Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikestew | Hacker News Reader

I'm hearing that the LG displays were running out of stock, possibly in anticipation of a new Apple display. Sure enough...wait a minute, FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS?! Oh, I understand it's a reference-quality, blah, blah, blah, but I just need something to replace an aging Cinema display that was originally $1000. The fucking stand for the new display costs that much (note the audience response when that price popped on the screen).

So if I can't buy an LG, what do I buy for less than a couple grand, Apple?

View on HN

So it has an insane resolution for an insane amount of money. The original monitor also had an insane resolution for the time, but did not cost 5k. 1k is pricey for a monitor, but understandable. If they had segmented and offered a lower resolution monitor for a lower price (basically, an updated Cinema/Thunderbolt display), that would have been enough. The greedy beancounters have fully taken over.

Subjective, but that's also the ugliest piece of hardware Apple has ever created.

It needs to compete on ugliness with the new Mac Pro. The design and the price, did the inmates really take over?

Inmates?

Was supposed to be about this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Inmates-Are-Running-Asylum-Products/d...

But doesn't quite add up. Sorry.

But its not an insane resolution. Its twice as expensive as 8k monitors and the only reason they used a proprietary resolution was to attempt to justify it. I thought the monitor was going to be around 2-3k like others in its class.

I agree that the stand might be the ugliest thing they've ever made.

I don’t think that the resolution was an attempt to justify the price. If that was the case, why go down in resolution from what’s available? Maybe if they were selling a 9k I would buy it.

Based off some back of the envelope math I did a while ago, I think Apple decided that 6k is the maximum usable resolution for a desktop monitor. At reasonable viewing distances you should be able to tell the difference between a 4K and 8k monitor, but you won’t be able to resolve every single detail of the 8k, hence 6k.

Unless you just make it bigger. They talked about being able to have 6 of the things and were showing dual monitors much of the time. Ultrawides have been demonstrating that there is demand for larger monitors. Most people who want a two or three monitor setup would probably be even happier with a single, larger monitor.

The bigger the monitor (or the more of them you want), the further you have to sit away from them. The further you sit away from them the less you can resolve all the details, making the extra resolution pointless.

If I were going to have multiple monitors, I would skip the Apple monitor and get a bunch of 4K panels.

I thought they made a pretty good case why there is nothing else in its class, the only thing close being the $30k sony reference monitor.

I know nothing about "reference grade" monitors. Can anyone comment on the veracity of the only competing product for this new monitor costing $30,000?

IIRC Sony's is an OLED display. Different display technology. Very expensive. Entirely different. You can't do what an OLED can do with an LCD.

But that's the point. They did do with LCD what, before, was only possible on OLED. That's the claim, anyway.

Isn't that thing OLED? I'm not surprised that it's 30k. It's effectively local dimming... for each pixel. Not at all comparable to Apple's HDR display.

Depends, They had an OLED version that they stopped making or selling the OLED version because it wasn't good enough.

And no, OLED, its current form is not the holy grail as some would like to imagine.

There is, as far as I am aware, only 1 8K Monitor, and that is from Dell, even that after discount is ~$3600. And it isn't anywhere near as good as what Apple claims to have on their Pro XDR.

> has an insane resolution for an insane amount of money

Ever bought a Sony reference monitor?

It can't be any worse than the iMac. While yes it is subjective but Apple has had a pretty long list of ugly and hideous prpducts.

The 4k LG display was updated/rereleased: https://9to5mac.com/2019/05/24/lg-ultrafine-display-review-2...

The 5k LG display is still MIA and there isn't a competitor. (and as someone who bought a 5K LG display on release, I'm surprised that's still the case)

That new 4K no longer has the density to comfortably pixel double. They pretty much made it as useless as every other monitor.

The pixel dimensions and scaling didn't work out so well, it was really awkward. Scaling to the same UI size as the MacBook Pro 13" and 15" the display showed scaling artifacts a screen door effect. When scaling to native resolution the UI elements were far too big and there wasn't enough screen space. The new 4K will scale much better to the MacBook UI sizes.

There was a firmware update for the LG Screen Manager that stated "additional monitor model (24MD4KL, 27MD5KL) (internal logic was changed)". This monitor is on the Apple website here https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HMUA2/lg-ultrafine-4k-dis... that's the 24MD4KL-B.AUSA. Probably just waiting for the new Ultrafine 5K displays to arrive, these panels are difficult to manufacture.

It also explains why Apple didn't do a 27" Apple Pro Display XDR and just went ahead with the 32". They still intend on having the LG monitors as "budget" mainstream options. If you look at the design of the Apple Pro Display XDR it's obvious LG was involved in it's design and manufacturing. Even the USB-C port placement is identical to the 4K/5K just on the other side.

> The 5k LG display is still MIA

I'm not sure what you mean by that... I'm using one right now and they seem to be available on amazon..

Rather, it's mostly sold out from the Apple Store (https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HKN62LL/A/lg-ultrafine-5k...). Amazon sellers selling it are less-reputiable.

Or just selling leftover stock

Yep, it doesn't matter if reference displays cost $40k+, if most people who thought they'd want to buy an Apple display are comparing against displays that cost $1k ± $500.

I think they'll end up selling the new displays to two market segments: (1) people who actually use the high-end features in their work, and (2) people who have deep/corporate pockets and want to show off that they can afford the most expensive tech imaginable.

There are quite possibly more people in the second group than the first.

> Yep, it doesn't matter if reference displays cost $40k+, if most people who thought they'd want to buy an Apple display are comparing against displays that cost $1k ± $500.

