Expensive, but I adore the pixel density considering I spend all day staring at text :)
I'd be seriously tempted by an iMac if it had M4 Pro + a 27" 5K display. I just don't feel it's likely as they'll probably see it as cannibalising Mac Studio + Studio Display sales.
It's insane that we've had retina displays for over a decade, and Apple still seems to be more-or-less the only game in town for a 5k 27" display.
If I didn't already have the LG Ultrafine, I would have bought one of the studio displays.
The panels seem the same but everything on the Apple one is better, as you would expect.
But lately my LG is starting to have issues with ghosting and color shifts around the edges. It's still ok to use (I'm typing this on it) but I guess it's nearing the end of it's useful life.
It has a few upsides that don't get written about often, compared to other monitors:
- Apple is extremely picky about panel QC, making things like dead pixels and patchy backlights much less common
- Its design practically eliminates the backlight bleed that's common with other monitors due to variances in bezel/panel fastener tightness
- No coil whine (surprisingly common even in other high end monitors)
- Some of the best glossy antiglare treatment I've seen, without the "gritty" coating that can cause a "sparkle" effect that's common on Dell monitors
- It wakes up and displays a picture almost instantly
It's not perfect and I'd prefer better specs for the money, but it's not a bad monitor. I've tested models that are more expensive than the Studio Display that fail to check some of these boxes.
I've often it seen it in the $900 neighborhood at Best Buy and B & H. It's $1600 right now at both of them but I don't know if that is just one of those full price spikes like Amazon has or if they too are like Amazon.
It’s much better looking than the LG ultrafine 5K, slightly more functional, and costs more.
What’s the idiot part? Price?
https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/9/22968960/apple-studio-disp...
Similarly my car has a computer in it that I "can't use", except it does car stuff.
Yes, it's infuriating that they effectively made an iMac, don't let you run your own software on it, but do charge iMac prices for it.
Also, if you're a consumer who wants a retina-class desktop display, do you have any better option? So far as I can tell, the 27" 4Ks we bought for my office ~9 years ago are still state-of-the-art if you're unwilling to consider Apple's option.
People are taking exception to your "idiot product" remark, because you're standing so high on your principles that you're calling people who are willing to make a financial sacrifice to get the best available option "idiots." If you spend hours a day in front of a screen, you can justify amortizing out stupid-expensive over the amount of time you spend using it.
We'd all like to see either just-the-screen for half the price, or a revived iMac Pro at the current price; but neither of those are options anyone can buy right now.
Edit: The real point is you've been conditioned into thinking you need a 5k or even a 6k display. As someone who has done professional media work, no you do not.
Apple's monitors are products sold to people who don't know seemingly don't know anything about monitors, color accuracy, who don't calibrate, or have to test against multiple devices to ensure readability or clarity of picture.
They're really nice toys for people with a lot of money, not unlike Teenage Engineering products, except Apple markets them in earnest to "pros" not "professionals." People who know better use different products.
So much for being an "idiot" product…
On one hand, companies willing to spend more than $250 on monitors will rather give you a 32" ultra-wide, because that's more useful to the typical office monkey worker.
On the other, the PC enthusiast customer base is almost synonymous to gamers, who'd rather want high refresh rates than a silly 5K resolution they cannot use.