Half the price is still to high. Sometimes I think that there is no point in making the best products if people can’t afford them.
10% of the price is still too high. $350 would be about reasonable for a good 27" monitor, you can get a nice 27" 4K LG for about that.
I suppose Apple might charge $500 for a monitor about that quality, but it would be a ripoff.
As usual you make me laugh. You want a cheap 27” 4K monitor…? Everyone and their mother makes them. At 250, maybe 350 nits brightness, with woeful contrast, washed out images, no color accuracy and the build quality of a dollar store trinket. Put one of those next to an iMac and tell me you can’t see the difference and I’ll recommend a good eye surgeon for you.
But as we all know facts aren’t of any interest to trolls and shills.
The best display is the XDR and it’s not meant for people in general, it’s meant for professionals. Just because it’s not sold in volumes doesn’t mean higher end (low volume) products shouldn’t be made. The average monitor today is 2k one going for ~$500. Apple offering a “lower cost” smaller XDR at $2500 doesn’t fit that average, not even on the high end. The high end consumer monitor is a monster 49 inch curved one by Samsung and it “only” goes for $2000.
An M1 iMac sans Mac parts is EXACTLY what people would go for. $700 for the 24”, $1000 for a 27”, and $1500 for a 32”.
No, it's not meant for professionals. I work with video professionals, folks who do TV stuff that there's a decent chance you've seen.
They don't have monitors like that ridiculous $5000 Apple screen.
Those are for rich idiots.
Just because I’ve seen it doesn’t mean it’s any good. People who use Apple’s high end gear may be rich but they’re not idiots. Maybe they are rich because they use the right tools for their jobs and so they can actually make stuff that people want to buy - like Marvel movies for example.
Half the price is still to high. Sometimes I think that there is no point in making the best products if people can’t afford them.
10% of the price is still too high. $350 would be about reasonable for a good 27" monitor, you can get a nice 27" 4K LG for about that.
I suppose Apple might charge $500 for a monitor about that quality, but it would be a ripoff.
As usual you make me laugh. You want a cheap 27” 4K monitor…? Everyone and their mother makes them. At 250, maybe 350 nits brightness, with woeful contrast, washed out images, no color accuracy and the build quality of a dollar store trinket. Put one of those next to an iMac and tell me you can’t see the difference and I’ll recommend a good eye surgeon for you.
But as we all know facts aren’t of any interest to trolls and shills.
The best display is the XDR and it’s not meant for people in general, it’s meant for professionals. Just because it’s not sold in volumes doesn’t mean higher end (low volume) products shouldn’t be made. The average monitor today is 2k one going for ~$500. Apple offering a “lower cost” smaller XDR at $2500 doesn’t fit that average, not even on the high end. The high end consumer monitor is a monster 49 inch curved one by Samsung and it “only” goes for $2000.
An M1 iMac sans Mac parts is EXACTLY what people would go for. $700 for the 24”, $1000 for a 27”, and $1500 for a 32”.
No, it's not meant for professionals. I work with video professionals, folks who do TV stuff that there's a decent chance you've seen.
They don't have monitors like that ridiculous $5000 Apple screen.
Those are for rich idiots.
Just because I’ve seen it doesn’t mean it’s any good. People who use Apple’s high end gear may be rich but they’re not idiots. Maybe they are rich because they use the right tools for their jobs and so they can actually make stuff that people want to buy - like Marvel movies for example.
His Apple II have better response time with true green 🤪
The best display is the XDR and it’s not meant for people in general, it’s meant for professionals. Just because it’s not sold in volumes doesn’t mean higher end (low volume) products shouldn’t be made. The average monitor today is 2k one going for ~$500. Apple offering a “lower cost” smaller XDR at $2500 doesn’t fit that average, not even on the high end. The high end consumer monitor is a monster 49 inch curved one by Samsung and it “only” goes for $2000.
An M1 iMac sans Mac parts is EXACTLY what people would go for. $700 for the 24”, $1000 for a 27”, and $1500 for a 32”.
No, it's not meant for professionals. I work with video professionals, folks who do TV stuff that there's a decent chance you've seen.
They don't have monitors like that ridiculous $5000 Apple screen.
Those are for rich idiots.
Sadly this is true. I’m also in the film industry and the XDR has received so much flak for its poor backlight performance. It sits in a no man’s land - too expensive for a GUI monitor, and nowhere near good enough for colour critical applications.
