Apple Pro Display XDR(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Apple Pro Display XDR
https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/03/apple-releases-the-6000-pro-display-xdr-a-32-inch-6k-display-available-this-fall/
159 comments
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.
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.
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 agree that the stand might be the ugliest thing they've ever made.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And no, OLED, its current form is not the holy grail as some would like to imagine.
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?
> has an insane resolution for an insane amount of money
Ever bought a Sony reference monitor?
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)
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.
[deleted]
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.
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..
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.
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 ± $500.
This display is for a completely different audience. For the audience you're talking about, Apple sells pretty great LG UltraFine 4K and 5K displays already.
This display is for a completely different audience. For the audience you're talking about, Apple sells pretty great LG UltraFine 4K and 5K displays already.
I have a 5k iMac with 27". I would like to have a slightly larger display, but there are not many high-dpi displays around. There would be a large market for a screen larger than 27", high-dpi, and somewhat less expensive than the new display.
The 4k appears to be in stock, but the 5k is not. There have been rumors for quite some time about Apple replacing them because they have been in short supply.
I still have the confused laughpplause of the audience when they announced the 999$ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
Why not just buy a 4K monitor from another company?
I have a recording studio with an iMac as the centerpiece. not buying from another company is really just a matter of aesthetics.
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.
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 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...
https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/6kj0oh/use_the_real_br...
Just to be sure, you get that this display isn't targeted at developers? :)
>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.
That section of OP's comment seems to clearly show this understanding.
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.
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.
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.
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
Starting $11000 for a Mac Pro plus display
That's a bargain compared to the LISA, which was only $25k adjusted for inflation!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lisa
That's a bargain compared to the LISA, which was only $25k adjusted for inflation!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lisa
You could hear a gasp in the crowd when they listed $999 for the stand alone.
Apple is certainly pushing themselves up-market with this one.
Apple is certainly pushing themselves up-market with this one.
"Pro"
Fairly predictable. Commodified tablets for consumers, laptops for developers (still working on that...), hugely expensive thoroughbred (status symbol) hardware for professional content creators with professional budgets.
Problem is, there's much more money in the prosumer niche than there is at the high end. For every successful LA movie score composer there are thousands, even tens of thousands, of bedroom DAW users.
What "pros" really want is outstanding performance at an affordable price. This is outstanding performance at a painful price - which is a novel combination of aspirational and incredibly annoying.
Fairly predictable. Commodified tablets for consumers, laptops for developers (still working on that...), hugely expensive thoroughbred (status symbol) hardware for professional content creators with professional budgets.
Problem is, there's much more money in the prosumer niche than there is at the high end. For every successful LA movie score composer there are thousands, even tens of thousands, of bedroom DAW users.
What "pros" really want is outstanding performance at an affordable price. This is outstanding performance at a painful price - which is a novel combination of aspirational and incredibly annoying.
Pros can justify the price if the performance is top-of-the-line and downtime is zero (or support & fix is near-instant).
If Apple's quality control game leaks over into this new Pro line, then there will be lots of unhappy professionals staring at their $11k paperweights while shopping for something else.
If Apple's quality control game leaks over into this new Pro line, then there will be lots of unhappy professionals staring at their $11k paperweights while shopping for something else.
They can justify the performance to a point. If it costs twice as much as a competing system offering similar performance, reliability, and service, it becomes much more difficult to justify.
Prosumers will get more than enough power from an iMac Pro or MacBook Pro.
Not sure why you want the Mac Pro to be dumbed down for non-professionals.
Not sure why you want the Mac Pro to be dumbed down for non-professionals.
I don't have any issue with Apple going up-market or aiming for a particular demanding niche, but this is still interesting to think about from a product and pricing perspective.
With luxury pricing you're used to purchasing a complete package or product, then you may put expensive add-ons on top. If you had to add $[high number] add-on for what's typically a standard part, for ex: a seat-belt of a Mercedes or a zipper on a Hermes hand-bag, in order to even buy the bag or car, it'd take some people by surprise. Even if it's basically the same markup as any luxury / high-end purchase.
With luxury pricing you're used to purchasing a complete package or product, then you may put expensive add-ons on top. If you had to add $[high number] add-on for what's typically a standard part, for ex: a seat-belt of a Mercedes or a zipper on a Hermes hand-bag, in order to even buy the bag or car, it'd take some people by surprise. Even if it's basically the same markup as any luxury / high-end purchase.
By up-market, they're pushing themselves out of my market. $999 for a stand? No thanks, I can think of plenty of better things to spend $999 on.
