I didn't return my Apple Studio Display
cfenollosa.com
cfenollosa.com
That's terrible advice. For a non-adjustable stand it needs to be at or near the lowest that people would want, because it is way easier to raise a fixed stand that is too low by putting something under it than it is to lower a fixed stand that is too high. (At least when the stand base is a simple rectangle--it might be harder on monitors that have narrow crescent bases).
Bricks are cheap [1] and would be great for raising such a monitor.
According to the specs at Apple the top of the monitor when on the non-adjustable stand is 47.8 cm above your desk. They don't give the bezel size but I've seen reviews say it is about 1/2", and that looks reasonable from the photos, so call it 1.3 cm. That would put the top of the screen at 46.5 cm.
I just measured my 27" iMac, which has the same size screen and a non-adjustable stand. The iMac top of screen is 49.5 cm about the desk.
I found the iMac a little too high. I ended up getting larger wheels [2] for my chair to effectively lower the iMac and putting a pillow on my chair to get a little more height for myself to make the iMac relatively lower. (Those are great wheels BTW. Unlike regular chair wheels these do not seem to end up clogged with hair wrapped around the axles).
[1] https://www.homedepot.com/p/8-in-x-2-1-4-in-x-4-in-Clay-Bric...
I don't understand why Apple is just so cheap here. On a $200 monitor you can maybe make the case it shouldn't be height adjustable to save a few bucks, on a $1600 one it's just inexcusable.
Also does using a single screen have any anecdotal impact on focus?
Then he concludes that 600nits is unnecessary and that he doesn't need or want the USB-C ports.
I have no idea why he went with the apple display instead of any good 4k screen for 400$, or two of them.
There aren't many good options in the HiDPI 27" market, just half-measures like the 4k 27" screens you mention which require fractional scaling.
I've seen this said a lot. This is my setup, and I do not think the GUI elements are way too big. I find it to be a very comfortable computing experience, with very little eyestrain.
Sadly, macOS and Gnome refuse to support it, which is ridiculous, because macOS UI Toolkit is originally based on PDF to allow arbitrary scaling.
Using all vector graphics for the GUI so that you can freely change the scale is all well and good, but lots of GUI applications need raster graphics too. With integer scaling, you just have different image assets for the different scales. With fractional scaling, there isn't really a good solution; you could automatically downscale a higher resolution image, but then you get the blurriness problem.
GUIs also use lines a lot. If an application asks for 1pt wide lines, and you're at 1.5x scale, what do you do? Do you draw it at 1px wide, and end up with a line that's too light? Do you draw it at 2px line, and end up with one that's too heavy? Or do you make one line of pixels that's solid and one line of pixels that's at 50% opacity, which gives the right visual weight but makes it look blurry and messes up the positioning slightly? This probably isn't a huge problem, but it's the kind of problem that it makes sense if Apple wants to avoid.
If I zoom to 150% on a website, how wide will a 1px line be?
PDF handles that fine, the web handles it fine, Android handles it fine.
It's only in recent years that suddenly this has become an issue that "can't" be solved.
I honestly don't care if regular desktop apps waste performance, as long as Qt, Android, Electron, games etc are just rendered at the fractional resolution properly.
Really irritating because it makes my Thinkpad X1 Nano unusable under Linux. This is probably why macOS does things the way it does: no room for third party developer error.
You can get a Dell with 90W charging 27" 4K for under $600.
The Studio Display is 60Hz, no HDR, no Mini-LED...it's got really similar specs to similar 4K displays for $1000+ more.
Getting 5K over 4K is not worth $1000 extra. Other displays are offering Mini-LED in this price range.
Plus the stand situation is ridiculous.
ftfy. Apple is double dealing you here. Apple developed MacOS to look best at that size/density, and forced the development of the few expensive displays are that size/density... After a decade waiting for third party displays to meet up their standard, to no avail, perhaps Apple should just modify the OS to better support other HiDPI displays available
I used to have a 27" 1080p monitor for my Linux box, now I have a 27" 1440p monitor and a 24" 1080p monitor. Everything looks less oversized now.
> Apple should just modify the OS to better support other HiDPI displays available
For a number of years[1][2], OS X did partially support fractional scaling. They ultimately decided the tradeoffs, as mentioned in other comments, weren't worth it and went integer-only[3]. Even if it were still supported, it wouldn't be a complete substitute for displays of appropriate pixel density for integer scaling.
