Apple's new display rumored to launch at Apple event alongside new Mac mini

AppleInsider

The "Peek Performance" Apple event may feature a new high-resolution Mac display, alongside the long-rumored Mac mini update packing an M2 chip.

The March 8 event is expected to showcase a number of product updates across multiple categories. If a Sunday report is to be believed, this could include a high-end Mac mini and a monitor.

While reports surfaced in March about Apple working on an "Apple Studio Display" with a 7K resolution, Mark Gurman's "Power On" newsletter for Bloomberg says it may make an appearance.

Gurman says critics shouldn't "rule out Apple previewing its next-generation external display" at the event as he was "told Apple actually completed work on it months ago." In terms of when it should arrive, it was apparently "due to launch" after the 14-inch MacBook Pro and 16-inch MacBook Pro launches in 2021.

Alongside the expected monitor, a developer source says Apple has tested "multiple Macs with a new chip," including an eight-core GPU and 10 GPU cores. It is reckoned that this is the same sort of specification as the M2 chip rumors.

Apple has apparently tested the chip on Macs running macOS 12.3, which Gurman believes should be released within a week or two.

While Gurman thinks a Mac mini update will launch on Tuesday, future Macs like an iMac Pro or Mac Pro update aren't likely to be released. However, Apple may want "to preview at least one of those machines ahead of a release a little later this year."

What to expect at Apple's spring event

Apple has a large raft of rumored products set to launch throughout 2022. While some are expected to arrive later in the year, such as the usual fall "iPhone 14" refresh, there's a collection of products that could appear at this earlier event.

The main focus will probably be on the iPhone SE, with a third-generation device expected to pack 5G connectivity for the first time. Some rumors point to it consisting of a specifications bump while having the same design as the second-generation model, complete with a 4.7-inch display and Touch ID.

The iPad Air 5 is also said to be a potential candidate for the event, with speculation putting it as having similar feature upgrades as the iPad mini 6, including an upgrade to the A15 Bionic. 5G connectivity and an upgrade to the FaceTime HD camera to a 12-megapixel ultra-wide version with Center Stage support has also been touted.

On the Mac side, a revised Mac mini is a strong choice for launch, with it expected to enjoy an upgrade from the M1 to the M1 Pro and M1 Max. It is also expected to undergo a major revamp in design, with a thinner chassis, more ports at the back, and a magnetic power connection.

There has also been the suggestion the rumored larger Apple Silicon iMac could surface, replacing the 27-inch intel model, and potentially resurrecting the iMac Pro name. The model will most likely take after the 24-inch iMac in terms of physical design, and gain ProMotion and mini LED for the display, among other changes .

The iMac Pro may also benefit from a major M1 chip update, with one leaker saying a fourth variant of the Apple Silicon chip generation could be used, complete with a 12-core CPU.

Read on AppleInsider

mobird

Y'all need to get in line behind me as I'll be ordering the "mini whatever" when it becomes available!!
Finally!!!

crawdad62

mobird said:

Y'all need to get in line behind me as I'll be ordering the "mini whatever" when it becomes available!!
Finally!!!

I'm good with that. I'll get in line right behind you. My 2014 iMac 5K is long in the tooth but it still ain't too bad.

tmay

crawdad62 said:

mobird said:

Y'all need to get in line behind me as I'll be ordering the "mini whatever" when it becomes available!!
Finally!!!

I'm good with that. I'll get in line right behind you. My 2014 iMac 5K is long in the tooth but it still ain't too bad.

I'm in the same boat, but I'll hold out long enough to see what the Mac Pro ends up, even though I'll likely put my money on an iMac Pro.

Rumors of a new display is good news for all of us.

tenthousandthings

MacBook Studio (M1 Pro/Max, Retina 13-inch)
iMac Studio (M1 Pro/Max/Ultra)
Mac Studio (M1 Pro/Max/Ultra)
Apple Studio Display XDR

wood1208

iPhone SE 5G in current frame with Touchid integrated in power button like iPad Air which allows end to end screen. Can be killer lower end iPhone. Design can be carried over, adopted for iPhone SE Plus.

OutdoorAppDeveloper

There are a lot of Mac users who have posted here in the past about how much they want an Apple Studio Display. I would really like to know why? I am genuinely curious. I thought it was a huge improvement when Apple started supporting HDMI connectors for displays so you could buy any third party screen you wanted. What is it about Apple displays that you find so desirable? Is it that the design will match your computer or do you think that the resolution or quality will be better? Perhaps it is that it will work better than a third party display (no fiddling with a wonky button on the display to set the options)? Please enlighten me.