It also feels to me a bit like the philosophy of the previous gen of Intel MBPs. A proper colour grading pipeline is quite complicated involving LUT boxes etc. Apple tried to simplify all of that but has consequently forced a workflow which simply cannot work in an professional colour grading context.
Personally I think the monitor should be retired completely, and that Apple should release cheaper models and possibly an updated Pro XDR which is actually functional.
These are some reasonable comments. Indeed the XDR has some issues. It’s a first gen product that fits a pretty small niche, but that’s been true of past Apple monitors.
When the first 22” Apple Cinema Display came out in about 2001 or so It was amazing and like nothing else at the time. But it was also pretty niche and about $5K.
But as niche as it was, for that niche it was just what we needed. I bought one for what I was doing at the time and the increased productivity paid for it.
Within a couple of years they had replaced it with the 17/20/23 inch range followed by the much loved aluminum 20/23/30 range all for small fractions of the 22” price.
I’d argue this XDR is even more niche, because of the points made above by sloaah but I’m hoping the XDR is the start of a new range of displays - a repeat of something like the above.
The best display is the XDR and it’s not meant for people in general, it’s meant for professionals. Just because it’s not sold in volumes doesn’t mean higher end (low volume) products shouldn’t be made. The average monitor today is 2k one going for ~$500. Apple offering a “lower cost” smaller XDR at $2500 doesn’t fit that average, not even on the high end. The high end consumer monitor is a monster 49 inch curved one by Samsung and it “only” goes for $2000.
An M1 iMac sans Mac parts is EXACTLY what people would go for. $700 for the 24”, $1000 for a 27”, and $1500 for a 32”.
No, it's not meant for professionals. I work with video professionals, folks who do TV stuff that there's a decent chance you've seen.
They don't have monitors like that ridiculous $5000 Apple screen.
Those are for rich idiots.
Sadly this is true. I’m also in the film industry and the XDR has received so much flak for its poor backlight performance. It sits in a no man’s land - too expensive for a GUI monitor, and nowhere near good enough for colour critical applications.
It also feels to me a bit like the philosophy of the previous gen of Intel MBPs. A proper colour grading pipeline is quite complicated involving LUT boxes etc. Apple tried to simplify all of that but has consequently forced a workflow which simply cannot work in an professional colour grading context.
Personally I think the monitor should be retired completely, and that Apple should release cheaper models and possibly an updated Pro XDR which is actually functional.
These are some reasonable comments. Indeed the XDR has some issues. It’s a first gen product that fits a pretty small niche, but that’s been true of past Apple monitors.
When the first 22” Apple Cinema Display came out in about 2001 or so It was amazing and like nothing else at the time. But it was also pretty niche and about $5K.
But as niche as it was, for that niche it was just what we needed. I bought one for what I was doing at the time and the increased productivity paid for it.
Within a couple of years they had replaced it with the 17/20/23 inch range followed by the much loved aluminum 20/23/30 range all for a fractions of the 22” price.
I’d argue this XDR is even more niche, because of the points made above by sloaah but I’m hoping the XDR is the start of a new range of displays - a repeat of something like the above.
Hardware-wise I think Apple should hit the sweet spot of "diminishing return". That is, you won't gain much better experience beyond but much better than anything below. That way, it will do enough for professionals while being the top-end for your regular consumers (like 99% of us).
Half the price is still to high. Sometimes I think that there is no point in making the best products if people can’t afford them.
Ugh! Not everything is meant for people like you. Clearly, some "people" can afford them. As others have stated, the XDR is entry level when compared to other professional products.
Half the price is still to high. Sometimes I think that there is no point in making the best products if people can’t afford them.
Not true at all. The ‘best’ products can be afforded by those with the financial ability to do so. Look at the audio equipment (amplifiers/speakers) market, look at the HDTV market, look at the housing market, look at the automobile market, look at the wristwatch market. It’s why most of us settle for the ‘good enough’ model and then claim it’s a s good as the top end product to feel better.
So, no, the rumored monitor will definitely be priced out of the ‘good enough’ market. Many years ago when Apple manufactured monitors they weren’t cheap by that time’s market either. This go around will be no different.
Just strip the Mac out of the M1 iMac, half the price and ship that. They’d sell boatloads of them!
You nailed it sir. That's all they need to do. I would buy one if they would. Why don't they do it?
Maybe they have thought of it and decided that profit per unit is not as high as they want.
