And the Internet trolls and iHaters will continue to compare the XDR monitor to these and cry the XDR is too expensive.
It is too expensive. Add to that a $1000 stand, which is total bs. I'm sure some will buy it but most don't need what this monitor has to offer. The funny thing is that the people that think it's worth it will never buy one.
You’re high. Working pros who need a reference monitor will indeed buy it. Those of us who admire it but know it’s not for us will not.
And the Internet trolls and iHaters will continue to compare the XDR monitor to these and cry the XDR is too expensive.
XDR is too expensive. Many people in the US can not afford a car that costs $6,000. Apple should make a replacement for the 27” LED Thunderbolt Display that was released 10 years ago.
Even though I can afford a $6,000 display, I will never buy it. I won’t appreciate its benefits over a 5K display, and $6,000 for a display is a huge waste of money in my case. I would buy a 27” 5K display made by Apple for $1,000, though.
So I guess you wouldn’t buy a $40,000.00 Sony display either, which is the market the XDR is competing in. What’s so hard to understand that the XDR is for real professionals, not common users? It’s not intended for you so you have no basis on which to criticize its price. In its market the XDR is a bargain. You may not appreciate its benefits but real professionals will for sure.
And the Internet trolls and iHaters will continue to compare the XDR monitor to these and cry the XDR is too expensive.
It is too expensive. Add to that a $1000 stand, which is total bs. I'm sure some will buy it but most don't need what this monitor has to offer. The funny thing is that the people that think it's worth it will never buy one.
Again, these monitors are not alternatives to the Apple XDR. They do not compete with the Apple XDR in any way, shape or form. The person who needs and understands the Apple XDR would scoff at the monitors listed here as alternatives for it. I get it. Some of you were expecting a low priced tower configuration with slots and a cheap monitor to go with it. You didn’t get what you wanted and you’re mad. That’s no reason to piss on the Mac Pro and the XDR monitor because these weren’t designed with you in mind at all. They are in a completely different ballpark from your world. Get over it.
And the Internet trolls and iHaters will continue to compare the XDR monitor to these and cry the XDR is too expensive.
XDR is too expensive. Many people in the US can not afford a car that costs $6,000. Apple should make a replacement for the 27” LED Thunderbolt Display that was released 10 years ago.
Even though I can afford a $6,000 display, I will never buy it. I won’t appreciate its benefits over a 5K display, and $6,000 for a display is a huge waste of money in my case. I would buy a 27” 5K display made by Apple for $1,000, though.
So I guess you wouldn’t buy a $40,000.00 Sony display either, which is the market the XDR is competing in. What’s so hard to understand that the XDR is for real professionals, not common users? It’s not intended for you so you have no basis on which to criticize its price. In its market the XDR is a bargain. You may not appreciate its benefits but real professionals will for sure.
I guess you have comprehension problems. I clearly stated that I will not appreciate the benefits of the XDR Display, which means that I’m not the targeted audience for this product. 99% of Mac users are not the targeted audience either. Apple needs to release the display that 99% of their Mac customers can use and have been asking for at least for 5 years now. The display with the same screen used in non-Pro 27” iMacs.
And the Internet trolls and iHaters will continue to compare the XDR monitor to these and cry the XDR is too expensive.
XDR is too expensive. Many people in the US can not afford a car that costs $6,000. Apple should make a replacement for the 27” LED Thunderbolt Display that was released 10 years ago.
Even though I can afford a $6,000 display, I will never buy it. I won’t appreciate its benefits over a 5K display, and $6,000 for a display is a huge waste of money in my case. I would buy a 27” 5K display made by Apple for $1,000, though.
The XDR is $6000. The Sony is $30K. What alternative math are you using to say the XDR is too expensive? In addition, why aren't you, and the entire Twitterverse not screaming at Sony for having the audacity of charging $30K for what Apple does - and improves - for $24,000 less?
Apple has the 5K LG monitor that you can buy from their online store. Consumer level. You can also buy countless other alternatives at various price points. Your complaint is simply the issue that the monitors you can have right now at cheaper prices do not have an Apple logo. That's it. How dare Apple consult with industry professionals on what constitutes a top-class monitor?!
If you're in a job/position where you need to buy a $30K monitor, how is it a waste of money to buy an alternative - and better - unit for $6K instead? I would think that guy would get a promotion for saving their department so much money.
