Apple Studio Display review: How badly do you want an all-Apple experience?

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 91
    DetnatorDetnator Posts: 287member
    lewchenko said:
    It’s a huge disappointment, and frankly I expected way better from Apple. 

    5K retina style does look awesome and that’s all this screen has going for it. Whether that’s worth £1600 is another matter. 

    The price gauging for a decent stand that any other monitor would come with by default is just an insult and poor design.  

    And then there is all the problems with the camera and hardwired plug. Why Apple Why ? All we needed was a screen !

    Apple basically engineered in problems to this screen and then decided to charge even more for it than the out going model. 

    60hz is a disappointment but I get the technical limitations at this resolution. 
    Umm... You'r'e contradicting yourself.

    For one: "All we needed was a screen."  But you want a fancy height adjustable stand in the box as well.  So not just a screen.

    Needless to say, there are a bazillion (just) "screen" options on the market already. We don't need another one of those. What we needed from Apple was something more and better.  And that's what this is.  And about time.

    Other monitor stands suck.  Wobbly, misaligned, etc. We most certainly don't need another one of those. Apple has never tried to compete with "suck".  If you want a cheaper lesser but height adjustable stand then get the VESA mount option and but a $50 VESA compatible monitor stand from ... well ... just about anywhere.  Apple gave us choices. 

    Camera problems are a software issue. You're just looking for things to nitpick. Apple is fixing that, at no extra charge (as they should).

    Apple engineered in good solutions to the problems that other monitors have.  If you're ok with those problems that other monitors have then get one of those.  If one problem you're not ok with is 4K (you want 5K instead) then there's LG's 5K -- with a similar panel, but a crappy, wobbly, height adjustable stand, just like you want. And for $700 less (counting Apple's stand).

    I don't see engineered problems in Apple's display.  But I see them in your comment.
    williamlondondewmeStrangeDayspscooter63
  • Reply 62 of 91
    DetnatorDetnator Posts: 287member
    Detnator said:

    Meanwhile all these people (including you) complaining about lack of height adjustment...?  Seems just a "let's bash Apple for the sake of it" moment again.  Apple has never had height adjustment on any of its monitors or iMacs in 20+ years. Where's all the backlash about that?  Not a peep from anyone about it, ever, in all those years, until now, when Apple finally does offer it (albeit an optional premium version of it at an optional premium price). Suddenly it's an essential feature that Apple are criminal for not including in the box.  What a joke.
    A lot of people miss phone books right about now. This is what I used to see when I was a technician, Apple monitors and iMacs on phone books. I’m just glad that Apple didn’t think about reviving the easel stand like they did with the original cinema display. 

    The bottom line that everyone should think about is that, whether you like the new monitor or not, Apple is back in the consumer monitor business. Let’s hope they stay there even if this model doesn’t sell well. 
    Judging by the availability and wait time for these, I don't think Apple is having any problems selling them so far.

    Agreed, that easel thing wasn't great.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 63 of 91
    DetnatorDetnator Posts: 287member
    danox said:
    Detnator said:

    Meanwhile all these people (including you) complaining about lack of height adjustment...?  Seems just a "let's bash Apple for the sake of it" moment again.  Apple has never had height adjustment on any of its monitors or iMacs in 20+ years. Where's all the backlash about that?  Not a peep from anyone about it, ever, in all those years, until now, when Apple finally does offer it (albeit an optional premium version of it at an optional premium price). Suddenly it's an essential feature that Apple are criminal for not including in the box.  What a joke.
    A lot of people miss phone books right about now. This is what I used to see when I was a technician, Apple monitors and iMacs on phone books. I’m just glad that Apple didn’t think about reviving the easel stand like they did with the original cinema display. 

    The bottom line that everyone should think about is that, whether you like the new monitor or not, Apple is back in the consumer monitor business. Let’s hope they stay there even if this model doesn’t sell well. 

    The Apple Studio display is the basically the only quality 5k 27” monitor at that price range, the only other monitor the 6k 30” Apple XDR is the only other one if you care about color accuracy, build, fit, finish and resale value after 2 or 3 years. B&H has other monitors that are literally in the stratosphere and they are also designed to be color accurate and they are priced accordingly.

    If you are a game-boy these monitors are not for you…

    The cliché you get what you pay for is true my vacuum and chair problems went away after buying a Dyson and a Aeon chair it has been over 12 years for both.