That is precisely the reason. Many here are always complaining about Apple prices but a near $3T market cap refutes those arguments. Millions of people all around the world ARE buying Apple products at the prices Apple sets.
The best display is the XDR and it’s not meant for people in general, it’s meant for professionals. Just because it’s not sold in volumes doesn’t mean higher end (low volume) products shouldn’t be made. The average monitor today is 2k one going for ~$500. Apple offering a “lower cost” smaller XDR at $2500 doesn’t fit that average, not even on the high end. The high end consumer monitor is a monster 49 inch curved one by Samsung and it “only” goes for $2000.
An M1 iMac sans Mac parts is EXACTLY what people would go for. $700 for the 24”, $1000 for a 27”, and $1500 for a 32”.
No, it's not meant for professionals. I work with video professionals, folks who do TV stuff that there's a decent chance you've seen.
They don't have monitors like that ridiculous $5000 Apple screen.
Those are for rich idiots.
Sadly this is true. I’m also in the film industry and the XDR has received so much flak for its poor backlight performance. It sits in a no man’s land - too expensive for a GUI monitor, and nowhere near good enough for colour critical applications.
It also feels to me a bit like the philosophy of the previous gen of Intel MBPs. A proper colour grading pipeline is quite complicated involving LUT boxes etc. Apple tried to simplify all of that but has consequently forced a workflow which simply cannot work in an professional colour grading context.
Personally I think the monitor should be retired completely, and that Apple should release cheaper models and possibly an updated Pro XDR which is actually functional.
These are some reasonable comments. Indeed the XDR has some issues. It’s a first gen product that fits a pretty small niche, but that’s been true of past Apple monitors.
When the first 22” Apple Cinema Display came out in about 2001 or so It was amazing and like nothing else at the time. But it was also pretty niche and about $5K.
But as niche as it was, for that niche it was just what we needed. I bought one for what I was doing at the time and the increased productivity paid for it.
Within a couple of years they had replaced it with the 17/20/23 inch range followed by the much loved aluminum 20/23/30 range all for small fractions of the 22” price.
I’d argue this XDR is even more niche, because of the points made above by sloaah but I’m hoping the XDR is the start of a new range of displays - a repeat of something like the above.
Marvin said something similar in the other thread (about the three demo units rumor) -- he pointed out that this basic LED/XDR tech was introduced in the Pro Display XDR but quickly spread to iPads and recently to the MacBook Pro. Aspects of it are also in the iPhone. Soon it will be in the iMac Pro. He also pointed out that this is standard industry practice: "High-end TV manufacturers do the same where they launch a new technology like OLED or Quantum Dot at a really high price point and over a few years it filters down to mainstream products. Probably so they can assess longevity/defect rate in a low unit volume before hitting a mass market."
No display will meet everyone's needs. That should be obvious, but apparently, it's not. These new displays, whether standalone or inside the new iMac Pro, or both, will be lower-cost and will have learned from experience. We *don't* know to what extent whatever issues there have been (with blooming, for example) will persist in this second generation. We *do* know that Apple's displays will be higher resolution than the 4K standard that you see, for example, in LG's brand-new, just announced "Pro" UltraFines. As far as I can tell, those are aimed directly at sloaah's world. For others, like me, the brighter and the higher the resolution, the better. Apple's priorities seem to be aligned with my own. Yay!
The best display is the XDR and it’s not meant for people in general, it’s meant for professionals. Just because it’s not sold in volumes doesn’t mean higher end (low volume) products shouldn’t be made. The average monitor today is 2k one going for ~$500. Apple offering a “lower cost” smaller XDR at $2500 doesn’t fit that average, not even on the high end. The high end consumer monitor is a monster 49 inch curved one by Samsung and it “only” goes for $2000.
An M1 iMac sans Mac parts is EXACTLY what people would go for. $700 for the 24”, $1000 for a 27”, and $1500 for a 32”.
No, it's not meant for professionals. I work with video professionals, folks who do TV stuff that there's a decent chance you've seen.
They don't have monitors like that ridiculous $5000 Apple screen.
Those are for rich idiots.
You’re absolutely clueless. Some pros use *much* more expensive reference monitors. Some comments here claim the pros in this market don’t like the XDR, I can’t speak to that. But that’s the market it’s for, not “rich idiots”.
Life lesson for you — just because you can’t afford a thing doesn’t mean the thing is without value.
Guys don't worry! Apple still wants your money and they will make a monitor for you. They're just building tension so you won't hesitate to empty your wallet when the time comes.