[1]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2005/04/macosx-10-4/20/#scal... [2]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2007/10/mac-os-x-10-5/9/#res... [3]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7/14/#hi...
The LG Ultrafine 5K is notorious for its high unreliability (WiFi interference), low build quality (creaky plastic), and low durability (flaky ports).
The target market for Apple Studio Display does not look to trade price for lower quality. Rather, Apple's target market are premium buyers, people looking to pay a bit more for higher quality.
Why can zero other companies execute on something like this? Sure Apple has advantages with scale, but it's not like they're squeezing tight margins. There was a lot of room under the cost of the Pro Display XDR.
I'm not sure why none of these other companies can really execute on high quality hardware.
I don't understand why the only manufacturer in the 5k 27" screen market was LG for half a decade and now only LG and Apple. There should be so much room here.
https://www.planar.com/media/439284/planar-ix2790-specsheet....
Now that Apple is back in the game you're probably right.
You can do non-integer scaling to change the UI size, but then it becomes blurry.
Does blurry mean something other than blurry?
While true, the ppi increase from most 4k screens would not be as large as the Apple Studio Display.
Most 4k monitors are 24 inches, and those monitors will be 192.94 ppi. [0][1] The Apple Studio Display comes in at 218 ppi. [2]
Where are you getting this? I was looking at monitors recently and it's impossible to find ANY 24" 4K monitors. Most of them are 27", which at that screen size you really need scaling. My LG 27" 4K recently went out so I downgraded to my older 1440p 27" monitor. I'm not using scaling anymore, but the text doesn't have that buttery smooth look...
It's even worse than I thought!
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?st=4k+monitor+24...
https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HMUA2VC/A/lg-ultrafine-4k...
There appears to be exactly one 24" 4K display being sold. Which is more a niche than a good number.
My theory is that most people, for all practical purposes, are blind.
So at 24” 4K does everything looks nice and smooth without scaling like a built in Retina display?
I spend most of my day watching a screen, and I want it to be perfect. Because of this, I would be tempted to buy the new Apple display. However, buying an iMac makes much more economic sense. I have no idea why display manufacturers can't get the details right.
Windows and Gnome look gorgeous at 2x rendering. macOS does too, but that's expected.
I'm sitting in front of a 4k 27" and the 160ppi is almost indistinguishable to my macbook at 227 due to the different viewing distance.
And I always had the impression most 4k displays were 27".
I don't even use HDR, the density is just that good for looking at text all day. It takes on this milky quality that I haven't seen on any other monitor before this.
The complete lack of appreciable IPS glow or uniformity issues is also better than you might expect for text. Especially with dark backgrounds which will now present one impressively uniform block of color, improving contrast.
Obviously there are people who need the higher PPI, but if you look at text all day I'd recommend giving 4k a try before spending 3-4x as much on a 5k. You can run the 4k display at 5k, the same way that you can run a MacBook Air at 2880x1800 even though it's really 2560x1600. Modern scaling algorithms are very good.
Personally I would much rather that they made the display 4K and 120hz instead of 5k and 60hz. At that size, I don't see a big difference between 4K and 5k, but the 60hz vs. 120hz jump is very noticeable.
> most 4k displays were 27".
This is in the direction of lower PPI/DPI, which is worse. That is:
4K @ 24" > 4K @ 27"
Also, as others have noted, the Apple Studio Display is 5K, so more UI is visible than on a 4K monitor.
Not quite. 24" 4K (3840 x 2160) is 184 DPI. A 27" 5K (5120 x 2880) is 218 DPI.
I'm pretty sure that 24" 4K would be high enough that I would not be able to notice the lower DPI compared to my current 27" 5K iMac.
I base this on the fact that I normally view the iMac from about 19" away, occasionally leaning in to as close as 13". At 218 DPI, viewing from those distances gives 72 PPD (pixels per degree) and 49 PPD. I don't see any difference, and so conclude that I'm fine with anything about 49 PPD.
At 19" distance a 24" 4K would give me 60 PPD. Somewhere around 15" it would drop below the 49 PPD I know for sure is good enough for me. At 13" it would be down to 42 PPD.