I can afford that display too. I won't buy it for the same reason is that I won't appreciate it over a 5K display. Simple as that. I certainly don't think that XDR is too expensive especially when you compare it against what the competition has. I still don't get why Apple is being skewered especially since Apple just made every expensive monitor obsolete and at a minimum 1/5th the price!
I didn’t say that XDR was too expensive for what it offers. I said that XDR is too expensive for most Mac users while being the only monitor that Apple makes. Apple’s XDR Display will be relavent for 1% of Mac users, if that.
When it comes to Macs, Apple offers a wide selection of price points for various needs and performance levels. When it comes to monitors, Apple offers one display that is an overkill for 99% of its Mac users and costs so much that 99% of Mac users will never consider it. It’s as though the management doesn’t understand what the ecosystem means. In reality, the management doesn’t understand their own product line, which has been obvious for a decade now. Having released monitors that at least 50% of Mac users would consider over a decade ago just to abandon millions who bought into the Apple Cinema and Thunderbolt displays is the epitome of spitting in the face of their own loyal customers.
The XDR monitor that Apple recently announced is not the monitor that millions of Apple customers have been asking for. The XDR monitor may be something the execs are proud of and something that gives them the bragging rights, but not what most customers can appreciate or something that will earn Apple any money.
I run a corporate video department. We have reference monitors, etc. so I get who the new Apple monitor is aimed at why it costs what it does. However, I agree with the other posters that Apple should have come out with a range of monitors that included the new high-end one, but also a reintroduction of their 24” and 27” displays that are aimed at business users (as well as home users and prosumers) that don’t need the very best monitor, but still need something reliable with great color and Apple’s design and build quality.
I know the question becomes “why don’t you buy a good third-party monitor”? Well obviously that is what we have been doing since Apple discontinued their monitors, and the results have been pretty mixed to unsatisfactory. Despite researching reviews and specs, we have had difficulty getting the same color calibration results that we achieved with Apple’s Cinema and Thunderbolt displays, and still achieve easily with the built-in iMac/iMac Pro displays. In addition, nearly all of our users have two monitors. It used to be a no-brained to order an iMac and an Apple display to go with it as a second-monitor and easily match color across the span. Now this is a huge problem.
I run a corporate video department. We have reference monitors, etc. so I get who the new Apple monitor is aimed at why it costs what it does. However, I agree with the other posters that Apple should have come out with a range of monitors that included the new high-end one, but also a reintroduction of their 24” and 27” displays that are aimed at business users (as well as home users and prosumers) that don’t need the very best monitor, but still need something reliable with great color and Apple’s design and build quality.
I know the question becomes “why don’t you buy a good third-party monitor”? Well obviously that is what we have been doing since Apple discontinued their monitors, and the results have been pretty mixed to unsatisfactory. Despite researching reviews and specs, we have had difficulty getting the same color calibration results that we achieved with Apple’s Cinema and Thunderbolt displays, and still achieve easily with the built-in iMac/iMac Pro displays. In addition, nearly all of our users have two monitors. It used to be a no-brained to order an iMac and an Apple display to go with it as a second-monitor and easily match color across the span. Now this is a huge problem.
Completely agree. XDR should be the high end in a line of Apple monitors, not the only option.
bigtds said: It is too expensive. Add to that a $1000 stand, which is total bs. I'm sure some will buy it but most don't need what this monitor has to offer. The funny thing is that the people that think it's worth it will never buy one.
You are an idiot. Most don't need all of what this monitor has to offer. Guess what, Einstein, the monitor isn't designed for most. This is, and the price of the stand, are the two biggest complaints of trolls like you.
The market this is designed for will love this monitor and have no problem shelling out for it, the stand (unless they use an arm) and the Mac to drive it. Places like ILM, Disney, and any other number of studios or design corporations will see this a more than competitive business cost.
This is not the system for people like you to use Photoshop to put celebrities' heads on pornstar bodies or surf Mac forums to post FUD and troll-crap. You can't afford this monitor. You never will be able to, and it makes you angry so you lash out, and stupidly at that.
You ignore the fact that monitors marketed for this rarified designer tier cost either nearly as much, or in the case of the Sony, many many times more, and none offer as much.
So go back to your Acer monitor (a decent if pedestrian offering) and Windows box and do whatever it is you do that makes you a 'pro' user, and buy whatever gear suits your professional income's price range.