These new displays, whether standalone or inside the new iMac Pro, or both, will be lower-cost and will have learned from experience. We *don't* know to what extent whatever issues there have been (with blooming, for example) will persist in this second generation. We *do* know that Apple's displays will be higher resolution than the 4K standard that you see, for example, in LG's brand-new, just announced "Pro" UltraFines. As far as I can tell, those are aimed directly at sloaah's world. For others, like me, the brighter and the higher the resolution, the better. Apple's priorities seem to be aligned with my own. Yay!
One of the issues people noticed with the 2019 XDR Display was how the brightness changes:
If they can maintain the same density, that would be around 30x the amount of dimming zones on a new XDR display vs the old one. The 16" MBP also has around 2500 dimming zones though so they likely won't scale it linearly. 2500 would be around 5x improvement, 5000 should be doable for 10x improvement.
The price for the 16" can't be more than around $300-500. Potentially a new 32" could be under $2000 while also having 10x improvement in dimming zones. This would cause a pretty big drop in resale value of the 2019 models after 2 years but that's good for everyone else.
OLED TVs launched around $15k and those have since dropped to under $2k:
I doubt the build cost of a 24" XDR would be over $500 and if Apple is ok with ~40% margins, they could sell that for $799. 27" for 50% more at $1299 and 32" for 50% more at $1999. I reckon the 27" XDR iMac Pro will start at $1999 with M1 Pro.
Guys don't worry! Apple still wants your money and they will make a monitor for you. They're just building tension so you won't hesitate to empty your wallet when the time comes.
Long Apple since 2005, investing in Apple has been very good over the years can’t wait for that new cpu larger screen iMac or a new Mac Pro next year easy decision.
These new displays, whether standalone or inside the new iMac Pro, or both, will be lower-cost and will have learned from experience. We *don't* know to what extent whatever issues there have been (with blooming, for example) will persist in this second generation. We *do* know that Apple's displays will be higher resolution than the 4K standard that you see, for example, in LG's brand-new, just announced "Pro" UltraFines. As far as I can tell, those are aimed directly at sloaah's world. For others, like me, the brighter and the higher the resolution, the better. Apple's priorities seem to be aligned with my own. Yay!
One of the issues people noticed with the 2019 XDR Display was how the brightness changes:
If they can maintain the same density, that would be around 30x the amount of dimming zones on a new XDR display vs the old one. The 16" MBP also has around 2500 dimming zones though so they likely won't scale it linearly. 2500 would be around 5x improvement, 5000 should be doable for 10x improvement.
The price for the 16" can't be more than around $300-500. Potentially a new 32" could be under $2000 while also having 10x improvement in dimming zones. This would cause a pretty big drop in resale value of the 2019 models after 2 years but that's good for everyone else.
OLED TVs launched around $15k and those have since dropped to under $2k:
I doubt the build cost of a 24" XDR would be over $500 and if Apple is ok with ~40% margins, they could sell that for $799. 27" for 50% more at $1299 and 32" for 50% more at $1999. I reckon the 27" XDR iMac Pro will start at $1999 with M1 Pro.
Wait a sec, a 32" display is 4x bigger than the 16", how would 5,000 still be 2x more improved?
Okay, you're talking about the XDR...
Still, few more questions:
1. I thought the 16" MacBook Pro did better compared to the iPad Pro, which is almost invisible, and 2. I guess 5,000 dimming zones on the 32" will still be better than 16" with 2,500? Since the picture is also bigger, thus less blooming by comparison.
These new displays, whether standalone or inside the new iMac Pro, or both, will be lower-cost and will have learned from experience. We *don't* know to what extent whatever issues there have been (with blooming, for example) will persist in this second generation. We *do* know that Apple's displays will be higher resolution than the 4K standard that you see, for example, in LG's brand-new, just announced "Pro" UltraFines. As far as I can tell, those are aimed directly at sloaah's world. For others, like me, the brighter and the higher the resolution, the better. Apple's priorities seem to be aligned with my own. Yay!
One of the issues people noticed with the 2019 XDR Display was how the brightness changes:
If they can maintain the same density, that would be around 30x the amount of dimming zones on a new XDR display vs the old one. The 16" MBP also has around 2500 dimming zones though so they likely won't scale it linearly. 2500 would be around 5x improvement, 5000 should be doable for 10x improvement.
