Apple announces 27-inch 5K Studio Display
apple.com
apple.com
[1]: HiDPI displays that work correctly with macOS' and Linux desktop's naive HiDPI implementation, that requires 2x scaling for good results.
Nobody in 2022 will sell you a monitor that does that, except for Apple's expensive stuff that is hard to use with regular PCs and one over the top Dell display. I wish everyone did what ChromeOS or modern Windows apps do. I need that extremely crisp font rendering in my life.
[1]: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12568/iiyamas-prolite-xb2779q...
[2]: https://www.dell.com/ae/business/p/dell-up2715k-monitor/pd
Low refresh rate is bad for pros for the same reason it's bad for gamers, it makes it harder to quickly and accurately perceive things in motion and it slows down your ability to accurately execute inputs. I feel the effects of the reality distortion field has caused everybody to believe that quite simply no real professionals could dislike working on 60hz LCDs and the disappointment is all caused by all those silly gamers.
I actually like extra wide displays. There are few interesting options like that but the rest seems to be dominated by low color, low resolution, low latency stuff.
Not just latency, but framerate too.
I wanted to build a gaming PC that would double as a Windows dev machine, so I wanted more pixels than 1080p.
Even with my 3090, I can only reasonably do 1440p @ 240Hz, and even then I lose some frames on Fortnite with graphics settings turned down. 4k was out. Thankfully Alienware makes a very nice 1440p 240Hz monitor.
How color accurate is the screen? How well does it handle HDR? Does it ever get blurry? If you've ever tried run Linux, either bare or VM, did it handle dpi correctly?
I haven't tested for color accuracy or HDR. No Linux. Does not get "blurry" while I'm gaming.
My only recent comparisons are my new 16" M1 MBP and my 1440p Dell U2719 monitor (provided by work). Colors are wildly better than the Dell (of course) and it seems close to the MBP, although the MBP looks better out of the box of course.
At time of purchase, the only viable 240Hz 1440p options were this Alienware or the Samsung Odyssey G7. The Alienware offered better latency, and it was 40% off on the Dell website for some reason, so that's the one I went with.
TFTCentral does pretty thorough reviews, they seem to like the Alienware. https://tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_alienware_aw2721d
Didn't Apple corner the market on these displays by buying up all available capacity for retinas?
Laptops in the early 2010's were stuck on 1336x768 until Apple kicked up a fuss about having "retina", same with phones which had comically low resolutions until Apple made a fuss about it with the iPhone 4.
Sadly my eyes aren't as good as they used to be so I can't make a lot of use of the extra real-estate, but it always seems as if they're ahead when it comes to resolutions on consumer devices.
Check the t- or x- series which are many many orders of magnitude wider deployed.
Random cheapo laptop: 1366x.. One better: apple Even better: higher priced laptop had 1920x.... Oh, and those had IPS displays unlike apple with (halfway decent) TN panels.
So everybody else pushed, then apple not only caught up but jumped ahead. And now they are again behind with 3k vs 4k and 5k vs 8k and miniled vs oled with the same order: cheap < apple < expensive.
Same for the macbook air/ultrabook form factor: Invented by Sony but only got popular once apple jumped on the train years later.
Apple is really good at "sherlocking" and getting out a polished/well-integrated version of something that has been around for years and making it popular.
Of course macOS supports these higher resolutions but there’s also the color calibration and support for wider color gamuts other than sRGB and having that all integrated together.
For example, the iMac had Display P3 (a color space 50% bigger than RGB) support starting in 2015.
This been said, I can remember CRTs at 60hz with side scrollers and demos at 60fps with perfect image stability while scrolling. You could read tiny texts scrolling up and down perfectly. This is not the case anymore with LCD panels...
Try to read a webpage while scrolling, impossible.
60hz or 120hz I would pay for a stable image in motion. It would bring tremendous confort.
This isn't really contested anywhere.
We're fine with 24FPS for films and tv shows, but try that for an FPS and it's considered nigh unplayable. I remember when the line was "the human eye can't see past 30FPS" now it's at 60. The treadmill keeps going.