And the Internet trolls and iHaters will continue to compare the XDR monitor to these and cry the XDR is too expensive.
It is too expensive. Add to that a $1000 stand, which is total bs. I'm sure some will buy it but most don't need what this monitor has to offer. The funny thing is that the people that think it's worth it will never buy one.
You've got that exactly backwards.
The funny thing is that the people who think it's not worth it are those who would never buy it.
Clearly, or not so much based on the number of clueless trolls this subject draws, this monitor is designed for those who operate on a level far above 'the rest of us', or most of the rest of us.
I wish Apple would make a 32" 5K Retina display equivalent to the 5K iMac's display. That's all I'm asking. 5K@60Hz (or better) would be all I need to make my day.
At the same distance, side by side, my 27" 5K iMac certainly makes my 27" Apple LED screen look dated. As it is my only choice is to settle for a 32" 4K@60Hz screen from somebody else.
People can mock the $1K Pro stand all they want, but I haven't seen any displays with stands as solid as a modern basic iMac or Apple display stand. Sure some are out there, but they're not typical. For most, they're 'good enough'.
My 27" Dell has height and angle adjustments. and holds the screen up, but is by no means a piece of precision engineering. It's fine if good enough is good enough, but it definitely is cheap plastic. Maybe the very latest stands are better. But they don't have to be is 'good enough' is your standard.
Can we all agree that it would be nice if Apple had another display model for those of us who do not need the pro features, and don't want to pay the pro price?
Hopefully that'll come along soon enough, and maybe will reap some benefits from what Apple has learned by making the Pro Display XDR.
Can we all agree that it would be nice if Apple had another display model for those of us who do not need the pro features, and don't want to pay the pro price?
Hopefully that'll come along soon enough, and maybe will reap some benefits from what Apple has learned by making the Pro Display XDR.
This is a absolutely what Apple should do. They can pander all they want to the pro level designers who will eat up the XDR, but Apple will not make a lot of money on the XDR, as 99% of those non-Pros looking for a nice 5K or above monitor will not buy the XDR. For the rest of us 99%, we need Apple to release a non-Pro 5K monitor. I would love a 27” 5K monitor in an aluminum enclosure for $1,000, which Apple can absolutely deliver with a 35% margin built in. And no, I don’t want to buy cheap plastic crap that other vendors are offering.
I run a corporate video department. We have reference monitors, etc. so I get who the new Apple monitor is aimed at why it costs what it does. However, I agree with the other posters that Apple should have come out with a range of monitors that included the new high-end one, but also a reintroduction of their 24” and 27” displays that are aimed at business users (as well as home users and prosumers) that don’t need the very best monitor, but still need something reliable with great color and Apple’s design and build quality.
I know the question becomes “why don’t you buy a good third-party monitor”? Well obviously that is what we have been doing since Apple discontinued their monitors, and the results have been pretty mixed to unsatisfactory. Despite researching reviews and specs, we have had difficulty getting the same color calibration results that we achieved with Apple’s Cinema and Thunderbolt displays, and still achieve easily with the built-in iMac/iMac Pro displays. In addition, nearly all of our users have two monitors. It used to be a no-brained to order an iMac and an Apple display to go with it as a second-monitor and easily match color across the span. Now this is a huge problem.
Could you list some of the reference monitors that compare to the XDR? I've heard about the high-end Sony's and Eizo's but know nothing about them or this market.
And the Internet trolls and iHaters will continue to compare the XDR monitor to these and cry the XDR is too expensive.
Duh, man - XDR is soo affordable, even at $100k it would be less than $1/day when used for only 273 years which it would take the competition to approach Apple unmatched supremacy in..... blahbukka blahpediblah...
And the Internet trolls and iHaters will continue to compare the XDR monitor to these and cry the XDR is too expensive.
XDR is too expensive. Many people in the US can not afford a car that costs $6,000. Apple should make a replacement for the 27” LED Thunderbolt Display that was released 10 years ago.
Even though I can afford a $6,000 display, I will never buy it. I won’t appreciate its benefits over a 5K display, and $6,000 for a display is a huge waste of money in my case. I would buy a 27” 5K display made by Apple for $1,000, though.