The price for the 16" can't be more than around $300-500. Potentially a new 32" could be under $2000 while also having 10x improvement in dimming zones. This would cause a pretty big drop in resale value of the 2019 models after 2 years but that's good for everyone else.
OLED TVs launched around $15k and those have since dropped to under $2k:
I doubt the build cost of a 24" XDR would be over $500 and if Apple is ok with ~40% margins, they could sell that for $799. 27" for 50% more at $1299 and 32" for 50% more at $1999. I reckon the 27" XDR iMac Pro will start at $1999 with M1 Pro.
Wait a sec, a 32" display is 4x bigger than the 16", how would 5,000 still be 2x more improved?
Okay, you're talking about the XDR...
Still, few more questions:
1. I thought the 16" MacBook Pro did better compared to the iPad Pro, which is almost invisible, and 2. I guess 5,000 dimming zones on the 32" will still be better than 16" with 2,500? Since the picture is also bigger, thus less blooming by comparison.
Both the 16" and iPad Pro look good with low amounts of blooming. It only shows up in some extreme tests with those. The 32" XDR has a higher resolution than the 16" but lower PPI. Maybe it would get away with the same amount of dimming zones but more would always be better to get as close to OLED kind of contrast. I don't know if 5,000 on the 32" would be better than the 16" or the same, it would have more pixels per zone if it was 2,500 but they'd be spread over a wider area, it would have slightly fewer pixels per zone with 5,000. Either way, it should be a decent improvement over the first model.
These new displays, whether standalone or inside the new iMac Pro, or both, will be lower-cost and will have learned from experience. We *don't* know to what extent whatever issues there have been (with blooming, for example) will persist in this second generation. We *do* know that Apple's displays will be higher resolution than the 4K standard that you see, for example, in LG's brand-new, just announced "Pro" UltraFines. As far as I can tell, those are aimed directly at sloaah's world. For others, like me, the brighter and the higher the resolution, the better. Apple's priorities seem to be aligned with my own. Yay!
One of the issues people noticed with the 2019 XDR Display was how the brightness changes:
If they can maintain the same density, that would be around 30x the amount of dimming zones on a new XDR display vs the old one. The 16" MBP also has around 2500 dimming zones though so they likely won't scale it linearly. 2500 would be around 5x improvement, 5000 should be doable for 10x improvement.
The price for the 16" can't be more than around $300-500. Potentially a new 32" could be under $2000 while also having 10x improvement in dimming zones. This would cause a pretty big drop in resale value of the 2019 models after 2 years but that's good for everyone else.
OLED TVs launched around $15k and those have since dropped to under $2k:
I doubt the build cost of a 24" XDR would be over $500 and if Apple is ok with ~40% margins, they could sell that for $799. 27" for 50% more at $1299 and 32" for 50% more at $1999. I reckon the 27" XDR iMac Pro will start at $1999 with M1 Pro.
Wait a sec, a 32" display is 4x bigger than the 16", how would 5,000 still be 2x more improved?
Okay, you're talking about the XDR...
Still, few more questions:
1. I thought the 16" MacBook Pro did better compared to the iPad Pro, which is almost invisible, and 2. I guess 5,000 dimming zones on the 32" will still be better than 16" with 2,500? Since the picture is also bigger, thus less blooming by comparison.
Both the 16" and iPad Pro look good with low amounts of blooming. It only shows up in some extreme tests with those. The 32" XDR has a higher resolution than the 16" but lower PPI. Maybe it would get away with the same amount of dimming zones but more would always be better to get as close to OLED kind of contrast. I don't know if 5,000 on the 32" would be better than the 16" or the same, it would have more pixels per zone if it was 2,500 but they'd be spread over a wider area, it would have slightly fewer pixels per zone with 5,000. Either way, it should be a decent improvement over the first model.
Wonder why all the complaints from the iPad Pro, some even said unusable, but some in the Apple community are snowflakes that exaggerate a lot.
Thinking about the dimming zones, I believe it's highly dependent on the content. Since 5,000 is doubling the amount, It will work better with full-screen content where objects are much bigger & dimming zones are smaller by contrast. Small objects within the 16" will be worse as each dimming zones are larger. Hopefully, though, both will not be noticeable 95% of the time.
Half the price is still to high. Sometimes I think that there is no point in making the best products if people can’t afford them.
10% of the price is still too high. $350 would be about reasonable for a good 27" monitor, you can get a nice 27" 4K LG for about that.