I'm pretty sure that would still be fine, because if I get close enough to my iMac for it to be 42 PPD (just a little under 10 inches) it is still fine for me.
The main issue I have with 24" 4K is that there doesn't seem to be many models and they cost a lot. Newegg for instance only has 3: LG 24MD4KL for $690, LG 24MD4KLB for $900, and a refurbished LG for $649. B & H has those first two for $697 and $882, and an LG 24UD58 for $297. I'm not sure why that last is so much cheaper than the others--it has a pretty low maximum brightness but I didn't notice anything else too bad in the specs.
Fortunately, similar calculations for 4K 27" and tests at various distances from the iMac to match the PPD of 4K 27" at my distances suggest that 4K 27" would work for me and there are a gazillion of them in the $300-600 range.
I've been recently looking into this because my 2017 27" 5K iMac has developed a vertical line of bad pixels [1]. (And wow...I need to clean that screen. Those photos show a lot of dust and dirt that I do not see with the naked eye). That line is in the middle of the right half of the screen and the way I sit has me centered in front of the left half of the screen, so it is pretty much ignorable most of the time but it has prompted me to start thinking of upgrading to a new Mac system, with a Mac Studio being the most likely candidate.
It takes no appreciable time to adjust when switching between any of the three. Maybe for a split second I notice the mouse cursor and then... nothing.
If I were gaming on the XDR it'd be one thing, but it's a productivity monitor. I don't need 144hz (or more) to watch text scroll, and the improved pixel density is 100x more satisfying for productivity usage.
In fact if anything I'd say going from 6k to 4k is what's more jarring than going from high refresh to low...
Similarly, I see a lot of upset over mouse acceleration curves but I adjust to differences within 5-10 seconds of switching at most and forget about it.
There's some out right now but they're either crappy gamer panels, very large and low density, or extremely expensive.
The other big gotcha this monitor has is that like every monitor Apple has made for the past 20 years it only has a single input. It's really tough to find another monitor these days that doesn't have multiple and just can't see any real upside to not having at least an HDMI port (for your Apple TV of course) available.
I use a Dell Ultrasharp 27" [1] which is 2560x1440. I think this is pretty common for 27" monitors? I find that this is great at 1x resolution.
[1] https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/dell-ultrasharp-27-moni...
Monitors tend to have three categories, 1080 rows, 1440 rows, and 4k columns (which is actually 3840 x 2160)
Shopping for monitors will find a fair balance of each and a few outliers. Vertical lines reported for 1080 and 1440 because there are quite a few aspect ratio options which will have varying numbers of pixel columns.
It looks like the version with the VESA mount costs as much as the base model, plus a few hundred for a nice desk arm/wall mount/etc if you don't have one already holding up your current screen.
The camera isn't technically as good as Apple's, but it also doesn't rely on Apple software. It can raise/lower and tilt without paying $400 extra. It has a black plastic frame which doesn't look as nice, but the glass won't chip if you bump your laptop into the side.
If I didn't already have an LG 5K, I'd buy the Apple Studio monitor. I used my previous Thunderbolt Display for over a decade. That should be sufficient time for someone at Apple to fix the camera bug.
Edit: Found in the comments a claim it’s a software bug.
Absolute best case scenario, they are able to fix software issues and bring the camera quality to be equivalent to the front-facing iPhone 11 camera. But why stuff an outdated camera part into a brand new $1600 display 2 years after COVID made us all spend so much of our days on video calls? It seems not just short-sighted but downright hostile toward customers as this one points out.
This is literally how I felt about moving from these 27" 5K screens (I had Apple's iMac Pro and also a couple LG UltraFine external monitors), when I moved to a 31.5" 8K screen (Dell UP3218K).
The difference is every bit as dramatic as going 4K → 5K.
I had literally just gotten my first prescription glasses a month before getting the 8K. I don't need them at all on the 8K; I put them back on when I use these horrid, blurry 5K panels — panels that I used to love, mind you, and proclaimed "I think these are good enough; with my middle-aged eyesight I don't need anything better."
I was dead wrong.
In fact it is the biggest improvment in text-reading ergonomics I have ever experienced from a monitor upgrade, and that includes 4K → 5K.