DAalseth

On another site they talked about Apple’s “7k Studio Display”. I kept wondering if that was the resolution or the price. 🥸😜

GG1

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

There are a lot of Mac users who have posted here in the past about how much they want an Apple Studio Display. I would really like to know why? I am genuinely curious. I thought it was a huge improvement when Apple started supporting HDMI connectors for displays so you could buy any third party screen you wanted. What is it about Apple displays that you find so desirable? Is it that the design will match your computer or do you think that the resolution or quality will be better? Perhaps it is that it will work better than a third party display (no fiddling with a wonky button on the display to set the options)? Please enlighten me.

I've never owned an Apple Display, but owners of the previous model (not the XDR) seem to be very positive about it after all these years.

I use a 10+ year old Dell display shared between a 2012 Mini and Windows PC (for occasional gaming). I'm ready for a new Mini paired with a new Apple Display, as staring at a good quality, long-lasting display is worth it to my old eyes. I've come close getting the 4K UltraFine (due to its MacOS integration and resolution), but quality issues (and aesthetics) turned me off. So for me: quality/long-lasting, MacOS integration, aesthetics, in this order.

9secondkox2

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

There are a lot of Mac users who have posted here in the past about how much they want an Apple Studio Display. I would really like to know why? I am genuinely curious. I thought it was a huge improvement when Apple started supporting HDMI connectors for displays so you could buy any third party screen you wanted. What is it about Apple displays that you find so desirable? Is it that the design will match your computer or do you think that the resolution or quality will be better? Perhaps it is that it will work better than a third party display (no fiddling with a wonky button on the display to set the options)? Please enlighten me.

There are multiple reasons. 

1) yes, to answer your question, it’s very nice to have a matching aesthetic. 

2) apple quality. The lg ultrafine was great on part. In reality the quality was not up to apple standard. 

3) performance. Apple has been on a tear for years with performance. Not just bleeding edge stuff, but on the edge while also working properly and with proper resolutions that work great with the retina dynamic.and apples stuff works right.  

4) giving business to those who’ve earned it. Apple has work hard and brought products we love. Meanwhile msny competitors resort to tricks and shortcuts to make a quick buck. Apple has endured undue attack, unfairly biased media, and ridiculous laws designed simply to bring them down. If you believe in Samsung, fine. Go buy Samsung. But if apple has earned your trust, buy their stuff. 

Detnator

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

There are a lot of Mac users who have posted here in the past about how much they want an Apple Studio Display. I would really like to know why? I am genuinely curious. I thought it was a huge improvement when Apple started supporting HDMI connectors for displays so you could buy any third party screen you wanted. What is it about Apple displays that you find so desirable? Is it that the design will match your computer or do you think that the resolution or quality will be better? Perhaps it is that it will work better than a third party display (no fiddling with a wonky button on the display to set the options)? Please enlighten me.

For me it’s all of the above, and a little more. I've been very frustrated with the market for displays for years. I've looked far and wide for options and have come up disappointed at best. A few points:

1. Integration with the software is the biggest thing. As you say:  no fiddling with wonky buttons on display. That alone is a kicker. But there’s more…

2. 99% of displays suck, relatively. Compare any of them with the reasonably priced (so, excluding the XDR) displays that Apple still makes — i.e. the ones that come with a built in Mac (iMacs, laptops) — and what is there? 4K seems to be the highest resolution nearly everyone will go to and most of those are 27-32 inches meaning the dpi is much lower than Apple’s. The only non-Apple displays I know of that have higher than 4K resolution are the LG 5K (see below), a couple of others that are basically the same panel but obscure brands and no macOS integration, and the Dell 8K. The latter is 400 nits (too low) and not Mac compatible anyway. For some of us, this “retina” thing does actually make a difference. 

On the topic of brightness (nits): 250, 350 seems to be the standard, up to 400 in the “good” ones. Too low. Almost no one makes displays with 500+ nits like Apple’s. 

But specs is one thing and as we know specs don’t always mean much. But in this case it seems specs do translate to experience. Staring at an iMac for long hours is just (relatively) wonderful. Apple’s displays are sharp, crisp, bright, easy on the eyes, etc. compared with all the others looking comparatively washed out, fuzzy, and a strain on the eyes. 