Faster refresh doesn't necessarily mean a better display. I suspect Apple's displays are higher quality than most competitors even if they max out at 120Hz.
Here are the specs for the latest MacBook Pros:
16.2-inch (diagonal) Liquid Retina XDR display;1 3456-by-2234 native
resolution at 254 pixels per inch
XDR (Extreme Dynamic Range)
1,000,000:1 contrast ratio
XDR brightness: 1000 nits sustained full-screen, 1600 nits peak2 (HDR content only)
SDR brightness: 500 nits
1 billion colors
Wide color (P3)
True Tone technology
Refresh rates
ProMotion technology for adaptive refresh rates up to 120Hz
Fixed refresh rates: 47.95Hz, 48.00Hz, 50.00Hz, 59.94Hz, 60.00HzHas this monitor's price been announced?
the Pro stand is $999 or VESA Mount Adapter is $199.
https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/pro-display-xdr/standard-...
352 × 416 pixels at 2.1" is about 259 pixels per inch.
When introducing the iPhone 4, Steve Jobs said the number of pixels needed for a Retina display is about 300 PPI for a device held 10 to 12 inches from the eye.
So, not far off at all, you're right.
With proper 2x scaling as intended by Apple there is no extra screen real-estate. 5k at 2x scaling gives you the real-estate of a 2560 x 1440 display, just with a doubled pixel density and thus much sharper. This is the actual value of HiDPI display.
I'd rather have higher density like the laptop it is connected to, with 4k. Perhaps 200dpi 3:2 or 16:10 around ~22"(56cm) diagonal that can do portrait would be my preferred monitor. Haven't seen that around unfortunately.
I could deal it being around 22" for higher density for Mac users.
It seems there's a few people in our same camp, but we haven't been heard by manufacturers yet.
LG, Dell, and Iiyama all made such monitors; the only survivor is the LG one. They didn't sell well, apparently.
- 60hz. For this price point I'd expect higher.
- Thunderbolt 3. Interesting that they didn't bump to 4, given the Mac Studio is Thunderbolt 4. This means you wont be able to daisy chain the displays.
- Lack of size options. Would love to see more variety here. After moving to an ultrawide format, I can't see myself moving back to standard format monitors from a productivity standpoint.
Overall though excited for this and keen to see how it'll evolve. It'll be a miss for me this cycle but keen to see their future releases of their monitor line.
> DSC is a compression algorithm that reduces the size of the data stream by up to a 3:1 ratio.... Using DSC with HBR3 transmission rates, DisplayPort 1.4 can support 8K UHD (7680 × 4320) at 60 Hz or 4K UHD (3840 × 2160) at 120 Hz
HDMI 2.1 does support 5K@120Hz@10bpc but requires DSC as you say, which is not very commonly found either.
(Note that unlike what a sibling comment states, DSC is lossy. Some argue that the less is not noticeable to the human eye, but not everyone agrees)
Not very commonly found on what? Nvidia & AMD have been shipping DSC for ~2 generations now (so almost anything within the last 4 years has it)
Nvidia and AMD have not been shipping DSC with HDMI simply because HDMI included DSC starting with HDMI 2.1, which only the current generation of graphic cards and very few monitors support.
The 5K Ultrafine (which I presume you are talking about) is connected via two separate DP links which are tunneled over a single cable using TB3.
That sounds like nitpicking, but is a crucial difference. MST provides daisy chaining of displays, but can not help you exceed bandwidth limits. Whereas the two DP links are completely independent and theoretically allow you to double the max bandwidth. (well 2xHBR3 exceeds the max TB3 bandwidth, so the 5K uses 2xHBR2)
If not, I'm guessing that example case is either using a lossy data compression or multiple cables running to multiple displays.
So as long as 'transcoding' from GPU framebuffer compression to DSC is itself a mostly lossless process, there's realistically not even a quality hit from it anyway
DisplayPort 2.0 supports up to 77.37 Gbit/s of bandwidth. Wikipedia's DisplayPort article has excellent tables about bandwidths of display formats: HDR 5K@120hz (57 Gbit/s) is totally possible with DP 2.0.