You probably weren't their target market then. Most likely it will be companies buying this for their employees, not consumers for themselves.
Whether releasing this without an upgraded consumer/prosumer level display was a good idea is another question.
Whether releasing this without an upgraded consumer/prosumer level display was a good idea is another question.
I've never worked in a company that would blow $1k on a stand. Assuming it is VESA mount they'll just buy a cheaper alternative. If it isn't I'm sure some Chinese companies will oblige soon enough.
The stand connector is custom but Apple sells a VESA adapter for “only” $200.
The contrast effect at play. Make the stand $999 to make $200 seem like a reasonable price for the VESA adaptor, when in fact it should be built in to the display like it is on basically ever other pro-level display.
> Most likely it will be companies buying this for their employees, not consumers for themselves.
I understand the whole "money is no object for real professionals" line of thinking, but:
a) it's unlikely that the $1000 stand improves productivity in any appreciable way over a regular stand and
b) if you had 10 employees and you found a way to significantly cut down on that $1000 stand price (say, with that $200 VESA mount, what a steal in comparison!), you could pay for an extra Mac Pro with the savings
I think Apple has managed to price something so poorly that even "I'm such a professional I don't care what it costs" professionals have to do a double take.
I understand the whole "money is no object for real professionals" line of thinking, but:
a) it's unlikely that the $1000 stand improves productivity in any appreciable way over a regular stand and
b) if you had 10 employees and you found a way to significantly cut down on that $1000 stand price (say, with that $200 VESA mount, what a steal in comparison!), you could pay for an extra Mac Pro with the savings
I think Apple has managed to price something so poorly that even "I'm such a professional I don't care what it costs" professionals have to do a double take.
The “XDR” part of the name seems a bit out of place for an Apple product.
I guess I’m stuck in the past and Apple is really a different company now.
I guess I’m stuck in the past and Apple is really a different company now.
It will take me some time to not think of “extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis” when I hear XDR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensively_drug-resistant_tub...
Yea, I didn't see any mention of HDR support. Is XDR their rebranding? Will macOS support HDR10 or DolbyHDR when this monitor comes out? Will it be supported on any HDR screen or just this overpriced one? Or does this monitor not have HDR at all?
HDR so far only seems supported by Windows, xBox, and PS4. Linux/X11 and Mac still have no HDR support.
HDR so far only seems supported by Windows, xBox, and PS4. Linux/X11 and Mac still have no HDR support.
It does P3 wide color. Here's a more comprehensive article: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/06/apples-new-display-i...
They talked about it at length. Per the keynote it's 10bit color at 1000 nits/1600 peak which would put it at about Display HDR1000 (but no mention if it's certified, so probably not).
It can't support Dolby Vision (requires 12 bit color), which means that it can't replace reference displays for professionals.
Also HDR playback has been supported for awhile on MacOS, since high sierra it's been one of those "it just works" features.
It can't support Dolby Vision (requires 12 bit color), which means that it can't replace reference displays for professionals.
Also HDR playback has been supported for awhile on MacOS, since high sierra it's been one of those "it just works" features.
Why doesn't Apple introduce different options? For example, I would never need a 6k display, but having a nice, matte finish, 1000 nit display at 1440p or 4k would definitely be on my radar.
If they sold smaller resolution displays at more appropriate price points, I would be more inclined to buy it. They offer similar pricing structures for their iPhone and MacBook lines, so why not apply the same to monitors?
If they sold smaller resolution displays at more appropriate price points, I would be more inclined to buy it. They offer similar pricing structures for their iPhone and MacBook lines, so why not apply the same to monitors?
They would never release a 1440p display today considering that’s a lower resolution than the panels in their 13” laptops. However, I’m disappointed that there’s no standalone version of the display from the 5K iMac. That was the 5K LG UltraFine, but that seems to be disappearing from shelves.
Presumably because the market is already saturated by everyone else.
Did he say $999 for the stand?!!
I was laughing hard when I heard the audience grown at that announcement. The presenter's face just DROPPED. Seriously, that had to be an "Oh shit" moment.
> The presenter's face just DROPPED. Seriously, that had to be an "Oh shit" moment.
Speaks to how out-of-touch Apple's management is if they though that wouldn't have gone over as poorly as it did.
Speaks to how out-of-touch Apple's management is if they though that wouldn't have gone over as poorly as it did.
It's gonna be 2019's "599 U.S. Dollars" meme.
To my extreme disappointment, "This video is unavailable."
Yes, he did.
The crowd laughed at that line.