I suppose Apple might charge $500 for a monitor about that quality, but it would be a ripoff.
I've bought one of those "nice" 27" 4K LGs recently to replace an expired Cinema Display. It's crap even if you ignore the hassles a USB C video connection creates.
Half the price is still to high. Sometimes I think that there is no point in making the best products if people can’t afford them.
Not true at all. The ‘best’ products can be afforded by those with the financial ability to do so. Look at the audio equipment (amplifiers/speakers) market, look at the HDTV market, look at the housing market, look at the automobile market, look at the wristwatch market. It’s why most of us settle for the ‘good enough’ model and then claim it’s a s good as the top end product to feel better.
So, no, the rumored monitor will definitely be priced out of the ‘good enough’ market. Many years ago when Apple manufactured monitors they weren’t cheap by that time’s market either. This go around will be no different.
Just strip the Mac out of the M1 iMac, half the price and ship that. They’d sell boatloads of them!
You nailed it sir. That's all they need to do. I would buy one if they would. Why don't they do it?
Maybe they have thought of it and decided that profit per unit is not as high as they want.
That is precisely the reason. Many here are always complaining about Apple prices but a near $3T market cap refutes those arguments. Millions of people all around the world ARE buying Apple products at the prices Apple sets.
True, the $32,000 Eizo is one of the best out there, but my question is will most people find it beneficial. Since we're at the end of the curve, improvements aren't that much (unless you're that professional) but the drawback is obvious. If you just want the "best" monitor but you'll never do any pro works, would it be really better than some $1,000 ones?
Same for the XDR, they do have needs, just not many.
These new displays, whether standalone or inside the new iMac Pro, or both, will be lower-cost and will have learned from experience. We *don't* know to what extent whatever issues there have been (with blooming, for example) will persist in this second generation. We *do* know that Apple's displays will be higher resolution than the 4K standard that you see, for example, in LG's brand-new, just announced "Pro" UltraFines. As far as I can tell, those are aimed directly at sloaah's world. For others, like me, the brighter and the higher the resolution, the better. Apple's priorities seem to be aligned with my own. Yay!
One of the issues people noticed with the 2019 XDR Display was how the brightness changes:
If they can maintain the same density, that would be around 30x the amount of dimming zones on a new XDR display vs the old one. The 16" MBP also has around 2500 dimming zones though so they likely won't scale it linearly. 2500 would be around 5x improvement, 5000 should be doable for 10x improvement.
The price for the 16" can't be more than around $300-500. Potentially a new 32" could be under $2000 while also having 10x improvement in dimming zones. This would cause a pretty big drop in resale value of the 2019 models after 2 years but that's good for everyone else.
OLED TVs launched around $15k and those have since dropped to under $2k:
I doubt the build cost of a 24" XDR would be over $500 and if Apple is ok with ~40% margins, they could sell that for $799. 27" for 50% more at $1299 and 32" for 50% more at $1999. I reckon the 27" XDR iMac Pro will start at $1999 with M1 Pro.
Wait a sec, a 32" display is 4x bigger than the 16", how would 5,000 still be 2x more improved?
Okay, you're talking about the XDR...
Still, few more questions:
1. I thought the 16" MacBook Pro did better compared to the iPad Pro, which is almost invisible, and 2. I guess 5,000 dimming zones on the 32" will still be better than 16" with 2,500? Since the picture is also bigger, thus less blooming by comparison.
Both the 16" and iPad Pro look good with low amounts of blooming. It only shows up in some extreme tests with those. The 32" XDR has a higher resolution than the 16" but lower PPI. Maybe it would get away with the same amount of dimming zones but more would always be better to get as close to OLED kind of contrast. I don't know if 5,000 on the 32" would be better than the 16" or the same, it would have more pixels per zone if it was 2,500 but they'd be spread over a wider area, it would have slightly fewer pixels per zone with 5,000. Either way, it should be a decent improvement over the first model.
Wonder why all the complaints from the iPad Pro, some even said unusable, but some in the Apple community are snowflakes that exaggerate a lot.
Thinking about the dimming zones, I believe it's highly dependent on the content. Since 5,000 is doubling the amount, It will work better with full-screen content where objects are much bigger & dimming zones are smaller by contrast. Small objects within the 16" will be worse as each dimming zones are larger. Hopefully, though, both will not be noticeable 95% of the time.