One could use DisplayPort 2.0 alt-mode to carry that signal over a USB-C cable. With the main disadvantage that the USB ports on the monitor would drop to USB 2.0 speeds [1]. And alt-mode 2.0 is only available on the most recent hosts with USB4 ports.
[1] Native USB4 tunneling only supports DisplayPort 1.4a (for now). That's a huge flaw imo, cause falling back to alt-mode takes over the cable and blocks USB3/PCIe tunneling from working. In fact, that flaw is even present on this monitor:
> When connected to iPad Pro 12.9-inch (3rd and 4th generation), iPad Pro 11-inch (1st and 2nd generation), or iPad Air (5th generation), Studio Display USB-C ports deliver USB 2 data transfer speeds.
Those models don't support TB3 or USB4 on their USB-C port, so they have to use alt-mode with either compression or without HDR.
So this each Studio Display will require a direct connection to the laptop/desktop in order to work?
That's definitely not great.
That is why people were hoping for it.
The amount of real estate you get with 2560x1440 is fantastic, and you can actually game on it at native resolution on older gen graphics. The pixel density of 27" @ 1440p is the epitome of goldilocks. Every single pixel is just the right amount of useful.
24” @ 4K would be perfect but is hard to come by.
Being able to see my screen's pixels annoys me a lot more than moving my mouse at 60 Hz.
Camera lenses introduce blur through the use of the shudder, which acts as a form of "interpolation" and smooths out the image. Displays do no such thing; image strobing is extremely noticeable at different framerates. The difference in Destiny 2 between 60FPS and 100FPS is quite literally shocking to the point I can't go back.
[1] it's not as bad as you think
The first one people say you shouldn't turn on to respect the artist's vision, but I sure hope they don't mean it, because that'd mean they're respecting Harvey Weinstein. Clearly leaving it on is the moral option.
Two 27'' displays is not an option since you can't center anything, so... three Studio displays side-to-side?
This is some alpha state product which only people who are high are going to buy.
I'm finally sitting in front of an 8k 65" screen. This gives me a nice combination of decent picel density in the center and lots of peripheral vision in which to put secondary windows, plus I can sit across the room and watch a movie on it. But every component of the ecosystem introduced problems and friction.
I have an M1 Macbook Pro on the same desk. The Macbook can't drive the 8k TV. I have a separate desktop running Windows with an nVidia GPU for that. Every component of the video ecosystem has given me friction in getting to 8k. I had to swap my $1k nVidia GPU for a different $1k nVidia GPU that wasn't any faster, to get HDMI 2.1 support. Had to use special HDMI cables, because cables that aren't specially marked as HDMI2.1 compatible don't have enough bandwidth. And then the display itself has a ridiculous postprocessing bug (I wrote about it at https://www.rtings.com/tv/discussions/IyO2wLLsNnJCMT-_/firmw...) which makes me think the firmware engineers didn't have a working 8k source to test with.
Nearly no one wants TVs for monitors, the evidence is LG's OLEDs which gamers will take 1440p ultrawides with infinitely worse picture quality over, just for the more reasonable form factor.
The "if you can manage it" part is an awkward setup usually with terrible ergonomics (a monitor too far away is worse for posture because you subconsciously tilt forward), it takes a ton of space, it looks hideous
-
Forgive my for my bluntness, but I am soooo tired of every conversation about improving monitors being sidetracked by people act like using a TV-sized TV as a computer monitor is better than strictly anything.
It's like saying using your hand saw as a flat head screw driver is strictly better because it had a larger handle... as long as you can line it up in the screw.
In fact your suggestion is worse than standard, most people accept you'll never sit far enough away from a 65" TV to have the same apparent size as a 27" monitor and settle for "small enough" apparent size
-
I can't be bothered to do the exact math here but even at normal TV viewing distanced meant to fill your entire view the recommended distance is 5.5ft to 8ft.