    Most of items Apple makes cost more, but generally have a long life, resale value due to the higher quality materials used, fit, finish, and the software (OS) inside them.
    Well said.  Nice analogy to Dyson and Aeon.  I've had the same experience with Dyson vacuums -- and a couple of other Dyson products also.  Yes, they cost more, but they deliver more as well.  So does this Display.. as with most of Apple's products (some ... mistakes ... notwithstanding, but this display isn't one of them).
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 64 of 91
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,605member
    Detnator said:
    entropys said:
    I so wanted this display but given its documented problems and price I think I will have to settle for the 4K Dell ultrasharp with a USBc dock for home use. 27 or 32 inches and both have fully adjustable stands.

    it uses an LG display with new IPS technology that greatly improves contrast, and it is 500 nits. I can get two 27s for the price of one of these studio displays, and that is before buying an adjustable stand.
    I searched Dell's site.  The sheer number of 27" 4K monitors is ridiculous to say the least, but in all of those options, they don't seem to make anything that's more than 350 nits (except one I found is 350 nits typical and 1000nits HDR but it's twice the price of this ASD).

    What Dell 4K monitor is 500 nits?
    You are right. I was thinking U2723QE and U3223QE.
    They are 400 nits. 100% Rec 709, 100% sRGB, 98% DCI-P3.

     My bad.
  • Reply 65 of 91
    DetnatorDetnator Posts: 287member
    entropys said:
    Detnator said:
    entropys said:
    I so wanted this display but given its documented problems and price I think I will have to settle for the 4K Dell ultrasharp with a USBc dock for home use. 27 or 32 inches and both have fully adjustable stands.

    it uses an LG display with new IPS technology that greatly improves contrast, and it is 500 nits. I can get two 27s for the price of one of these studio displays, and that is before buying an adjustable stand.
    I searched Dell's site.  The sheer number of 27" 4K monitors is ridiculous to say the least, but in all of those options, they don't seem to make anything that's more than 350 nits (except one I found is 350 nits typical and 1000nits HDR but it's twice the price of this ASD).

    What Dell 4K monitor is 500 nits?
    You are right. I was thinking U2723QE and U3223QE.
    They are 400 nits. 100% Rec 709, 100% sRGB, 98% DCI-P3.

     My bad.
    No worries.  Glad we clarified. 👍
  • Reply 66 of 91
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,903member
    So when is Apple going to make a curved ultrawide display? I'd love for someone to do it right, with a nice, big 21:9 aspect ratio at 42-45". The only curved ultrawides at that size are 32:9, which are too wide and not tall enough for me.
    Probably never.

    Curved ultrawide displays are for content consumption, basically videogames in ultra widescreen aspect ratios. And that basically excludes Macs. Videogaming has largely been abandoned on the Mac platform.

    Apple's focus for Macs today is on content creation. That's why the Studio Display is a non-standard 5K resolution. Basically almost all consumer video content is produced at 1080p (FHD) or 2160p (4K/UHD) resolutions. There is basically no video content being produced for 720p (original HD) nor 1440p (QHD) resolutions. Moreover there is very little live video content for 21:9 aspect ratios. Pretty much everything is 16:9.

    It doesn't matter if you run Final Cut or Davinci Resolve at 5K or 4K.

    You might get something like 21:9 for some Hollywood movies but live sports are being broadcast at 16:9. That's the major TV revenue driver these days.

    For consumer content consumption, the next major step is 8K, not 5K or 6K. Some of these 8K displays are already on the market. If the Tokyo 2020 Summer Olympics hadn't been affected by the pandemic, the rest of the world (especially visitors to Japan) would have seen these displays with their own eyes already.
    edited March 28 pscooter63
  • Reply 67 of 91
    Curved ultra-wides can be remarkably productive screens. I chose one purely to use that way. Basically the goal was more horizontal screen real estate and that's exactly what it got me. I chose a 5K2K 40" from Dell.

    Doing content creation work with apps like FCPX means I can now spread the timeline out over much more screen RE instead of scroll-scroll-scroll as was necessary with my iMac 27". Even if the ultimate render is for 16:9, creating such content probably can't have too much horizontal screen RE. Else, if the argument is that one needs no more than enough width to fit a 16:9 frame (thus 5K iMac screen) with app controls in the remaining space, put that window in about that amount of space on a 5K ultra-wide screen and have all of this spare screen space for email, safari, etc. too. When I'm developing videos, I often want to access some stock images or videos to mix in. On an ultra-wide, I can have Safari on the same screen to source such stuff instead of having to flip to a virtual screen. 