This display is for a completely different audience. For the audience you're talking about, Apple sells pretty great LG UltraFine 4K and 5K displays already.

The 4k appears to be in stock, but the 5k is not. There have been rumors for quite some time about Apple replacing them because they have been in short supply.

I have a 5k iMac with 27". I would like to have a slightly larger display, but there are not many high-dpi displays around. There would be a large market for a screen larger than 27", high-dpi, and somewhat less expensive than the new display.

I still have the confused laughpplause of the audience when they announced the 999$ stand. I was not paying attention so I rewinded to see what they were talking about. Even the host at the time had a giggle in his voice after that.

Exactly this. I just want a _good_ monitor for around €1000. Thunderbolt 3, 27"+ 5K. Basically an iMac without the computer part.

I wouldn't consider this a replacement for the cinema display.

The Cinema was a high end great monitor for professionals, as opposed to a monitor for professional graphics/video people.

The two are radically different, and this time, Apple just went for that niche (albeit making a pitch to do your coding on it, which was kinda dumb in my view).

The LG (or equivalent) is a replacement for the old Cinema Display, and is probably great for doing everything. I don't know anyone outside of photo/video (or devs at Adobe making sure their apps look great) working on the new XDR.

Eizos are outstanding. You can find pretty good deals on used ones with good color space coverage.

EIZO is definitely great, but 4K EIZO screens ain't exactly cheap either. Closest to consumer-level are the CG248-4K and CG318-4K (which actually are reference-grade) and cost about $2,800.

The consumer-level Flexscan series are much cheaper. The EV3285, for example, is retailing for $1800 on BHPhoto.

Ah, I totally forgot about Flexscan. They're definitely more suitable for consumer than ColorEdge. I think I didn't considered it because it doesn't have DCI-P3, but it is definitely a great monitor.

True. FlexScan are sometimes not too expensive. With a discount, a 2k one can match Dell UltraSharp in pricing.

They also have those amazing 1:1 1920x1920 that are widely used in air traffic control.

Exactly!! I run exclusively 2k and it's not the end of the world imo.

I'm running a 1:1 right now and holy cow. I know it's probably bias but I will say it's actually the best monitor I've ever used... I'm a developer so the balance between LOC on screen at full width is AMAZING. Color isn't fantastic on it but honestly I have two monitors flanking it on the left/right that are calibrated enough for basic print/photo needs.

The thing is - I'm still using it for things like PS and Illustrator because 1:1 works so well for complex applications like that... I just check color on a better monitor.

Glad to hear you like it!

Perhaps for programming, if one can only afford a single monitor, 2K 16:10 (2560x1600) would be better than the 1:1 1920x1920 Eizo offers.

That gives you the ability to split screen into two windows that have an aspect ratio very close to A4, sqrt(2).

With Eizo, the split is a bit too narrow or too short.

However, for a single application the 1:1 is amazing. And sadly all 2K 16:10 are old models on their way out...

Why not just buy a 4K monitor from another company?

Same reason I didn't buy a 1440 rez Dell when I originally bought the Cinema display: the Apple product is supposed to "integrate seamlessly, for a full cinema experience, and an orgasmic combination of fanboism". The display also made for a great MBP docking station back in the day. And it's still a nice display, if ten years old.

I want another one of those, only moar pixelz. And not five thousand g-ddamned dollars.

Because 4K doesn’t pixel double and the 5K display selection is somewhere between sparse and nonexistent.

I have an Apple Thunderbolt Display and a generic 4k. The Apple display powers on instantly, the speakers are fantastic, it functions as a dock, and I can control brightness from the keyboard. The generic 4k display has none of those benefits, oh and I can't seem to get accurate colors.

I was prepared to buy a new Apple display today knowing that it would be quality in all those aspects. Instead it'll be trial and error to discover a good monitor that works as well as Apple's aging thunderbolt display.

I had the same frustrations, and found a way to control monitor brightness with the brightness keys:

https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/6kj0oh/use_the_real_br...

I have a recording studio with an iMac as the centerpiece. not buying from another company is really just a matter of aesthetics.

Just to be sure, you get that this display isn't targeted at developers? :)

There's actually a little bit at the end of the store page that mentions how developers can put it into portrait mode to see more code.

The thought of some dev buying this thing just to stare at xcode all day is kinda hilarious.

I do get it, but my question remains: what does Apple suggest that I, a developer/prosumer, buy? Something without an Apple logo on it?

At this time, yes. They saying "go and buy display without our logo, as now we're focusing on other pro group". For years now Apple after each conference was bashed for lack pro hardware and display for video editors, etc.

I would bet that next year will be with smaller displays for everyone, and maybe native terminal on iPad... :)

Either way todays WWDC was one of the best in recent years, and they responded in a good way to many problems and wishes.

>Oh, I understand it's a reference-quality, blah, blah, blah, but I just need something to replace an aging Cinema display that was originally $1000.

That section of OP's comment seems to clearly show this understanding.

You can probably get the 5K display on ebay still. Highly recommend it over a 4k display, the extra pixels are awesome.

I think this thing is completing against stuff like the 10 bit 4k Eizos which are also pretty expensive to use for anything other the highend graphics. They probably should have a none hdr model for half the price though.

I really don't think Apple expects any average consumer to buy this. It's definitely aimed at creative professionals and enterprise, hence why it was launched with the Mac Pro and costs an obscene amount.

This is revolutionary tech though

Reply on news.ycombinator.com