Getting it down to the same apparent size of a 27" monitor would mean sitting across a very large room...
There's no way to have your cake and eat it too on this, either you'll have worse pixel density, or you'll need a very unnatural setup.
You talking to someone who upgraded from a 4k/32" equivalent ("5k" 40" ultrawide) to the XDR just for the pixel density increase, and it's no contest at all: even the most casual PC user would immediately appreciate the bump.
It's not a caveat, it's the whole point. To not have your eyes straining to focus closely the screen needs to be far away, can't have one without the other. The people that value that start at that point of figuring out how to be able to have the screen far away enough. For them it's not a caveat, it's a requirement. So for them when they go shopping for screens the 8K 65" option totally dominates the 5K 27" and is a strictly better option.
> most people accept you'll never sit far enough away from a 65" TV to have the same apparent size as a 27" monitor and settle for "small enough" apparent size
The cases I'm referring do put it far enough away, that's the point, it's how you get a 65" image down to 27" on a desk equivalent. That suggestion shows up once in a while on HN when people discuss eye strain. You've now gotten another answer from someone that does something completely different and uses the 8K TV as a multi-screen setup on a single screen. That's the problem with these discussions. A TV or projector used 5+ meters away, an external screen on your desk, and a 14" laptop at keyboard distance are completely different use cases. Yet often these discussions end up on ">X DPI is essential" without considering this factor. It seems no one can imagine that other people use their screens very differently from them and it turns into a religious war.
It has a bulky monitor stand, but an Ergotron will allow you to mount it on an arm secured to the desk with enough range to move it right to the edge of the desk. You could also mount it on the wall.
So as long as you have a wider desk, like 27" which are available at Ikea, you're good to go. With a good window manager you can do magic with this monitor.
Also feel like 27 inches is pretty small these days, for high productivity type of work. Wish Apple went for a 34 inch
But I'm sure there are economical reasons why that's not done
There's really no good answer, IMO.
I like it, but I imagine some professionals would like to do what Apple's marketing images all show; buy two, maybe even three. I'd love to have one with all that stuff, but not all of them need the bells and whistles; and there's value in having all your displays be identical, especially in work that needs color calibration (not to mention, it looks nice).
So, maybe I grab one if the reviews look solid. And hopefully in the future they release a version without all that extra stuff for closer to the $1200-$1300 an LG 5K ultrafine display can be had for.
The new Studio display is expensive, but I think the features somewhat justify the price compared to the "competition".
[0] https://superpixel.co/apples-thunderbolt-display-worst-apple...
Of course not at the level of the Apple Displays but they are really outliers in the industry.
Other companies can handle that market.
Apple's own marketing images show tons of these displays side-by-side with one-another. And that makes total sense; the M1 Ultra can run four of them IIRC. Apple customers, especially big businesses, will buy multiple of these just for the sake of them looking good next to one-another. Not unreasonable.
But what's the point of having three webcams & microphones? 18 speakers? Its just needless cost overhead; not to mention, I'm calling it here, when these things start shipping we're going to get a Verge article or something of people with dual+ displays complaining about how the webcam selection dialog in Zoom/etc is confusing because they're all ambiguously named like "Studio Display Webcam (1) (2) (3) etc". I can see it now.
I think it behooves Apple to offer one of these without all the bells & whistles. Knock $200 off the price or not, I'm not sure that's relevant; but as a secondary display, the bells & whistles actually get in the way. Its not about being a cheap dumb commodity PC compatible monitor; its just about serving what their customers are overwhelming going to want.
You're entirely right that it makes no sense to have multiple sets of Dolby Atmos sound systems and cams and mics. But that doesn't mean it makes sense for Apple to do commodity displays. They're clearly betting that one 5K display will be enough in many cases.
Stocking multiple SKUs of large displays just doesn't make sense in their retail stores. I suspect the profit margins are iffy as well compared to, say, iPhones obviously, where the margin is circa 40% and the size of the box is tiny.