    When I'm working with office apps like Pages, Numbers, etc, I can get 3 full windows open side by side with tangibly usable widths to do whatever I'm wanting to do in them. This is particularly helpful when developing content where I am pulling from other information sources. For example, Pages with a full window next to Safari with a full window or two so I can look things up in Safari to help me develop the content in Pages. Formerly, that was 2 windows side by side at best and/or scrolling back and forth to virtual screens. Now it's all on ONE screen. 

    Many of the people who dreamed of an iMac 27"-sized screen to put next to their iMac 27" for dual screen productivity can buy an ultra-wide and get both screens in ONE frame. Ultra-wides are not exclusive for only gaming or only consumption. Anyone adding a second screen for more space for production or even using Sidebar-type options with iPads are basically showing a tangible desire for more working space. Ultra-wides are one way to get it. 

    edited March 28 FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 68 of 91
    HobeSoundDarryl said: Many of the people who dreamed of an iMac 27"-sized screen to put next to their iMac 27" for dual screen productivity can buy an ultra-wide and get both screens in ONE frame. 
    It's really more like a couple of the 2K Cinema Displays in one frame due to the 5K/2K overall size. Each half is 2.5K x 2K resolution. 
    entropys
  • Reply 69 of 91
    DetnatorDetnator Posts: 287member
    Curved ultra-wides can be remarkably productive screens. I chose one purely to use that way. Basically the goal was more horizontal screen real estate and that's exactly what it got me. I chose a 5K2K 40" from Dell.

    Doing content creation work with apps like FCPX means I can now spread the timeline out over much more screen RE instead of scroll-scroll-scroll as was necessary with my iMac 27". Even if the ultimate render is for 16:9, creating such content probably can't have too much horizontal screen RE. Else, if the argument is that one needs no more than enough width to fit a 16:9 frame (thus 5K iMac screen) with app controls in the remaining space, put that window in about that amount of space on a 5K ultra-wide screen and have all of this spare screen space for email, safari, etc. too. When I'm developing videos, I often want to access some stock images or videos to mix in. On an ultra-wide, I can have Safari on the same screen to source such stuff instead of having to flip to a virtual screen. 

    When I'm working with office apps like Pages, Numbers, etc, I can get 3 full windows open side by side with tangibly usable widths to do whatever I'm wanting to do in them. This is particularly helpful when developing content where I am pulling from other information sources. For example, Pages with a full window next to Safari with a full window or two so I can look things up in Safari to help me develop the content in Pages. Formerly, that was 2 windows side by side at best and/or scrolling back and forth to virtual screens. Now it's all on ONE screen. 

    Many of the people who dreamed of an iMac 27"-sized screen to put next to their iMac 27" for dual screen productivity can buy an ultra-wide and get both screens in ONE frame. Ultra-wides are not exclusive for only gaming or only consumption. Anyone adding a second screen for more space for production or even using Sidebar-type options with iPads are basically showing a tangible desire for more working space. Ultra-wides are one way to get it. 

    Ok… gotta tell ya… this is getting a bit silly, even almost irritating. You’ve made your point (repeatedly). We get it. But you keep missing the opposing fundamental point: You don’t have the resolution. 

    When they make a display that’s ultra wide 2880p (so something like 6828x2880) or more then your point will have more validity in this context. 

    In the meantime those looking at this ASD need pixels. Lots of pixels. 5K is almost twice 4K’s pixel count. No amount of width can make up for that. 

    Your point is valid in the context you originally raised it. But I gotta say, harping on it this much while missing the pixel count point is defraying your credibility. 

    Ok, the phrasing in this message is a little harsher than I intend it to be, but can’t quite figure out how to say it differently. No offense intended here. 
    muthuk_vanalingamentropyspscooter63
  • Reply 70 of 91
    I do read that point. What I keep seeing though is the same arguments. For instance the person to which I replied hard suggested ultra-wides are for consumption only and that's certainly not the case.

    They offered up an example of how much better FCPX is on a 5K monitor but seemed to ignore that a wider screen creates much more horizontal space for working on FCPX timelines. Less scroll is time saving. I could make a passionate case that having more on-screen space for FCPX makes the entire editing function BETTER. 