The one brand exception I’ve found is ASUS, who have some nice pro level displays, especially when it comes to  brightness, clarity, etc, but still nothing more than 4K, and the high end ones that might compare in experience with the iMac displays (but still only 4K) are approaching the Apple XDR price anyway. 

3. Apple’s build quality and support aren’t perfect but they’re better than anyone else’s. The one set of displays that come anywhere near addressing 1 and 2 above are the LG UltraFines that Apple had a hand in designing and Apple has touted as kind of the “official” displays for the MBP’s etc. But many people who’ve owned those — myself included — have had hardware problems with them. Apple sends you to LG support, and LG’s support is woeful. One of the worst companies I’ve ever dealt with to get anything fixed. 

4. Not a deal breaker or maker for me, but the aesthetics of Apple stuff is certainly very appealing, even in and of itself, but of course matching up with all our other Apple stuff is a nice bonus. The LG UltraFines are ugly and clunky. 

5. The only downside of Apple displays might be the price, but not really. You get what you pay for. The “unofficial Apple but really LG” displays aren’t cheap ($1300 for the 5K), and I expect any comparable Apple displays to be more. But it would be worth it if they existed. $1500+ for a 27” display is 2-3x most of the other competition if you just look at the “27” part of the spec. But see above for all the reasons why. So, yes, sometimes Apple stuff is more expensive than we’d like. But in “you get what you pay for”, some of us want the “get” and are happy to pay for it.

At the high extreme, the XDR is great for its price but it’s way beyond the budget, and needs, of most of us. Nearly everything else on the market is very affordable (low to medium $hundreds), but sucks. There’s this gaping hole in the middle that is currently filled only by displays with built in Macs (iMac) or the above-mentioned LG’s. It’s a hole we wish Apple would fill. We know they have the tech etc. for it because it’s in the iMacs. Just let us buy it without the Mac in it, so we can use it with our MBP’s, etc. 

I’d say those are all the reasons most of us who want Apple displays want them.  Hopefully that helps with your question? 

More individually, for me: 

The current iMac 5K display without the built in Mac might have been $1500 for the last few years, if it existed, and would have been a no brainer purchase (at least two of them) for me anytime since the iMac 5K originally came out. I’ve hobbled through with the LG’s in that time but it’s the best of a terrible set of choices. 

Moving forwards, I want more pixels and I’ve thought seriously about the XDR but it’s difficult to justify the price, for my needs. I really want the parts of what it offers that meet all the above requirements, but it comes with a whole lot more that I don’t need, and can’t really justify paying that much for. It’s also first gen, which means a lot of the price is recovering Apple’s R&D for it, which is fair enough for those who need its features. But not so good for the rest of us. 

However, in the past, Apple’s outrageously priced, but awesome for the time displays (eg. the original 22” Cinema Display) got better and much cheaper in their subsequent generations (eg. the subsequent 23” and 20” models). So I’ve been holding out in the hopes that some successor to the XDR, and/or some lesser model(s) will come along and be significantly less.  

If these 7K rumors are true and such a display is not a XDR replacement (in price and target market at least) it will be exactly what I need to meet all the above criteria, and I’ll jump on two of them the second they drop.  

I suspect there are a bunch of us here who feel similarly, and hopefully all the above helps answer your question as to why.  

tenthousandthings

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

There are a lot of Mac users who have posted here in the past about how much they want an Apple Studio Display. I would really like to know why? I am genuinely curious. I thought it was a huge improvement when Apple started supporting HDMI connectors for displays so you could buy any third party screen you wanted. What is it about Apple displays that you find so desirable? Is it that the design will match your computer or do you think that the resolution or quality will be better? Perhaps it is that it will work better than a third party display (no fiddling with a wonky button on the display to set the options)? Please enlighten me.

If it’s just being used as a display, sure, I guess. But if the display is also being used as a dock, then Apple’s displays are the best. I had two MacBook Pros in succession that I used with an Apple Thunderbolt Display 2K, beginning in 2012. A completely seamless experience. It’s still in use almost ten years later, hooked up to an M1 Mini.

In my limited experience with it, HDMI isn’t an ideal experience with a laptop that you regularly connect and disconnect, you need Thunderbolt for that. It’s fine for a presentation, but not day-to-day use in real life. YMMV.