They're already stocking six Studio Display SKUs in-store (if they decide to stock them all in-store, that is). Two variations of glass finish times three variations of stands. Yes, that's right: "Each stand or mount adapter is built in. They are not interchangeable, so it’s important to consider your workspace needs at the time of purchase." They're not a separate component, and not even easily swappable outside the factory.
Their profit margins are fine. They can charge whatever they want for it, its not relevant because, clearly, if they were concerned about being price competitive with other displays they would not be charging $1600 for this one. Even the LG 5K Ultrafine is $400+ cheaper. In one comment you assert that Apple isn't interested in being a commodity monitor manufacturer, and in another you assert that the profit margins are low; so, which is it?
One small counterpoint to that part of what you said is that the 27" iMac has apparently now been pulled from the lineup, so, that should clear up some space in the stockroom.
As for the "which is it?" question, I don't feel those two points were mutually exclusive, so therefore I don't think your question is really valid. I think both of my arguments were true and valid; that's why I made them to begin with. You might disagree, of course. :)
Alas, macOS doesn't support any native scaling other than 100% and 200%. So if they did release e.g. a 27" 8K monitor, the text would either be too small, or they'd have to use bitmap scaling to make it bigger in which case there'd be no advantage of having an 8K monitor.
(EDIT: To clarify, all other scaling factors are done by rendering at either 100% or 200% and doing bitmap scaling up or down. By bitmap scaling 200% up up to e.g. 250%, things are bigger so that's good, but there's no extra detail being displayed, so you're wasting the resolution of your monitor. You might as well buy a cheaper monitor with fewer but larger pixels.)
I really don't understand why they don't either (a) adopt Windows' approach of allowing rendering directly to any arbitrary scale, or (b) at least introduce a 300% mode with bitmap scaling analogous to their 100% and 200% modes.
Which is a shame, you can use 8K monitors with Windows at e.g. 300% just fine.
The new 2021 MacBook Pros were such a great design and it's clear how every small thing points to them being the greatest since 2015 Pros.
macOS draws only at 1x or 2x. 3x is iOS only.
Apples decision to support only integer scaling was what allowed them to adopt Retina displays very quickly. Unfortunately it led to a subotimal solution in the long term.
Apple is all about controlling and curating the user experience. They would much rather force you into some lane than allow you to go wild configuration wise.
It is absolutely not reasonable. HTML tables with horizontal grid lines will appear to have varying line thicknesses when in reality they are all set to the same width.
The reason Windows developers still think it might work is they have no taste and don’t care about localized UI, pixel cracks, or blurry bitmap controls.
multiple monitors on Windows with varying dpi scales is not great though, and probably can't be until some backwards compatibility promises are broken or expired.
If even Microsoft can’t be bothered, what do you expect from app developers?!
Apple has never settled for “fine” either it’s great or it gets cuts at some point.
>if you know what you’re doing as an application developer. Apple also tends to avoid wading into footgun waters to keep quality (for 3rd party devs) as high as possible across the board.
Many (most?) don't or can't be bothered so the end result in practice is that it doesn't work. Microsoft has been chasing the HiDPI fairy for decades and the situation hasn't really gotten better. They still ship software (both in and outside the OS) that isn't HiDPI aware.
Retina prioritizes making it easy for developers to adopt: Double the size of artwork, points are 2 pixels, Done. Are there quibbles? Sure. But millions of people are looking at HiDPI screens where every single thing in the OS and all third party apps they use fully support 2x.
No one lives in the magical world where arbitrary scaling factors are supported. Doing that as a developer is just too damn complicated when @1x + @2x (and maybe @3x) makes 98% of people happy and is vastly less work.
Well, I want to say it has gotten better. Their Metro design is what a UI has to look like to work with arbitrary scales and still solve those problems I mentioned. The downsides are it uses simple geometric shapes and has tons of whitespace everywhere so text can reflow in longer languages.
This is probably another big reason behind “flat design” in modern websites, the old skuomorphic (sp) stuff would be hard to do with vectors.
(As for vectors in UI, they have other performance issues which are important if you like live resizing windows.)