    As to "less resolution," I've freely admitted that this one is spreading 5K over 40" diagonal instead of 27" diagonal. I've also freely admitted that 2K is giving up several hundred pixels in the vertical vs 2880. But the point is that I don't SEE a quality difference myself... except in more horizontal real estate for windows, apps etc. This monitor looks as crisp and sharp as my iMac 27". My vision was recently tested and is 20:20. Perhaps you eyes are superior to that so you can see even better than 20:20 eyes?

    As to "harping": with this post, I have added FOUR posts to this thread. You've added EIGHT. All but one of your posts are pretty much "Only this Apple monitor is good, all others are junk." My posts are mostly calling out incorrect information/misleading information if not outright lies/etc. that seem to revolve around that same theme you are preaching... that only this Apple monitor is good and everything else is- to quote comments you've made in this thread- "crappy plastic, just don't cut it, wobbly, sticky, suck, etc."

    I am NOT putting down Apple or Apple's new monitor. It's a great monitor. It will be Apple great in all of the Apple great ways. My key point is that there are PLENTY of options at that price point. I'm glad this one is perfection for you. But you are not everyone. I'm practically Apple everything at my own home and have paired a brand new Mac Studio Ultra with this ultra-wide screen. If Apple offered an ultra-wide, I would have given it full consideration and would perhaps be using it right now. Instead, Apple offers only 2 desktop monitor options: a 27" screen and a $6K pro monitor. I've found a great option to pair with it that is not "crappy, wobbly, suck, just don't cut it, etc" to ME.

    Anyone who ends up with AS monitor will have a GREAT monitor. For those who want to buy a monitor right now and want one that looks as good+ as an iMac 27" to which they are long-term accustomed, it IS THAT monitor. 

    However, before this monitor was public, people dreamed of a 30" iMac, a 32" iMac, an iMac ultra-wide, etc. Instead, the one choice from Apple at iMac pricing is still a 27" screen... great, great, great... but 27" nevertheless.  Those who wanted 30" or 32" or ultra-wide have tangible options- especially in that price range. I encourage anyone reading this thread to at least take a look around and see for yourself. No matter how much "harping" pro or con about this ONE monitor from Apple, there are many great ones out there that work fine with Macs. This is a chance for anyone needing a monitor now to get something much closer to whatever they want vs. only a single choice decided for them.
    edited March 28 FileMakerFellermuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 71 of 91
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 1,394member
    The studio display is beautiful to look at. I want that exact aesthetic on my desks. 

    But… it’s just a repackaged old screen with a crappy webcam and it’s too small. 

    It’s really expensive for what it is and it’s still only 27 inches. 

    It’s 2022. This thing costs $1700 just to start. 

    It’s should be 32 inches. 

    Even with the crappy webcam, I’d buy this if we’re larger. When I compare 27-32 inches side by side, there is so much more real estate at 32. Even if it’s still 5k, which is a visibly sharper resolution compared to 4K, the 32 inches is a big difference. 

    It’s like Apple Is just milking tech from 2015 and not even trying - except in the beauty front. A+ grade there. 

    But to charge this price for this screen - too small, no mini LED, now 120 hz, and still 5k, is just wrong. 

    Hopefully, after the next Pro display is released, Apple moves this screen into a different enclosure at $999 and gives us a 32 inch 6k screen at $1699, with the 7k or 8k at 36 inches or so pro display at the high end. 

    Right now, the studio display just isn’t cutting it. Again, the enclosure looks nice - really nice, but the screen itself is too small and lacks any features to justify this price. 


  • Reply 72 of 91
    tyler82tyler82 Posts: 1,010member
    The LG ultrafine 27” display is a far better value. The display is beautiful and works great with my MacBook Pro. Picked a refurbished one up on Amazon for $900 a few years back. Paying $2,000 for an equivalent monitor is out of the question. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 73 of 91
    I was looking forward to the Apple event in March 2022, since my iMac 2010 is more dead than alive, well I was surprised I expected an iMac 27 "or 32", instead they came out Mac Studio Max, Mac Studio Ultra and Apple Studio Display, as for the Mac Studio may be good products, but they are not for my needs. The Studio Display, disappointed me a lot, first because it still has a bracket that supports it like the one on my 2010 iMac, where you can't adjust the height, outrageous, when all monitors are. It doesn't have a 10 Bit panel, it doesn't have 120 Hz, it doesn't have HDR, it doesn't have a mini Led screen, it has a WebCam that everyone says is poor, it has six speakers, but I don't need them, since I have a digital amplifier with two HiFi speakers. The price in Italy is 1799.00€ to have the height adjustable bracket, you still need 460€, the Nanotexture glass 250€, exaggerated price, to have a replacement for the iMac 27", you need around 4000€ EXAGERATED, for I wait that my iMac lasts until I die, then we will see
    williamlondon
  • Reply 74 of 91
    PantsPants Posts: 1member
    Personally, I couldn't care less about mini led backlighting or refresh rate, or anything else 99% of people would never even notice a difference on. Ordered one and can't wait to get it.
    edited March 30 williamlondonDetnator
  • Reply 75 of 91
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,146member
    I'm staring at a 30" Apple Cinema Display right now. When these were first released in 2004, they were $3299 — that's like $5K in today's dollars. I bought mine in like 2011 when they were discontinued for around $1600 I think. I know the display industry is a race to the bottom, but some perspective.
    tenthousandthingsforegoneconclusionDetnator
  • Reply 76 of 91
    The studio display is beautiful to look at. I want that exact aesthetic on my desks. 