I can't even see the pixels at 220ppi on a 5K, so I thought I didn't need any higher.
But in fact, what I see is fuzz. Just a bit, and it's very small and I could live with it... until I saw the 8K at 280ppi.
For a few weeks I had them side by side so I asked serveral non-nerds (no other nerds were available, due to the ongoing pandemic). Every person agreed the 8K monitor "looks clearer".
(Oops looks like the comment I am replying to was deleted, but anyway I will leave this additional info anyway.)
And the differences are much more dramatic in complex character languages like Chinese and Japanese.
AFAIK (and I've looked into it), there is no way to drive this monitor from a Mac unless you have an Intel Mac with a Blackmagic eGPU using the Titan Ridge chipset.
(Haven't confirmed that works, though, since I don't have an Intel Mac.)
Offering only USB-C forces additional purchases and the resulting e-waste, so it's no surprise at all that Apple does this.
Is there loads of space in the display? Looks like apple is packing quite a bit into a slim display profile. Not to mention, ports with different dimensions/heights require additional fixturing and likely additional PCBs or connectors to work. It’s not as easy as slapping a few more ports in the display. Sure a company the size of apple can add more ports. But it’s far easier to line up 4x usb C connectors. And likely makes for less ewaste.
Personally I’d rather have an RJ45/Ethernet port built in over USB A ports. The monitor is going to sit on a desk it might as well be hardwired to the local network.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei_2sWzzar0
It's super disappointing that the pro colorist chooses LG over the Mac (and someone at dell must be super sad to see their $4k screen lose to a "cheap" apple monitor!) as you'd expect Apple to fuss over such details and go all in on calibrating monitors before shipping.
But it looks like they didn't calibrate anything. Monitor, sound or camera.
(Not surprising since they use very similar, if not identical LG panels.)
Moving the head is indeed a bad thing, but you’re not supposed to tilt the head down, only the eyes.
All ergonomic advice says to put the top of the screen 5 to 10 cm above eye level so that the eyes can move to any spot on the screen comfortably without having to tilt the head. It is straining on the eyes to look up, so having the top of the screen too far above eye level causes people to tilt their head backwards to look at the top of the screen. I used to raise my screens and had exactly this problem, with lots of shoulder and neck aches. Now that my screen is at the ergonomic height I can work entire days without having neck or shoulder discomfort.
I thought I was young enough to be living past the era of dial up, but now I realize my own dial up is the display.
For me...
I like 2 monitors. Just one is a huge loss to productivity.
I like 4k Monitors. Anything less is unusable.
I like 144hz monitors.
I like matching monitors. I find that if I mix 4k and 1080p I am prone to headaches.
I like monitors where the top is roughly eye level, or even a little bit higher, when I'm sitting down. I feel this helps my posture.
I hate monitors with any sort of light on them that's not coming from the screen. Power lights on the front that are on when I use the monitor make them unusable for me.
I just go with whatever 2 monitors I can afford that match the above criteria.
I expect to pay $750 to $1,000 per monitor. So $1500 to $2000 when I buy new monitors.
I expect the monitors will last around 3 years... likely they can be re-homed after, but like most things I don't think they hold up for me personally after that time.
I couldn't ever afford 2x Apple Studio Displays... I mean... even if I could, I would have more sense.
At one point in the past, about 5-7 years back, the job bought me 2x Apple Thunderbolt Display... and frankly it was nice, but the monitors were so low to the desk they had to be stacked on reams of printer paper to make them usable. I thought it was funny the company spent like $3k on monitors and I still had stacks of printer paper on my desk.
That's it? What is it that fails for you? My current monitor (a cheap Dell) is more than ten years old and it gets used every day.
I was thinking paying close to $2000 for a monitor isn't that bad because it's an important piece of equipment and they last a long time. It's the same logic I use to buy office furniture.
And I do re-home almost all my shit to my parents, and they tend to get use out of it. I know my 4k Samsung monitors that I got off Woot last time around (for like $375 each) were probably on the low-end of things. They only had 60hz refresh rates. But like, to me, I felt the contrast and colors started to go. Since they were matching and had identical color settings, once the colors no longer matched between them it felt like they failed to me. But... split them up, give one to Mom, one to Dad... nobody has complained. I'm probably too fussy.