It's definitely possible to do, although retrofitting an existing UI toolkit & ecosystem is a massive challenge.
Actually it can't escape pixel cracks either, as I seem to remember OpenGL ES 1.0 including GL_LINES where the default width is 1px.
This is also best practice on many other platforms, too (eg, 'pt' and 'em' units). This is far less commonly followed on most toolkits, though, but it's the norm on Android.
Text size controls are in iOS as an accessibility feature (dynamic type) but it's not always on and it can't be the approach to HiDPI.
Windows is badly broken in this regard. I bought and returned a Microsoft Surface laptop because its rendering is broken: If you display a web page containing horizontal lines (like grid lines of an HTML table) then the lines will appear to have varying thickness even though they are all set to 1px. That's crap; I couldn't believe Microsoft is shipping this. If Windows scaling is set to anything other than 100% or 200% you will have this issue. Both 150% and 300% have this issue. I have never seen such issues on a Mac.
For textual work, 4k is crisp enough, for gaming you can't run 8k with 120Hz as it's way too demanding and there are no content that dense, for movies or TV there are barely any content for 8k and maybe it's just for photo editors.
Having 120Hz for all the display's baseline is far more important than going beyond 4k.
I was checking on some comically wide Samsung monitors however I wasn't impressed with the build quality.
I have no idea how people can work with such low pixels density, really - I’ve tried and it's just impossible.
That is clearly a gaming monitor. No-one would want to do the sort of workloads this display is aimed at on something like that.
I currently have an Apple XDR Pro monitor. It's not a great monitor - it is indeed big, the outside is as cool as anything ever made, and the USB-C hub is nice. But in EVERY other way it is badly inferior to the stock 5K monitor that comes with even the cheapest 27" iMac from a few years ago. I've been wishing for just an 27" iMac monitor that I can plug into my laptop, since that's the best non-laptop monitor I've found - even contemplated building a Frankenstein one. I'm excited I can now just buy one.
I don't need audiophile stuff, but it's remarkable how bad the built-in AV was on the LG UltraFine. Mic quality is bad enough that I won't inflict it on my co-workers. The camera is angled too low, resulting in the top of my head usually being cut off. And the speakers go from quiet to really loud, with no in-between.
- There is a noticeable (to me) brightness shift with viewing angle changes. When the monitor is on the back of my desk and displaying a flat color across the monitor, I see a noticeable gradient instead of a flat color because of different viewing angles between looking head at the center pixels vs being off axis to the side pixels.
- The adaptive brightness backlighting doesn't do a very good job. Full bright white pixels in a dark areas will be noticeable dark compared to full bright white pixels surrounded by other brighter pixels.
- If you have some bright pixels in an otherwise dark area, the backlight cell built into the monitor there noticeable brightens, putting an approximately once inch by one in halo around the bright pixels. For example, this halo shows up around the mouse cursor when moving across a black area.
- I tend to work with light text on a dark background. The monitor makes the darks too bright (from the backlight bleeding through) and the brights too dark (because the backlight around there isn't on all the way). Everything is muted. It's noticeably less contrasty, colorful and alive when used with light on light than two iMac 27"s I have had.
- Although the PPI specs are the same, there's something about the pixels on the XDR that makes them more visible and less smooth to me than on the 27.
I hope they do 4k@120hz in the next version!
The comments underneath https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30604524 however suggest it might work with some bidirectional adapters.
Plus, you can use the additional 4k display as an extended macOS display when not gaming. I mean there's never enough screen real estate.
The Studio Display is an additional $300.
I am guessing this replaces it.
Not really other alternatives out there (displays in 5k).
...although fair warning it does have occasional "flickering maroon blankouts" (1-2x...3-4x per day?). AFAIK they're basically two panels side-by-side so sometimes my right-side-one will "blip" for half a second. (search flicker in the reviews/questions).
Find one you're happy with, and check the reviews! The difference between "monitor" and "TV" is massive w.r.t. latency.