Detnator

tenthousandthings said:

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

There are a lot of Mac users who have posted here in the past about how much they want an Apple Studio Display. I would really like to know why? I am genuinely curious. I thought it was a huge improvement when Apple started supporting HDMI connectors for displays so you could buy any third party screen you wanted. What is it about Apple displays that you find so desirable? Is it that the design will match your computer or do you think that the resolution or quality will be better? Perhaps it is that it will work better than a third party display (no fiddling with a wonky button on the display to set the options)? Please enlighten me.

If it’s just being used as a display, sure, I guess. But if the display is also being used as a dock, then Apple’s displays are the best. I had two MacBook Pros in succession that I used with an Apple Thunderbolt Display 2K, beginning in 2012. A completely seamless experience. It’s still in use almost ten years later, hooked up to an M1 Mini.

In my limited experience with it, HDMI isn’t an ideal experience with a laptop that you regularly connect and disconnect, you need Thunderbolt for that. It’s fine for a presentation, but not day-to-day use in real life. YMMV.

Indeed.  Add that (the docking capabilities) to my list above as well -- at least for the Thunderbolt Display of the past.  But unfortunately I suspect that's not an option going forwards.

I read somewhere that Thunderbolt 3/4 is mostly saturated by 5K+ resolutions such that the best you get out of any other ports is not much more than USB2 speed, which is why the USB-C ports on the LG 5K and Apple XDR are only USB2 speed -- no USB3/4, no other ports, and no TB3 pass through for daisy chaining (compare with the LG UltraFine 4K that does have TB3 pass through for daisy chaining). It's possible I heard/understood that wrong, and if so, someone please correct me, but if I did, then I'd love to know any other reason for the hobbled USB on both those displays.

Fortunately, this is somewhat offset by the existence of other decent docks now. So with one of those connected between a TB3/4 display and the Mac, the process is as seamless, even if not quite as clean on the desk. But just note that in that situation, when the TB connection is (usually) saturated at 5K+, then the display takes precedence and everything else is throttled, meaning external drives etc. get slow, giving a similar result to the USB in the 5K+ displays.  Only real solution to that (and my solution) is two TB connections -- one to dock, one to display. Better performance, only slightly less seamless (two connections to Mac instead of one -- a compromise, but better than slow stuff).

tenthousandthings

Detnator said:

tenthousandthings said:

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

There are a lot of Mac users who have posted here in the past about how much they want an Apple Studio Display. I would really like to know why? I am genuinely curious. I thought it was a huge improvement when Apple started supporting HDMI connectors for displays so you could buy any third party screen you wanted. What is it about Apple displays that you find so desirable? Is it that the design will match your computer or do you think that the resolution or quality will be better? Perhaps it is that it will work better than a third party display (no fiddling with a wonky button on the display to set the options)? Please enlighten me.

If it’s just being used as a display, sure, I guess. But if the display is also being used as a dock, then Apple’s displays are the best. I had two MacBook Pros in succession that I used with an Apple Thunderbolt Display 2K, beginning in 2012. A completely seamless experience. It’s still in use almost ten years later, hooked up to an M1 Mini.

In my limited experience with it, HDMI isn’t an ideal experience with a laptop that you regularly connect and disconnect, you need Thunderbolt for that. It’s fine for a presentation, but not day-to-day use in real life. YMMV.

Indeed.  Add that (the docking capabilities) to my list above as well -- at least for the Thunderbolt Display of the past.  But unfortunately I suspect that's not an option going forwards.

I read somewhere that Thunderbolt 3/4 is mostly saturated by 5K+ resolutions such that the best you get out of any other ports is not much more than USB2 speed, which is why the USB-C ports on the LG 5K and Apple XDR are only USB2 speed -- no USB3/4, no other ports, and no TB3 pass through for daisy chaining (compare with the LG UltraFine 4K that does have TB3 pass through for daisy chaining). It's possible I heard/understood that wrong, and if so, someone please correct me, but if I did, then I'd love to know any other reason for the hobbled USB on both those displays.

Fortunately, this is somewhat offset by the existence of other decent docks now. So with one of those connected between a TB3/4 display and the Mac, the process is as seamless, even if not quite as clean on the desk. But just note that in that situation, when the TB connection is (usually) saturated at 5K+, then the display takes precedence and everything else is throttled, meaning external drives etc. get slow, giving a similar result to the USB in the 5K+ displays.  Only real solution to that (and my solution) is two TB connections -- one to dock, one to display. Better performance, only slightly less seamless (two connections to Mac instead of one -- a compromise, but better than slow stuff).

