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

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 91
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,395member
    Some of the commentary here is kind of untethered from reality. Not sure if it’s being done for shock effect or whatever. 

    No matter what Apple released it was never going to be perfect for everyone. The fact that Apple is still selling a very high priced halo product meant that they couldn’t put too many bells and whistles into something selling for less than half the price. 

    Face it, Apple has never sold a perfect monitor at a perfect price that satisfies everyone on the planet. They sell one or two monitors that are quite decent in a market that is flush with many other choices at various price points. I’m totally cool with that situation. 

    Other than the built-in iMac monitor I’ve never bought an Apple monitor and my life didn’t change one bit. I prefer using two monitors, in sizes and resolutions I choose, one landscape and one portrait, plus my own camera and 2.1 or better speakers with a bigass subwoofer, so the Studio Display isn’t even on my radar. Not a problem at all. Monitors are kind of like speakers in my book, everyone has their own personal preferences, needs, and tastes, so everyone has to find what suits them best. It’s all good. 
    williamlondontenthousandthingsmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 82 of 91
    I’ve posted a better and clearer version of this comment in the Studio Display versus Thunderbolt Display thread:

    https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3365252/

    Deleting it here.
    edited April 1
  • Reply 83 of 91
    I’m a full Apple-ecosystem-borderline-fanboy, but I am so very happy with my HP Z32 32” display. Only 4K, scaling, who cares? I use a last year’s 12.9” iPad Pro with its snazzy display and I really don’t notice that much of a difference when I switch to the HP, except when I put them side by side. And I do photo & video editing and graphic design for work. Eyes get used to certain looks, lighting and colors and compensate very quickly in your brain, everything just starting looking the same. Only with much more screen real estate and extra cash in the bank (I got the HP for $600 brand new).
  • Reply 84 of 91
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,213member
    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.
    I've never understood why some people react like they do about reviews. It's like they don't understand what a review is. They are outraged that it's someone's opinion. Well yeah. Someone who's both more experienced with the field, and is not being paid by the manufacturer so their opinion is theoretically less biased than, in this case, someone from Apple Marketing. That's kinda what reviews are. I mean this was clearly marked as a review. If you don't like reviews, don't read them. There was no ambiguity in what the article was going to be, yet that guy fell off the deep end because of it. It's just weird. 

    Over on CultofMac Scout Tafoya reviews AppleTV+ productions. There's one poster that almost always posts first, it's like he waits for the reviews to hit the site. They don't even slam Tafoya for their review, it's just personal attacks and offensive slurs because they, an experienced film reviewer who has been doing this for years and is VERY knowledgeable on the subject, would post their opinion.

    Some people are weird.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 85 of 91
    xbitxbit Posts: 361member
    Mine turned up yesterday and my only complaint is how low the display sits. A monitor riser has now been ordered.

    The best thing is how seven wires on my desk have been replaced by two. My desk looks a lot cleaner now and so I'm a happy customer.

    williamlondondewme
  • Reply 86 of 91
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 1,394member
    The studio display is absolutely beautiful. 

    Despite being older tech from apple, it’s still way ahead of everyone else. 

    I just really wish Apple made an iMac thst looks like this. All in one, no chin, with this exact design. Would be killer. The only way to improve on this aesthetically would be to eliminate the bezels entirely. 


    Other than that wish, the only real problems with the monitor are the price (it really is too expensive when it’s the old iMac with a x computer inside) and the webcam (which seems to be better on some models for some reason). The speakers are actually really good, though not as good as a quality external setup. But killer speakers compared to an monitors or TVs. 
    edited April 7
  • Reply 87 of 91
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,146member
    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.
    What does 720 or 1080p have anything to do with anything regarding display resolution?
  • Reply 88 of 91
    DetnatorDetnator Posts: 287member
    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.
    What does 720 or 1080p have anything to do with anything regarding display resolution?
    Umm… huh?

    720p and 1080p (in the typical day to day use of those terms) *are* display resolutions.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 89 of 91
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,146member
    Detnator said:
    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.
    What does 720 or 1080p have anything to do with anything regarding display resolution?
    Umm… huh?

    720p and 1080p (in the typical day to day use of those terms) *are* display resolutions.
    I know what they are. I'm asking what they have to do with this display's resolution. How is it meaningful that it's a multiple of 720p? It isn't. OP said, "5K isn’t some random thing. It has real utility." — so what's the utility?
  • Reply 90 of 91
    Detnator said:
    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.
    What does 720 or 1080p have anything to do with anything regarding display resolution?
    Umm… huh?

    720p and 1080p (in the typical day to day use of those terms) *are* display resolutions.
    I know what they are. I'm asking what they have to do with this display's resolution. How is it meaningful that it's a multiple of 720p? It isn't. OP said, "5K isn’t some random thing. It has real utility." — so what's the utility?
    That’s a good question, would have been useful if you had actually asked it instead of posturing. You sounded like you were saying television-video industry transmission standards like 720p HD and 1080p Full HD have nothing to do with   computer displays. Just seemed pedantic and not worthy of a response. Now that you’ve clarified, I’m not sure I can answer, but I’ll point some things out. 

    First, in case you missed it, the 720p progression versus the 1080p progression illustrates the relationships between, for example, so-called “4K” versus so-called “5K” resolutions — that relationship is actually 3K versus 4K (in 720p terms) or 4K versus 6K (in 1080p terms) — the difference is more significant than the marketing would suggest. Apple lost that one. So that was the main thing that caused me to post — I don’t think that relationship (and its origins in the early transmission standards) is well understood. 

    Second, the aside that I tacked on the end of that about “utility” should be obvious — it’s about scalability. [1] macOS is optimized on the 720p scale — so 1440p (the Thunderbolt Display) is double that (holds four 720p signals) and 2880p (Studio Display and the 5K iMac and iMac Pro) is quadruple that (holds sixteen 720p signals). It’s not that Apple and macOS can’t handle other resolutions and screen ratios, but this progression is its native scale. So everything is easier on/in the eye. That’s useful.

    Moreover, [2] that scalability matters to people working in the television-video industry. It’s not my thing, so I can’t elaborate further, but to dismiss the idea out of hand like you did seems off the mark. 
    Detnator
  • Reply 91 of 91
    I have just had an uncomfortable experience monitor wise. I'm a graphic designer/artist and I have just bought a M1 Mac Mini to replace my older 27inch iMac.

    I felt I couldn't afford the new AppleStudio Display so I researched cheaper alternatives and went for the 4K 32 inch Dell U3223QE Ultrasharp monitor. Well 'Ultrasharp' it isn't, far from it. In fact it's so bad that I'm returning it. Text, icons, everything so blurred and almost bitmapped that for a designer/typographer it's almost unusable. Dell told me late in the piece that it's not truly compatible with the Mac Mini.

    After a lot of agonising and fear about getting another unsatisfactory 4K monitor, I bit the bullet and have just ordered the Apple StudioDisplay. In Australian this thing costs a fortune and also has a minimum 8week delivery wait.
    I hope this is helpful for others feeling undecided.
    edited April 27 muthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.