Everything else I could've lived with, this is a major omission :(
In my home office, I've got two monitors and a switch to flick input between a personal machine and a work machine.
If you have a product that you know work I'm all ears, it would make my life a lot easier.
I assumed such a thing existed for thunderbolt but hadn't looked into it; it looks like you're right that this market is underdeveloped at present. Hopefully somebody does it! Or, the wisdom of HN will yield us some options.
Otherwise, if you're willing to settle for affordable retina-quality monitors, this is the one I use: https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B01LPNKFK0. Cribbed from this post which made the HN rounds not too long ago: https://www.caseyliss.com/2021/12/7/monitor-liss
At some point I actually had a TB2 only computer I wanted to KVM switch with a TB3 laptop so this weird setup made more sense then.
[0]: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M74Y03E
Unexpected side effect: Two machines allow you to keep working while installing system updates, which seem to take forever nowadays.
What about the environmental impact of adding extra ports that no one is going to use?
Having more than one device connected to a display? I think that's rather common and I'd expect multiple inputs on a display from any price range.
Yes - sometimes things get connected to multiple devices but again - it's a niche.
I've still got my old 27" Apple Thunderbolt Display (a puny 2560 by 1440 pixels), which i use daily. (The convenience of built-in video/mic/USB hub, with one cable, is indispensible and more important to me than resolution, and it's been really unclear to me what else could do that with a macbook). But might be ready to upgrade to this guy.
Also for me those "add-ons" are more important than pixel density, and I'm saying this as a graphic designer. If there were a version of this with a bigger size (but with less pixel density), and maybe a more 'squared' factor, I'd jump to it without even thinking, but alas for Apple pixel density is first above everything else.
Honestly... I'm not sure I care about making it retina?
Only if you try not to look at other vendors. It doesn't offer anything fancy except the fancy pricing.
Do they exist but I'm just bad at shopping? I may be! Please help out?
I had a 2014 RMBP with the Thunderbolt monitor and Apple wireless keyboard and mouse. Everything “just worked”. I never had any issues. I just spent my time working instead of fighting with my workstation. It was glorious.
Glad to see Apple back to form here. I’m willing to pay the premium for a complete solution.
When I got my iPhone 13 pro it cost me an M1 iPad and a 14” MBP because everything felt horrible afterwards.
Because DSC has been broken ever since the Big Sur betas. Catalina supported 1.4 and DSC and my cheese grater Mac Pro happily drove 2x27" 4K monitors in HDR @ 144Hz.
Big Sur? Nope, you get 95Hz SDR or 60Hz HDR. If you set the monitors to DP1.2 you get 120Hz SDR.
Super fragile, especially if you have the monitor on an arm and move it around a lot.
Perhaps only spatial audio and some camera features won't be compatible with older macOS versions. Waiting for the first reviews.
I don’t need a monitor with an embedded iPhone CPU and six speakers, I just need the panel out of an old 27” iMac that doesn’t cost more than the damned computer driving it. I can’t even get an LG UltraFine anymore, they were discontinued outside of the US ages ago.
You're in company with all the people who've said "I wish they would just make a netbook" "I wish they would just make a budget desktop" "I wish they would just make a <insert favorite product missing from Apple's lineup here>" over the past 30 years.
A 600 nit screen inside would almost be too bright for some people. I know people who already turn down their laptops because 500 is too bright. but i think its good to have the option to turn it down rather than a screen that's too dim.
It's very annoying have it next to my BenQ 4K monitor that feels so much flatter in comparison. It just makes any other monitor so boring in comparison.
I managed to get the XDR hooked up to Windows at 6K (with a very unusual cable) but you can't adjust it below max brightness so you get a sustained 1000 nits in your face at all times. Also HDR doesn't work. But gaming at 6K is cool af!
Also, this having speakers, camera, and mic is a big step up over the XDR (unfortunately for me).
Now you can buy the exact same monitor, for 1600$.
We've made a lot of progress.
(Edit: my Cinema Display is something like 15 years old, so I’m confident I’ll get my money’s worth out of a new purchase.)