Worth mentioning that the Thunderbolt Display has a double cable, with MagSafe power and Thunderbolt 2. So there is precedent for a double cable… 

Detnator

tenthousandthings said:

Detnator said:

tenthousandthings said:

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

There are a lot of Mac users who have posted here in the past about how much they want an Apple Studio Display. I would really like to know why? I am genuinely curious. I thought it was a huge improvement when Apple started supporting HDMI connectors for displays so you could buy any third party screen you wanted. What is it about Apple displays that you find so desirable? Is it that the design will match your computer or do you think that the resolution or quality will be better? Perhaps it is that it will work better than a third party display (no fiddling with a wonky button on the display to set the options)? Please enlighten me.

If it’s just being used as a display, sure, I guess. But if the display is also being used as a dock, then Apple’s displays are the best. I had two MacBook Pros in succession that I used with an Apple Thunderbolt Display 2K, beginning in 2012. A completely seamless experience. It’s still in use almost ten years later, hooked up to an M1 Mini.

In my limited experience with it, HDMI isn’t an ideal experience with a laptop that you regularly connect and disconnect, you need Thunderbolt for that. It’s fine for a presentation, but not day-to-day use in real life. YMMV.

Indeed.  Add that (the docking capabilities) to my list above as well -- at least for the Thunderbolt Display of the past.  But unfortunately I suspect that's not an option going forwards.

I read somewhere that Thunderbolt 3/4 is mostly saturated by 5K+ resolutions such that the best you get out of any other ports is not much more than USB2 speed, which is why the USB-C ports on the LG 5K and Apple XDR are only USB2 speed -- no USB3/4, no other ports, and no TB3 pass through for daisy chaining (compare with the LG UltraFine 4K that does have TB3 pass through for daisy chaining). It's possible I heard/understood that wrong, and if so, someone please correct me, but if I did, then I'd love to know any other reason for the hobbled USB on both those displays.

Fortunately, this is somewhat offset by the existence of other decent docks now. So with one of those connected between a TB3/4 display and the Mac, the process is as seamless, even if not quite as clean on the desk. But just note that in that situation, when the TB connection is (usually) saturated at 5K+, then the display takes precedence and everything else is throttled, meaning external drives etc. get slow, giving a similar result to the USB in the 5K+ displays.  Only real solution to that (and my solution) is two TB connections -- one to dock, one to display. Better performance, only slightly less seamless (two connections to Mac instead of one -- a compromise, but better than slow stuff).

Worth mentioning that the Thunderbolt Display has a double cable, with MagSafe power and Thunderbolt 2. So there is precedent for a double cable… 

Good point.  I guess that would solve it.  Could enable 8K too, if they'd also make the drivers.

--------------------------

Just for fun, here's some simplified numbers as a couple of thought exercises...

We know that: 

• 5K: 5120 x 2880 = 14,745,600 pixels
• 6K: 6016 x 3384 = 20,358,144 pixels
• 8K: 7680 x 4320 = 33,177,600 pixels

So I for one, originally thought 5K just about saturated TB3/4 (leading to the only USB2 speeds in the LG 5K extra ports), but they got 6K through it.
8K is more than double 5K, but less than double 6K so presumably 8K can get through 2x TB3/4 easily enough, with some room left over for other stuff... (though how much)?

I wonder if that's how they're doing 7K...?  2x TB3/4 plus some decent left over bandwidth for better than USB2 speed for more data ports...?  That'd be nice. I wonder what 7K resolution might mean...?

Consider...

1. Take the halfway point between the horizontal and vertical of each of the 6K and 8K resolutions and we get 6848 x 3852 for possible 7K.
2. Include the 4.5K of the new 24" iMac.

Some comparisons: 

• 4.0K: 3840 x 2160 =   8,294,400 pixels
• 4.5K: 4480 x 2520 = 11,289,600 pixels
• 5.0K: 5120 x 2880 = 14,745,600 pixels
• 6.0K: 6016 x 3384 = 20,358,144 pixels
• 7.0K: 6848 x 3852 = 26,378,496 pixels
• 8.0K: 7680 x 4320 = 33,177,600 pixels

Comparing each adjacent horizontal (vertical ratios will be the same of course): 

• 4480/3840 = 1.17
• 5120/4480 = 1.14
• 6016/5120 = 1.18
• 6848/6016 = 1.14
• 7680/6848 = 1.12

Point there being: the increments are all very close to each other, so 7K (even if it's not the exact resolution I'm suggesting above) fits in neatly.