I just sold my old 27" Thunderbolt Display on Facebook Marketplace for $200 earlier today. Apple stopped selling it in 2016. I think I bought mine in 2014, but recovering $200 on an eight year-old discontinued monitor isn't bad.
I also use a 27" 4K monitor. The difference between the two isn't that great. 5K is mostly useful for 4K video editing. PS: It sounds as if the author would have had a great experience with a 350€ 4K monitor, too.
Same thing applies to any tool of any trade. I work with surgeons, and you would be amazed how unfathomably expensive all their instruments are.
(Though to be fair I do all my work on a pair of 100€ monitors.)
My point was that Apple's monitor is not 4x better than this monitor, so the relative price seems very high and not justified, even by Apple's standards.
I think there's a typo here. This should go in the "Pros" section
> There is a product manager at Apple who, for some reason, hates webcam users with a burning passion.
It also makes perfect sense, since the actual specs of the camera should be giving a much better picture.
Vague statements of "it will get better in the future" are non-binding and leave lots of wiggle room.
Let's be honest, the monitor does like two things that Apple claims justify the inclusion of the A13 (and the whopping 64 internal memory): the camera and sound.
Everyone who has used the product turns on the camera and instantly knows its garbage. Either Apple somehow got caught unaware or they thought it was good enough.
It's trivial to find people complaining about the quality of center stage online[0], although it seems like reviewers were mostly wowed by the novelty of the feature, and not how it looks in day to day usage.
Apple doesn't want to talk about the resolution of Center Stage, but when zoomed all the way out... you're limited to 1080p30. It crops significantly into that 1080p image during normal use, so I wouldn't be surprised if we're looking at an effective resolution of 480p or worse.
Given how much space they have on the monitor, and how much they're charging for the monitor, I wish they would have done something cool like having the Center Stage camera and a better quality normal camera. Center Stage is only useful when there are multiple people, or you can't stay still for some reason... and neither of those apply to 99% of Zoom calls I've seen in the past several years.
[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/ipad/comments/nypvug/m1_ipad_pros_f...
Planning on saving up until the Pro Display XDR gets updated and getting that instead.
It’s a bit cute that most reviewers panned this display because it wasn’t the Pro XDR display at this price,
I think tech reviews of anything monitor and graphics related on the Apple side of things have generally been bad takes for a while. (panning of Blackmagic eGPUs, XDR)
I think people got confused by the availability of retina displays on iPhone/iPad and laptops.
At this price range.
The XDR is a credible competitor to the Studio Display and if you read reviews from people who have adopted it for their primary development workstations, they are holding on to those as well.
The XDR Pro Display, like the Blackmagic eGPUs of yore is wildly underrated in describing its value to developers.
The display, it's fantastic $1000 stand, and the Blackmagic products (that greatly enhance performance of Intel-based macs) are completely buried under hair pulling around sticker price.
Anyone know of a new paradime for text based computing one huge screens? Sounds too niche, right? ;-)
If you are interested in games, you likely don't want a high resolution monitor anyway. Those of us who do need the higher res of 5K value that above refresh rate and are likely not going to play any games on what is more of a work screen. Different use cases.
That said, if Apple really wanted to they could definitely do a multistream system like some of the bleeding edge High DPI screens did way back when. Require two Thunderbolt connections to drive it. But whether these 5K panels actually even can be driven at 120 Hz is another question and always a balancing act in this stuff particularly since presumably companies of Apple's scale have a bit of a clearer picture of what's in the pipe.
This a day old but I just noticed and have to say: WAT!? Go to fs.com or monoprice or wherever else, look at even the super well armored ultra durable direct burial OM4 like:
https://www.fs.com/products/71448.html
That's as nice as it gets, fully customized to exactly the length and connectors you and, and 7' is $11.54. 100' is $60.26. And again that's about as fancy and durable as it gets. Plain old OM3, still perfectly suitable indoors for 100 gigabit at hundreds of feet, is $19 for 100'.
So I'm honestly utterly perplexed at what you're even talking about. Even ultra-low loss very dense 400G rated fiber isn't "a few meters for hundreds of dollars". If you see this I'd be kind of curious what you're thinking. Some sort of cutting edge terabit stuff? Were you looking at something with dozens of strands in a cable and thinking it was single strand?