I now set all my monitors to turn on screensaver within 1 minute.
Pity there isn't a version with a 24" panel as on the M1 iMac. 27" is great but it actually might be a liittle too big, but I'll live. I guess no product is ever ideal.
Hopefully other manufacturers will follow suit - or at least start releasing glossy monitors as an option, for people who don’t want to view things through an ugly grainy sparkly coating.
Glossy isn’t ideal but I’d definitely take it over spending $500 on a 4K ultra sharp display only to view everything through a fine layer of grainy rainbow colored dust.
Apple’s nano-matte technology seems like it could be a wonderful albeit expensive compromise, but I know I and many others are willing to pay the premium.
You're wasting the very good parts that are trackpad, cam, mic and as a secondary monitor.
the wasted parts get to come out to play when undocked :)
Still very cool though.
Thank you! Another example that writing something wrong on the internet is the best way to find the truth :)
That said, it looks like there's just one input port and three output ports. Would need to do some hack there as well, to avoid constant cable changing.
Only problem is that you'll probably need to extract a BootCamp driver to control brightness/volume, assuming one will exist for this monitor.
(well, if it supports HDR input, you'd use Window's SDR brightness to control it that way instead)
This may be a bit weird/niche but I care a lot about the thickness of the monitor itself, the depth of the stand and the bezel around the screen. I’d like if the object I spend 8 hours a day staring at isn’t aesthetically horrendous..
Edit: to clarify I will lurk and wait until it is £200 off on Amazon one day because I don’t need it immediately.
It would be nice if it cost less than 1000€, but I guess you can't have everything.
Basically instapurchased this. Now just have to wait two weeks for it to show up…
I used to have 2x 24 inch 4K monitors at work and it used to be so nice to read text at 2x scaling. Now I can’t even find any in stock.
If I just scroll down it looks horrible.
Only way I've found is by holding the down button, but seems like this is just a bad exerpience for the majority of people?
but will i be able to record an album on it? are those three-mic condenser microphones? i guess not
Apple should really stop abusing the word "Studio"
If you would have taken a second to look at the specs and search for actually comparable products you would find that there are, at least to my knowledge, no displays with the same resolution and higher refresh rates. This makes sense because 5k@60Hz already has incredibly high bandwidth requirements.
The best actually comparable product is an LG UltraFine 5K which comes in at 1,499€ msrp which is 246€ cheaper than Apple's Studio Display at 1,745€ msrp. Oh, and to no ones surprise, it also has a 60 Hz refresh rate.
So to answer your initial question: Yes, people do spend that kind of money on displays with "only" 60Hz.
If you look at reviews for just about any model of monitor released in the past 5-6 years QC has been atrocious, with dead pixels, backlight bleed, and other odd issues being commonplace, making it a challenge to get a unit that's good all around. This has been especially true for the display that this is most directly replacing (LG Ultrafine 5k).
Now make the same thing, but 6880x2880 ultrawide.
- only 60hz;
- no DisplayPort/HDMI;
- anti-glare coating (I hate the blurriness of matte displays).
Anyone knows what OS does the screen run ? embedded iOS ?
The Studio Display runs the full version of iOS 15.4, with the exact same build used by the iPhone and iPad , meaning that updates to the display's functionality will come as part of iOS update.
sure, it may be a middle ground between the existing Pro XDR and 5K LG Ultrafine displays, but this is something that was just announced today, hence "news".
Edit: it's also just so hard to scroll exactly to the points where the information is presented. I just mostly end up at points that are meaningless transitions... So confusing...
It is. Despite their investment in desktop hardware (finally!) they completely forgot how to do desktop software. Ten years ago all those animations where buttery smooth even if they were a weird custom "video" code that assembled them out of separate PNGs.
Weird to think that Flash handled this kind of animation seamlessly on browsers 15 years ago.
Although, unlike other similarly effect-heavy apple landing pages I've seen in the recent past, this one doesn't appear to offer a decent alternative version when javascript is disabled, which is a disappointment.