    But… it’s just a repackaged old screen with a crappy webcam and it’s too small. 
    If 5K screen tech is "old", then what does that make 2K and 4K? That's what all the other manufacturers are selling: variations of 2K and 4K screen tech. Nobody is rolling out a 30" 6K monitor with 120 MHz and true HDR for $1599. 
  • Reply 77 of 91
    The studio display is beautiful to look at. I want that exact aesthetic on my desks. 

    But… it’s just a repackaged old screen with a crappy webcam and it’s too small. 
    If 5K screen tech is "old", then what does that make 2K and 4K? That's what all the other manufacturers are selling: variations of 2K and 4K screen tech. Nobody is rolling out a 30" 6K monitor with 120 MHz and true HDR for $1599. 
    Agree — this isn’t rocket science. 

    1080p = 1920x1080
    4K is double that, 3840x2160
    8K is double that, 7680x4320

    720p = 1280x720 (the original “HD”)
    1440p is double that, 2560x1440
    5K is double that, 5120x2880

    5K isn’t some random thing. It has real utility.
    foregoneconclusionDetnator
  • Reply 78 of 91
    puiz666puiz666 Posts: 8unconfirmed, member
    This is where AI loses me, perhaps for good one day. Mike is like, “The Studio Display is an abomination. It may look and work well, but who the hell cares if I hate it? Quality is abysmal: it’s the worst thing in the history of mankind. It may look “better” than the “competition,” but I refuse to look at it. It sounds worse than a clock radio, even though I’m literally the only reviewer who complains about the speakers. It’s a horrible piece of junk. It’s worse than Hitler. I hate it and I hate it and I hate it. It’s bad and stupid and it needs to go away. Waaaaah.” Seriously, what the hell just happened?!
    edited April 1 williamlondon
  • Reply 79 of 91
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,363member
    puiz666 said:
    This is where AI loses me, perhaps for good one day. Mike is like, “The Studio Display is an abomination. It may look and work well, but who the hell cares if I hate it? Quality is abysmal: it’s the worst thing in the history of mankind. It may look “better” than the “competition,” but I refuse to look at it. It sounds worse than a clock radio, even though I’m literally the only reviewer who complains about the speakers. It’s a horrible piece of junk. It’s worse than Hitler. I hate it and I hate it and I hate it. It’s bad and stupid and it needs to go away. Waaaaah.” Seriously, what the hell just happened?!
    Did you slip through a dimensional hellgate when you read the review?

    Mike said:
    It's a good monitor, the image quality is nice, and it certainly isn't "unusable" like some of the early-seeded reviewers claimed. 

  • Reply 80 of 91
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,516administrator
    puiz666 said:
    This is where AI loses me, perhaps for good one day. Mike is like, “The Studio Display is an abomination. It may look and work well, but who the hell cares if I hate it? Quality is abysmal: it’s the worst thing in the history of mankind. It may look “better” than the “competition,” but I refuse to look at it. It sounds worse than a clock radio, even though I’m literally the only reviewer who complains about the speakers. It’s a horrible piece of junk. It’s worse than Hitler. I hate it and I hate it and I hate it. It’s bad and stupid and it needs to go away. Waaaaah.” Seriously, what the hell just happened?!
    None of these things were said, not even remotely.

    As a reminder, reviewers are under no obligation to confirm your opinion, or validate your purchase.
    HobeSoundDarrylmuthuk_vanalingamtenthousandthingswilliamlondontyler82fastasleep
Sign In or Register to comment.