>that's the only example of a working and commercially available data-carrying optical cable that I know of
????? What exactly do you think every single optical fiber on the planet is carrying if not data? What do you think is special about the bits and bytes going over TCP/IP or FibreChannel or whatever vs Thunderbolt? Data is data. The cables I linked will do 2-10x the bandwidth of that Thunderbolt 3 one.
Second, the whole problem with that TB3 cable is that it has to go back to copper at each end, so it carries an active chipset and low volume transceiver in there to translate. It's not the optical part that is causing trouble, quite the contrary it's massively cheaper than copper. It's the legacy copper part that's hurting plus just plain Thunderbolt still being relatively niche, high end and until fairly recently still very restricted and proprietary, which resulted in an effective monopoly for Corning and ludicrous profit margin in turn. What I was lamenting in my original post is that the native connectors on boards didn't move to optical for data long ago. A 40 gigabit standalone transceiver like this [0] is $39 right now. It could be even cheaper if it was integrated on standard motherboards like USB or whatever else, both because of sheer economies of scale there is a lot of supporting material and such there going into that which could be done away with if modularity didn't matter. And after that you get to go up to 450' (or further with single mode at more cost). 100' costs another $39. 100 gigabit transceivers currently start at ~$100 for 100 meters, or thousands of meters for $190.
Obviously none of these carry power (though that can be an advantage in some cases where power fluctuations might be a concern), but it'd be trivial to make a cable with a couple of plain conductors along with it. If all they need to do is carry power and no data it'd still be very cheap. Data transfer is also much more efficient over optical vs copper, saving power and in turn heat.
And optical easily scales not just in cost but in bandwidth as technology evolves without needing to buy new cables. OM3 was standardized in ISO-11801:2002, so twenty years ago. If you got an OM3 fiber cable back when they first came out, that exact same cable would still be perfectly functional and useful to carry 100 gigabits for hundreds of feet right now, which wasn't even defined in 802.3 for nearly another decade afterwards. Can't exactly say the same thing about 20 year old copper cables.
Of course that isn't the way the world went for a variety of reasons. But it's a real shame.
----
I have, and am basically happy with, an LG 5K. If I didn't, though, I'd buy this. Not because it's amazing; it's not, by any means. But because it is the only game on town (except for the LG, and it is at least better than _that_).
(1) stand too low; (2) screen is glossy; (3) speakers have too much bass for video conferences.
(1) and (2) are addressed by the options Apple provides, so they are really complaints about the price (and those options are pricy!).
(3) seems pretty minor (notice the author also has the speakers in the "pros" column) and can maybe be addressed with a basic equalizer of some some.
In other words, all three cons are actually tradeoffs, which exist for all options (these are an individual call we all need to make).
At best, the Studio Display’s camera can reach that level of quality. I personally have one of the new iPad minis with Center Stage, and I don't consider the front camera quality to be anything better than "acceptable".
The display itself doesn’t even have any kind of local dimming zones or HDR at all, which seems like a huge miss for a monitor released at that price point in 2022.
I played with one at an Apple Store a few days ago. I loved the build quality of the height adjustable model, and the screen was pleasant to use in that well lit environment (a relatively low bar to clear), but Apple seems to have worked overtime to make it hard to justify spending $1600+ on that monitor, in my opinion.
There have been rumors of a Studio Display Pro, and I’m curious to see what happens there.
Okay, maybe it's not as bad as $699 for wheels for the Mac Pro, but that isn't right either! Consider that Apple is selling the iPhone SE for the same price that they're selling an height-adjustable monitor stand and less than for what they're charging for wheels! Can anyone explain this pricing?
And you can bet they looked at what the result would be if they sold it for less. They’d probably sell more, but ultimately profit less.
Greed?
I came here to ask the important question, but you asked for me. Seconded.
This is the way.
If this one had a bigger size (say, 32 inches) and a more 'squared' ratio, I'd consider it an upgrade.
Is it because the keys are as ugly and scuffed as they are on my MBP and you can't stand to look at them?
My favorite monitor is:
EIZO FlexScan EV3285 31.5" 16:9 IPS Monitor (Black) https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1450642-REG/eizo_ev32... $1,839
https://mechanicalkeyboards.com/shop/index.php?l=product_det...
/s