The crowd laughed at that line.
Sounded more like gasps of disbelief it wasn't included + price of it.
Maybe they laughed because it kinda look like a cheese grater.
Edit: My bad. Actually, it's the new mac pro that look like a cheese grater.
Edit: My bad. Actually, it's the new mac pro that look like a cheese grater.
The back of the monitor also looks like a cheese grater.
I guess you could prop your $6000 monitor up against the wall or some milk crates or something. Are they including a power cable in the box or is that a $99 extra?
For the price they should have microwave beamed power. Two cables hanging off the back are just too ugly to countenance.
> The stand and VESA mount costs extra because it’s Apple.
For me the last line in the article obnoxiously sums up Apple's attitude towards pricing.
For me the last line in the article obnoxiously sums up Apple's attitude towards pricing.
Time for some Dadaist tinkering.
The bill of materials is probably $50-100 or less to turn an iPad Pro into a viable stand for the Pro Display.
The bill of materials is probably $50-100 or less to turn an iPad Pro into a viable stand for the Pro Display.
But now your monitor can go vertical. It’s good for coding!
People are going to be leaning this thing on their wall or on a stack of dollar bills, that might even be cheaper.
That's inflation for you.
Not hearing anyone mention the precision counter-balancing arm (there's an animation of it on the website). I've never seen a monitor stand arm that isn't pure trash. Not that I would pay $1000 for the stand but it looks to be well-engineered and I really wish I could have one.
That reminded me of the arm on the iMac g4, I hope it’s better than that.
Careful not to drink the koolaid here. How many times do you adjust your monitor once it's on your desk? Make one out of scrap wood to your exacting custom specs and use the $999 for your 1tb ssd upgrade.
I move mine pretty frequently depending if I'm sitting or standing at my stationary desk. The two things I would appreciate are:
1) Being able to fine-tune the height of the monitor
2) A monitor arm that's not a flimsy piece plastic that shakes whenever the table moves
Who knows if the new mount even fulfills those 2 things but if they did, that would be pretty cool. I don't think I could ever afford this in my lifetime though.
1) Being able to fine-tune the height of the monitor
2) A monitor arm that's not a flimsy piece plastic that shakes whenever the table moves
Who knows if the new mount even fulfills those 2 things but if they did, that would be pretty cool. I don't think I could ever afford this in my lifetime though.
You can buy a solid metal VESA monitor stand that's easy to adjust for about $50.
The person describing the stand said it generates lots of heat so they need to put a (fancy looking) heat sink on the back. If you take their advice and chain 6 of these to one Mac Pro, what sort of heat output do you get?
There goes my snark about it having an Apple T2 inside.
The real lede here is 1000nits of brightness; even the old LG Ultrafine displays capped out at 500nits.
500 seems like it's way too much to stare at all day.
https://www.dell.com/en-ca/shop/dell-ultrasharp-27-4k-hdr-mo...
I mean there's that.
I mean there's that.
No it is not. Peak 1,000 nits. Not sustainable brightness. The two are totally different class.
I really hope they introduce a Semi-Pro display for those of us with existing MacBook Pros (I think my 2016 can only push a 5K) who just want a successor to the Thunderbolt Display. I'm currently using a Thunderbolt Display as well as an LG 4K display. While I like the high resolution of the LG, the quality of it is garbage compared to my Thunderbolt Display. The USB-C port works at best 5% of the time, and of course it stopped working after the warranty period.
I have been waiting to buy a monitor for a while and knew apple was up to something. It looks like Apple totally nailed it but this is way too expensive.
This seems to be a luxury statement piece for for 99% of what I would consider to be professional workers: people who spend 8 hours a day consuming text and video, and producing knowledge work.
As a software engineer, I just can't quite figure out when the "Pro" label might apply to me these days. The iMac Pro and MacBook Pro labels seem apt, but the Mac Pro and Apple Pro Display labels do not.
It just feels kind of "un-Apple" that it takes research to figure out what works for me, and their product categorization is now rather opaque.
As a software engineer, I just can't quite figure out when the "Pro" label might apply to me these days. The iMac Pro and MacBook Pro labels seem apt, but the Mac Pro and Apple Pro Display labels do not.
It just feels kind of "un-Apple" that it takes research to figure out what works for me, and their product categorization is now rather opaque.
How do reference and fancy FALD (Full Array Local Dimming) do even go in the same sentence?
Just give the people a OLED panel subscription instead of this LED unifomity nightmare waiting to happen.
Just give the people a OLED panel subscription instead of this LED unifomity nightmare waiting to happen.