Back to leftover bandwidth, if 6K pretty much maxes out TB3/4, and if we assume the above 7K is what it will be, then:

• 7K is exactly 30% more than 6K, leaving the equivalent of 70% of the second TB channel (about 28Gbps) for data ports.
• 8K is exactly 63% more than 6K, leaving the equivalent of 37% of the second TB channel (about 15Gbps) for data ports.

Better than 10Gbps USB3 in both cases.

Sounds promising, although, all that said, my gut says:  It's one thing to have a TB cable for data, and a separate MagSafe cable for power (as with the last TB Display), because each cable had a separate purpose. I feel like two TB cables, with both required to be connected for anything to work, just doesn't quite fit with Apple's philosophies. Therefore, personally, I think the above is a bit of a reach. But, it'd be nice to be wrong on that.

Still, if all the above is possible, perhaps TB5 could simply be 2x TB4 passed through one cable, and aggregate via software (either in the OS or in the electronics in the cable), to essentially deliver the above with one cable.  But at that point, I admit, I have almost no idea what I'm talking about, so maybe I'll stop.

opinion

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

There are a lot of Mac users who have posted here in the past about how much they want an Apple Studio Display. I would really like to know why? I am genuinely curious. I thought it was a huge improvement when Apple started supporting HDMI connectors for displays so you could buy any third party screen you wanted. What is it about Apple displays that you find so desirable? Is it that the design will match your computer or do you think that the resolution or quality will be better? Perhaps it is that it will work better than a third party display (no fiddling with a wonky button on the display to set the options)? Please enlighten me.

Well, as a lot of others write here, the aesthetics and quality for sure. But also for the same idea as with Mac and Mac OS, the integration where hardware and software is Apple made. And yes, no fiddling with a wonky button for sure too.  But another big reason is also that Apple need to fill the gap for those who buy let’s say a Mac mini or a Macbook air and does not want to buy the expensive Apple display where even the separate stand cost more than the computer. So there is simply a big need for a more reasonable priced display for consumers but still with high quality, Apple aesthetics and integration. And while I am at it, Apple should go back to making Wifi-routers too. Simplicity and security is well connected with Apple, it should be so with Wifi-routers too.

commentzilla

This people hoping for a cheap MacMini with a Pro chips are going to be disappointed.

commentzilla

We now know the MacMini is not getting a PRO or MAX chip, which is what I've been saying all along. I'm guessing the bare bones Studio starts at no less than $2k but it's likely to be closer to $3k. The Mini will simply get the base M2 that's coming with a few extra graphics core and probably the enhanced media encoder/decoder.

palegolas

Is the PEEK "typo" in the invitation meant to hint at a sneak peek of the future performance you think? Maybe even the Mac Pro?

Japhey

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

There are a lot of Mac users who have posted here in the past about how much they want an Apple Studio Display. I would really like to know why? I am genuinely curious. I thought it was a huge improvement when Apple started supporting HDMI connectors for displays so you could buy any third party screen you wanted. What is it about Apple displays that you find so desirable? Is it that the design will match your computer or do you think that the resolution or quality will be better? Perhaps it is that it will work better than a third party display (no fiddling with a wonky button on the display to set the options)? Please enlighten me.

All the posts above mine sum up pretty well why so many people are interested these. The only reason I can add that hasn’t been covered yet are the high resale value they command, just like almost everything Apple makes. Check out what used XDR’s are going for on eBay. 

tenthousandthings

palegolas said:

Is the PEEK "typo" in the invitation meant to hint at a sneak peek of the future performance you think? Maybe even the Mac Pro?

You’re not alone in thinking that, but Ming-chi Kuo has poured some cold water on it, so I’m not optimistic about seeing the Mac Pro and the new Pro Display.

I think there are two things going on in the event title: the peek/peak pun of course but also a double meaning for “performance” — what happens in a studio? Performances! 

That leaves me feeling pretty confident about the iMac Studio : Mac Studio : Apple Studio Display XDR : MacBook Studio, but I’m fully prepared to be massively disappointed—this isn’t my first rodeo!

As for the processor “peak performance” meaning, I’m guessing M1 Ultra (ultra means “beyond”) — the rumored 12-core, plus desktop-class graphics performance, beyond what’s possible in a laptop. I don’t expect them to come out with another M1 Max that isn’t in the MacBook Pros.