Not sure if your wondering is rhetorical or not. It's the Internet where it actively makes you less informed, less thoughtful. 50% of the posts are bullshitting, 25% are trolls, 20% are bots (probably higher ratio of these on social media), and maybe 5% who are trying to have an actual conversation. The iPad Pro 12.9 miniLED is an awesome display for 99% of market. The 1%? They have alternatives to buy! Or, they know about it and understand it's effects.
For the 32", I think it will be a similar miniLED design as the iPad Pro and MBP: about 220 PPI, 4 LEDs per FALD zone, 2200 pixels per zone. For 32 inches, that would be about 9000 FALD zones and 36000 LEDs. So, same basic characteristics as the MBP16 miniLED, but at 4x the size. That will be an awesome display. Same with the 27" model.
It will still have blooming. It won't be a problem for 99% of its market. For the 1% where it would be problem, it usually turns out that they know it, and know how to work around it so it's not much of a problem at all. Turns out people understand the equipment they are using at that level.
These new displays, whether standalone or inside the new iMac Pro, or both, will be lower-cost and will have learned from experience. We *don't* know to what extent whatever issues there have been (with blooming, for example) will persist in this second generation. We *do* know that Apple's displays will be higher resolution than the 4K standard that you see, for example, in LG's brand-new, just announced "Pro" UltraFines. As far as I can tell, those are aimed directly at sloaah's world. For others, like me, the brighter and the higher the resolution, the better. Apple's priorities seem to be aligned with my own. Yay!
One of the issues people noticed with the 2019 XDR Display was how the brightness changes:
If they can maintain the same density, that would be around 30x the amount of dimming zones on a new XDR display vs the old one. The 16" MBP also has around 2500 dimming zones though so they likely won't scale it linearly. 2500 would be around 5x improvement, 5000 should be doable for 10x improvement.
The price for the 16" can't be more than around $300-500. Potentially a new 32" could be under $2000 while also having 10x improvement in dimming zones. This would cause a pretty big drop in resale value of the 2019 models after 2 years but that's good for everyone else.
OLED TVs launched around $15k and those have since dropped to under $2k:
I doubt the build cost of a 24" XDR would be over $500 and if Apple is ok with ~40% margins, they could sell that for $799. 27" for 50% more at $1299 and 32" for 50% more at $1999. I reckon the 27" XDR iMac Pro will start at $1999 with M1 Pro.
Wait a sec, a 32" display is 4x bigger than the 16", how would 5,000 still be 2x more improved?
Okay, you're talking about the XDR...
Still, few more questions:
1. I thought the 16" MacBook Pro did better compared to the iPad Pro, which is almost invisible, and 2. I guess 5,000 dimming zones on the 32" will still be better than 16" with 2,500? Since the picture is also bigger, thus less blooming by comparison.
Both the 16" and iPad Pro look good with low amounts of blooming. It only shows up in some extreme tests with those. The 32" XDR has a higher resolution than the 16" but lower PPI. Maybe it would get away with the same amount of dimming zones but more would always be better to get as close to OLED kind of contrast. I don't know if 5,000 on the 32" would be better than the 16" or the same, it would have more pixels per zone if it was 2,500 but they'd be spread over a wider area, it would have slightly fewer pixels per zone with 5,000. Either way, it should be a decent improvement over the first model.
Wonder why all the complaints from the iPad Pro, some even said unusable, but some in the Apple community are snowflakes that exaggerate a lot.
Thinking about the dimming zones, I believe it's highly dependent on the content. Since 5,000 is doubling the amount, It will work better with full-screen content where objects are much bigger & dimming zones are smaller by contrast. Small objects within the 16" will be worse as each dimming zones are larger. Hopefully, though, both will not be noticeable 95% of the time.
Not sure if your wondering is rhetorical or not. It's the Internet where it actively makes you less informed, less thoughtful. 50% of the posts are bullshitting, 25% are trolls, 20% are bots (probably higher ratio of these on social media), and maybe 5% who are trying to have an actual conversation. The iPad Pro 12.9 miniLED is an awesome display for 99% of market. The 1%? They have alternatives to buy! Or, they know about it and understand it's effects.
For the 32", I think it will be a similar miniLED design as the iPad Pro and MBP: about 220 PPI, 4 LEDs per FALD zone, 2200 pixels per zone. For 32 inches, that would be about 9000 FALD zones and 36000 LEDs. So, same basic characteristics as the MBP16 miniLED, but at 4x the size. That will be an awesome display. Same with the 27" model.