Are there OLED panels available with this size and pixel density? My understanding is also that OLED panels currently can suffer a bit from burn-in, or at least color stability problems, which is a no-go for reference monitors.
That what I meant, a built in calibration arm/camera unit plus easily replacable panel w/o driver unit might have been a killer feature. But replaceable and Apple don't mix.
To me this looks like a overengineered consumer device, with insane macro-scale part count and failures/uniformity issues just waiting to happen. Besides local contrast issues with in a LED driven pixel area and the borders between them. You can do this, but comparing it reference class seems quite the claim to live up to.
The $40k Sony device mentioned is OLED btw.
https://www.apple.com/105/media/us/pro-display-xdr/2019/1e43...
To me this looks like a overengineered consumer device, with insane macro-scale part count and failures/uniformity issues just waiting to happen. Besides local contrast issues with in a LED driven pixel area and the borders between them. You can do this, but comparing it reference class seems quite the claim to live up to.
The $40k Sony device mentioned is OLED btw.
https://www.apple.com/105/media/us/pro-display-xdr/2019/1e43...
> The $40k Sony device mentioned is OLED btw.
...and it still burns in, degrades, etc. It's not supposed to show a desktop.
Even with a replaceable panel, it would be a very costly affair. LCD panels are mass market products, even if they happen to be (cut as) 6K or 8K.
...and it still burns in, degrades, etc. It's not supposed to show a desktop.
Even with a replaceable panel, it would be a very costly affair. LCD panels are mass market products, even if they happen to be (cut as) 6K or 8K.
I'd imagine that that's implicit: Nobody's buying a 40k display to show a desktop.
Complaining only signals that you are not the market they’re targeting. This is for Hollywood media makers, high end studios, etc. This was never to be a mass market item.
Cooperate and developers is a mass market, and I sure am the target segment. But 1k stand is for sure taking a piss on us. You can't just deflect valid criticism...
And... don’t discount the luxury signaling effect people with money will do with hardware like this. It’s the real gold Apple Watch all over again.
Not with local backlight dimming it isn't. The contrast ratio is totally fake using that trick.
Product page is up now: https://www.apple.com/pro-display-xdr/
I'm confused, didn't they spend a while talking about how great the 8k streaming/editing/etc is on the new mac? Why isn't this an 8k monitor?
After all the dell UP3218K has been available for a while now and its 8k (and actually priced less, and comes with a stand). Frankly, it looks nicer too as they seem to have overdone the industrial cheese grader look IMHO.
After all the dell UP3218K has been available for a while now and its 8k (and actually priced less, and comes with a stand). Frankly, it looks nicer too as they seem to have overdone the industrial cheese grader look IMHO.
I wish they'd just bring back a "Macintosh," non-pro, non-book... Standard itx/matx/atx size with a nice looking case and upper-middle parts in it for something resembling an upper-middle price ($1500-3000 for desktop).
It's never gonna happen. It simply is not Apple.
There also does not appear to be a front-facing camera on the display.
I'm looking forward to seeing how well the matte option performs. Maybe we'll even see it on other devices such as the MacBook Pro.
Is it just me or is it odd that they show how the new display can be connected to a Mac Pro or a Macbook Pro, but it doesn't feature even 2 inputs so you can connect both and switch between as needed? That was already the reason why I bought the Dell 30" screen instead of the Cinema Display, as it only had a single input.
Apple produced the best $6,000 display you can buy. When the majority of pro users wanted the best $1,500 display you can make. We want an iMac without all the computer part. And they delivered a real 'pro' display.
Maybe this is a big middle finger up to all those asking for Apple's pro line up to be more 'pro'.
Maybe this is a big middle finger up to all those asking for Apple's pro line up to be more 'pro'.
[deleted]
Five freaking thousand dollars for a monitor?
Who is their target market? I'd like to know.
Who is their target market? I'd like to know.
Apple is just completely out of touch now, aren't they?
This is not for consumers. This is for AV industry professionals whose companies are footing the bill.
Apple has, rightly, been under fire lately for forgetting about the pro market. This display, in the context of the presentation, is intended to demonstrate that their professional focus is back.
Apple has, rightly, been under fire lately for forgetting about the pro market. This display, in the context of the presentation, is intended to demonstrate that their professional focus is back.
I am not an AV industry professional. Are there competitive displays now? How much do they cost?
This is a pretty unique monitor. There are very few monitors available over 4K and none that I'm aware of with this level of brightness/dynamic range.
