff. It's also a bad time to be doing this since the entire point of the new Mac Pro was to restore some of their credibility among creative professionals.

They are, of course, free to puff their claims ... but I'm free to discount their credibility in the future when they do it.

So you're going with the "they only made 50" with a corporation that's the worlds experts in supply chains? Ok, then.

One will never be able to accurately measure the success as the sales will be buried. But Apple does not seemingly just go willy-nilly into new markets.

Respectfully, you're really strawmanning his argument. The 50 number was a hypothetical to discuss supply and demand.

 

[I7guy]

I'm simply saying that they lose credibility, especially at the higher end of the pro market, when they make claims like this that turn out to be fluff. It's also a bad time to be doing this since the entire point of the new Mac Pro was to restore some of their credibility among creative professionals.

They are, of course, free to puff their claims ... but I'm free to discount their credibility in the future when they do it.

Yes, you’re free to discount their credibility. But there are those that will evaluate this monitor on their own merits and make a buy or no-buy decision. Nobody know this universe.

Respectfully, you're really strawmanning his argument. The 50 number was a hypothetical to discuss supply and demand.

Yes a strawman argument to a red herring post.

 

[PickUrPoison]

These people, by and large, do *not* have 30-40K monitors. The reason is simple: only HDR reference displays cost that much. SDR reference displays are more in the 3-10K range - competing right there with the XDR in price. Many of these workflows have no use for HDR, but do demand regular calibration that can be validated.

Oh ok, that’s great they don’t need expensive reference monitors. So the introduction of the XDR changes nothing for them, and they’ll keep buying what they were buying. Just as those who need 30-40k monitors will keep buying those 🤷‍♂️

That has nothing to do though with the market segment that doesn’t need reference grade monitors; those who do are a very small slice of the overall market. When you need something special, you oftentimes have to pay through the nose 🙁

But I think Apple’s fine that they’re only addressing 95+% of the market for a 32” high-resolution monitor. Maybe when Apple enables user calibration it will be suitable for the types of use cases you cite, who knows.

 

[rkuo]

Oh ok, that’s great they don’t need expensive reference monitors. So the introduction of the XDR changes nothing for them, and they’ll keep buying what they were buying. Just as those who need 30-40k monitors will keep buying those 🤷‍♂️

Doesn’t change a thing though for the market segment that doesn’t need reference grade monitors, and it’s a small slice of the overall market. When you need something special, you oftentimes have to pay through the nose 🙁

But I think Apple’s fine that they’re only addressing 95+% of the market for a 32” high-resolution monitor. Maybe when Apple enables user calibration it will be suitable for the types of use cases you cite, who knows.

You don't address a market without a price point, and here we're talking about a jump from a 1300 dollar 27" monitor to a 5000 dollar 32" monitor. The market for the former is what the 32" XDR is competing with, and at that price point it doesn't do it very well.

Furthermore, the productivity arguments are a bit specious since a very large portion of the target market would probably opt for dual 27" UltraFine 5K's at half the price vs a single Pro Display XDR if we're talking about pure real estate. Just because there isn't another monitor exactly like the XDR doesn't mean that customers aren't going to pick alternatives.

 

[PickUrPoison]

You don't address a market without a price point, and here we're talking about a jump from a 1300 dollar 27" monitor to a 5000 dollar 32" monitor. The market for the former is what the 32" XDR is competing with, and at that price point it doesn't do it very well.

Furthermore, the productivity arguments are a bit specious since a very large portion of the target market would probably opt for dual 27" UltraFine 5K's at half the price vs a single Pro Display XDR if we're talking about pure real estate. Just because there isn't another monitor exactly like the XDR doesn't mean that customers aren't going to pick alternatives.

As you mention, the price point is $5k. Customers will evaluate it on that basis. If they would rather have two 27” monitors for $2,500, awesome! That’s what they should buy.

But don’t make the mistake of thinking Apple’s monitor is just about pixels. Apple does a ton of market research, and they think there’s a sufficiently large market for the XDR.

I’m not sure why you (or anyone else in this thread) would think that you have a better handle on the market potential for an extremely accurate, 32” high resolution, high pixel density Thunderbolt 3 monitor for Macs.

In the past Apple has offered 11 and 12” displays (now discontinued), 13”, 15” (discontinued for 16”), 17” (discontinued for 21.5”), 27” and now 32”.

Fine you don’t want one, but what do you care if Apple sells 10k, 20k, 50k, 100k, 500k, or a million 32” monitors? What difference could it possibly make to you?

You can speculate until the cows come home about why you think people shouldn’t or won’t buy this monitor, and it won’t make one bit of difference. It may become a huge hit, or flame out and be discontinued. Who knows?

But if you don’t see the potential for this monitor, I have to assume you’re not a video editor or otherwise in the target market 🤷‍♂️

 

[Adult80HD]

As you mention, the price point is $5k. Customers will evaluate it on that basis. If they would rather have two 27” monitors for $2,500, awesome! That’s what they should buy.

But don’t make the mistake of thinking Apple’s monitor is just about pixels. Apple does a ton of market research, and they think there’s a sufficiently large market for the XDR.

I’m not sure why you (or anyone else in this thread) would think that you have a better handle on the market potential for an extremely accurate, 32” high resolution, high pixel density Thunderbolt 3 monitor for Macs.