It will still have blooming. It won't be a problem for 99% of its market. For the 1% where it would be problem, it usually turns out that they know it, and know how to work around it so it's not much of a problem at all. Turns out people understand the equipment they are using at that level.
They sucks, but also spoke truth to a small extent, you can’t complete ignore them.
Comments
darkvader said:
But as niche as it was, for that niche it was just what we needed. I bought one for what I was doing at the time and the increased productivity paid for it.
Ugh! Not everything is meant for people like you. Clearly, some "people" can afford them. As others have stated, the XDR is entry level when compared to other professional products.
So, no, the rumored monitor will definitely be priced out of the ‘good enough’ market. Many years ago when Apple manufactured monitors they weren’t cheap by that time’s market either. This go around will be no different.
That is precisely the reason. Many here are always complaining about Apple prices but a near $3T market cap refutes those arguments. Millions of people all around the world ARE buying Apple products at the prices Apple sets.
No display will meet everyone's needs. That should be obvious, but apparently, it's not. These new displays, whether standalone or inside the new iMac Pro, or both, will be lower-cost and will have learned from experience. We *don't* know to what extent whatever issues there have been (with blooming, for example) will persist in this second generation. We *do* know that Apple's displays will be higher resolution than the 4K standard that you see, for example, in LG's brand-new, just announced "Pro" UltraFines. As far as I can tell, those are aimed directly at sloaah's world. For others, like me, the brighter and the higher the resolution, the better. Apple's priorities seem to be aligned with my own. Yay!
Life lesson for you — just because you can’t afford a thing doesn’t mean the thing is without value.
https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=104153&hilit=xdr&start=50
With the iPad Pro, they have 4x the local dimming zones in a 12" display:
https://wccftech.com/2021-ipad-pro-vs-pro-display-xdr-local-dimming-zones/
If they can maintain the same density, that would be around 30x the amount of dimming zones on a new XDR display vs the old one. The 16" MBP also has around 2500 dimming zones though so they likely won't scale it linearly. 2500 would be around 5x improvement, 5000 should be doable for 10x improvement.
The price for the 16" can't be more than around $300-500. Potentially a new 32" could be under $2000 while also having 10x improvement in dimming zones. This would cause a pretty big drop in resale value of the 2019 models after 2 years but that's good for everyone else.
OLED TVs launched around $15k and those have since dropped to under $2k:
https://www.oled-info.com/lgs-and-samsungs-curved-oled-tvs-land-us-15000
I doubt the build cost of a 24" XDR would be over $500 and if Apple is ok with ~40% margins, they could sell that for $799. 27" for 50% more at $1299 and 32" for 50% more at $1999. I reckon the 27" XDR iMac Pro will start at $1999 with M1 Pro.
Okay, you're talking about the XDR...
Still, few more questions:
1. I thought the 16" MacBook Pro did better compared to the iPad Pro, which is almost invisible, and
2. I guess 5,000 dimming zones on the 32" will still be better than 16" with 2,500? Since the picture is also bigger, thus less blooming by comparison.
The 32" XDR has a higher resolution than the 16" but lower PPI. Maybe it would get away with the same amount of dimming zones but more would always be better to get as close to OLED kind of contrast. I don't know if 5,000 on the 32" would be better than the 16" or the same, it would have more pixels per zone if it was 2,500 but they'd be spread over a wider area, it would have slightly fewer pixels per zone with 5,000. Either way, it should be a decent improvement over the first model.
Thinking about the dimming zones, I believe it's highly dependent on the content. Since 5,000 is doubling the amount, It will work better with full-screen content where objects are much bigger & dimming zones are smaller by contrast. Small objects within the 16" will be worse as each dimming zones are larger. Hopefully, though, both will not be noticeable 95% of the time.
Yours
Vern
Same for the XDR, they do have needs, just not many.
For the 32", I think it will be a similar miniLED design as the iPad Pro and MBP: about 220 PPI, 4 LEDs per FALD zone, 2200 pixels per zone. For 32 inches, that would be about 9000 FALD zones and 36000 LEDs. So, same basic characteristics as the MBP16 miniLED, but at 4x the size. That will be an awesome display. Same with the 27" model.
It will still have blooming. It won't be a problem for 99% of its market. For the 1% where it would be problem, it usually turns out that they know it, and know how to work around it so it's not much of a problem at all. Turns out people understand the equipment they are using at that level.