The LG UltraFine 5K which has sort of been the de facto "Apple monitor" over the past few years since they stopped making their own is $1300.
Dell has a 32" 8K wide gamut color accurate monitor (UP3218K) which is higher resolution but doesn't get anywhere near as bright. MSRP is $3900, it currently sells for $3400 and includes a stand.
The LG UltraFine 5K which has sort of been the de facto "Apple monitor" over the past few years since they stopped making their own is $1300.
Dell has a 32" 8K wide gamut color accurate monitor (UP3218K) which is higher resolution but doesn't get anywhere near as bright. MSRP is $3900, it currently sells for $3400 and includes a stand.
High end reference monitor is $30k.
https://pro.sony/en_FI/products/broadcastpromonitors/bvm-hx3...
https://pro.sony/en_FI/products/broadcastpromonitors/bvm-hx3...
It's also OLED, though, so there's that.
Not with their target audience. The cheapest Red camera body is $14950, without a lens -- and that's a 5k camera. The cheapest 8k Red body is $25k. Panavision rents for $800-2500+ per day.
So about $11k for a complete editing computer with the power to handle multiple 8k streams isn't expensive at all in the context of those industries.
The Mac Pro isn't a "web developer" machine or an advanced spreadsheet runner -- it's a computer designed for people that actually need that sort of power in a desktop workstation. The last thing people in the AV industries are complaining about with this new machine is the cost. It's a bargain.
So about $11k for a complete editing computer with the power to handle multiple 8k streams isn't expensive at all in the context of those industries.
The Mac Pro isn't a "web developer" machine or an advanced spreadsheet runner -- it's a computer designed for people that actually need that sort of power in a desktop workstation. The last thing people in the AV industries are complaining about with this new machine is the cost. It's a bargain.
Are there concerns amongst these companies about the lack of hardware updates to products like this by Apple? What hardware are these companies using at the moment? iMac Pros? And before that they were using 2013 Mac Pros? I think there was a 4 year gap between those products I think? I'm surprised that more companies in industries that use this type of hardware haven't left the apple ecosystem. I have a home recording studio, so I have some desire for good hardware but I can get away with a regular iMac. It's hard for me to have perspective on this stuff.
AV studios are salivating, except for the lack of GPU options.
Apple's been making $20k computers for decades now.
Absolutely not interested in spending that much for something that’s not OLED. OLED is the future of display technologies. We’re already seeing it hit the laptop display market. You’ll get significantly better contrast for professional work, power savings, and reduced eye strain from not staring at 1000nit light bulbs all day.
Also the stand part was funny.
Also the stand part was funny.
I doubt you are getting OLED with reference colors that are long term stable with that brightness. These are pro monitors for professional video folks. I would love to have one but I can't possibly justify it for anything I do.
OLED absolutely is not the future of display technology. Besides phones, it's a stopgap solution for TVs until MicroLEDs become feasible.
OLED makes for terrible monitors to use for hours on end, with all the stationary UI elements causing burn-in. It's an unsolved problem.
OLED also isn't all that bright, especially on a smaller screen. You want those nits for bright HDR content, like the sun, not to stare at it all day.
OLED also isn't substantially more energy efficient.
OLED visibly degrades in quality well within its lifetime.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love OLED TVs to watch films on, but they don't make for good monitors.
OLED makes for terrible monitors to use for hours on end, with all the stationary UI elements causing burn-in. It's an unsolved problem.
OLED also isn't all that bright, especially on a smaller screen. You want those nits for bright HDR content, like the sun, not to stare at it all day.
OLED also isn't substantially more energy efficient.
OLED visibly degrades in quality well within its lifetime.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love OLED TVs to watch films on, but they don't make for good monitors.
Lenovo is already starting to sell them. SamsUng would have told you they are too expensive to produce until LG figured it out, just like they’ve figured out how to make sceeen from phones to TVs with real longevity. We’ll see about competition when it comes.
Nobody figured out burn-in or longevity with OLED. Sure, some companies may sell such products, that doesn't mean they solved these issues. It just means they don't care about those issues.
OLED is absolute crap. Low brightness, slower than LCD, burnin, uses more energy for bright UIs, turns yellow with time (as blue LEDs degrade faster), and a thousand more things I don't remember. OLED is only sold because of eye-candy.
Significant advancements have been made that make degradation to half brightness slower than LCD displays possible with less energy. OLED displays are already being put into consumer screens including the laptop market with the X1 extreme gen 2, and I believe Dell and Razer are now making them as well.
So if I can't buy an LG, what do I buy for less than a couple grand, Apple?