In the past Apple has offered 11 and 12” displays (now discontinued), 13”, 15” (discontinued for 16”), 17” (discontinued for 21.5”), 27” and now 32”.

Fine you don’t want one, but what do you care if Apple sells 10k, 20k, 50k, 100k, 500k, or a million 32” monitors? What difference could it possibly make to you?

You can speculate until the cows come home about why you think people shouldn’t or won’t buy this monitor, and it won’t make one bit of difference. It may become a huge hit, or flame out and be discontinued. Who knows?

But if you don’t see the potential for this monitor, I have to assume you’re not a video editor or otherwise in the target market 🤷‍♂️

The simple reason: It's about Apple hate, not the product. They couldn't care less about this monitor. It's the exact same folks over on the threads bemoaning how terrible the Mac Pro 7,1 is or that claiming that if Apple doesn't use AMD processors they'll be dead. It's tired and wrong, but they love nothing more than trashing almost every new Apple product and calling everyone who disagrees with them a "fanboy."

 

[alstrike]

Calling Vincent Teoh a youtuber? LMAO Macrumors

 

[PickUrPoison]

The simple reason: It's about Apple hate, not the product. They couldn't care less about this monitor. It's the exact same folks over on the threads bemoaning how terrible the Mac Pro 7,1 is or that claiming that if Apple doesn't use AMD processors they'll be dead. It's tired and wrong, but they love nothing more than trashing almost every new Apple product and calling everyone who disagrees with them a "fanboy."

But what pray tell could po$$ibly be the rea$on for devoting hours each day to trashing the competition? 🤣

 

[blackadde]

The simple reason: It's about Apple hate, not the product. They couldn't care less about this monitor. It's the exact same folks over on the threads bemoaning how terrible the Mac Pro 7,1 is or that claiming that if Apple doesn't use AMD processors they'll be dead. It's tired and wrong, but they love nothing more than trashing almost every new Apple product and calling everyone who disagrees with them a "fanboy."

What’s the point of discussing the merits of this tool or that tool in their professional use cases if the responses you get are basically ‘you’re a hater, give it a rest’?

I own plenty of Apple stuff and I use it to do my job. I don’t think the XDR is a great buy for many of the professional workflows presented by Apple or on this forum, especially for people who primarily work in SDR.

Enjoy your XDR, though. I’m glad it seems to be the right choice for you as a big, bright, fairly-accurate screen.

 

[rkuo]

As you mention, the price point is $5k. Customers will evaluate it on that basis. If they would rather have two 27” monitors for $2,500, awesome! That’s what they should buy.

But don’t make the mistake of thinking Apple’s monitor is just about pixels. Apple does a ton of market research, and they think there’s a sufficiently large market for the XDR.

I’m not sure why you (or anyone else in this thread) would think that you have a better handle on the market potential for an extremely accurate, 32” high resolution, high pixel density Thunderbolt 3 monitor for Macs.

In the past Apple has offered 11 and 12” displays (now discontinued), 13”, 15” (discontinued for 16”), 17” (discontinued for 21.5”), 27” and now 32”.

Fine you don’t want one, but what do you care if Apple sells 10k, 20k, 50k, 100k, 500k, or a million 32” monitors? What difference could it possibly make to you?

You can speculate until the cows come home about why you think people shouldn’t or won’t buy this monitor, and it won’t make one bit of difference. It may become a huge hit, or flame out and be discontinued. Who knows?

But if you don’t see the potential for this monitor, I have to assume you’re not a video editor or otherwise in the target market 🤷‍♂️

The appeal to authority re: Apple's decisions isn't convincing. They make plenty of missteps, as do many large corporations.

Furthermore, there's every reason to believe Apple's re-introduction of the Mac Pro and the Pro Display XDR is about mindshare and marketing on a larger level, not pure profitability of the products themselves. This is about the world's largest computer company being unable to release a top end pro level computer and supporting ecosystem for several years and correcting that mistake. Halo products like the Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR bring credibility to the rest of the product line, but often lose money themselves.

As for why I care? Why do YOU care? I like a lot of Apple stuff and I think they blew some credibility on this product. I expect better from them.

I don't spend all day grading videos, but I've spent the better part of my life engineering video and image pipelines, which gives me some background on the subject in question here and the ability to judge a product's suitability. Is there some reason you care about that?

 

[citysnaps]

But what pray tell could po$$ibly be the rea$on for devoting hours each day to trashing the competition? 🤣

Eh, think I need to disagree on that, as internet trashing is not limited to competition. It's deeper, and I believe has to do with some people not feeling good about themselves and/or the hand that life has dealt them. Trashing some person/product/company/etc gives voice to the voiceless and provides a blip of power and joy that's otherwise lacking in their lives.

Trashing something, a tech product no less, seems so bizarre. As an example, there are some cars I don't particularly care for. Why in the world would I waste my time going to a General Motors forum (a random example) and trash the corporation and its brands? What a waste of time.

As a photographer I'm interested in Apple's XDR display and am trying to soak up as much information about it as possible, and is why I'm here on this thread, learning a few things as a result. And, have also made contact with a member who owns and uses one.

There are competing displays at various feature and price points. As there's something for everybody, why would I get so emotionally involved with competing products I'd feel the need to trash them? Makes no sense.