So I guess you wouldn’t buy a $40,000.00 Sony display either, which is the market the XDR is competing in. What’s so hard to understand that the XDR is for real professionals, not common users? It’s not intended for you so you have no basis on which to criticize its price. In its market the XDR is a bargain. You may not appreciate its benefits but real professionals will for sure.
I guess you have comprehension problems. I clearly stated that I will not appreciate the benefits of the XDR Display, which means that I’m not the targeted audience for this product. 99% of Mac users are not the targeted audience either. Apple needs to release the display that 99% of their Mac customers can use and have been asking for at least for 5 years now. The display with the same screen used in non-Pro 27” iMacs.
Apple doesn’t HAVE to do anything. If they see a market that would be profitable, then they will do it. It’s true that Apple’s size has biased the way they look at things. We can look to some companies and see that they have thousands of products, from the smallest to the largest. Sony would be a good example. But most of those products sell in small numbers, and the company needs to make a decision as to what profit, if any, they’re going to end up with. The R&D can actually exceed the entire sales over the lifetime of some products.
so does the company think that small sales at little or no profit, simply to fill out a product line is a good idea, or not? Recently, Apple feels the answer is no, which is why they have been collaborating with LG on that monitor range you’re talking about, rather than doing it themselves. I suppose LG could make a monitor for Apple using Apple dress, and Apple could sell it under their name, with their logo. That might make you happy, as you wouldn’t know the difference. Maybe they will.
the other reason they may not want that. This monitor goes with this Mac Pro. Yes, you can buy it separately, if you have TB 3, even on a Wintel machine. But Apple right now, has no computer that naturally would go with one. Yes, a Macbook Pro would, but that’s not a natural fit as it has a screen. The new Mini? Maybe. We’ll just have to see. I don’t know why this bothers you though. If you want a good graphics monitor, for a reasonable price, which really means under $2,000, not $1,000, then I can point you toward several.
I run a corporate video department. We have reference monitors, etc. so I get who the new Apple monitor is aimed at why it costs what it does. However, I agree with the other posters that Apple should have come out with a range of monitors that included the new high-end one, but also a reintroduction of their 24” and 27” displays that are aimed at business users (as well as home users and prosumers) that don’t need the very best monitor, but still need something reliable with great color and Apple’s design and build quality.
I know the question becomes “why don’t you buy a good third-party monitor”? Well obviously that is what we have been doing since Apple discontinued their monitors, and the results have been pretty mixed to unsatisfactory. Despite researching reviews and specs, we have had difficulty getting the same color calibration results that we achieved with Apple’s Cinema and Thunderbolt displays, and still achieve easily with the built-in iMac/iMac Pro displays. In addition, nearly all of our users have two monitors. It used to be a no-brained to order an iMac and an Apple display to go with it as a second-monitor and easily match color across the span. Now this is a huge problem.
Oh, come on. You’re expecting me to believe that the NEC graphics line isn’t good enough? Or the Eizo? Please, those are used in graphics departments everywhere. I’ve used them.
i’m not denying that a monitor in aluminum with the Apple logo isn’t appealing, for the purpose of marketing when clients come calling.
Comments
When it comes to Macs, Apple offers a wide selection of price points for various needs and performance levels. When it comes to monitors, Apple offers one display that is an overkill for 99% of its Mac users and costs so much that 99% of Mac users will never consider it. It’s as though the management doesn’t understand what the ecosystem means. In reality, the management doesn’t understand their own product line, which has been obvious for a decade now. Having released monitors that at least 50% of Mac users would consider over a decade ago just to abandon millions who bought into the Apple Cinema and Thunderbolt displays is the epitome of spitting in the face of their own loyal customers.
The XDR monitor that Apple recently announced is not the monitor that millions of Apple customers have been asking for. The XDR monitor may be something the execs are proud of and something that gives them the bragging rights, but not what most customers can appreciate or something that will earn Apple any money.
I know the question becomes “why don’t you buy a good third-party monitor”? Well obviously that is what we have been doing since Apple discontinued their monitors, and the results have been pretty mixed to unsatisfactory. Despite researching reviews and specs, we have had difficulty getting the same color calibration results that we achieved with Apple’s Cinema and Thunderbolt displays, and still achieve easily with the built-in iMac/iMac Pro displays. In addition, nearly all of our users have two monitors. It used to be a no-brained to order an iMac and an Apple display to go with it as a second-monitor and easily match color across the span. Now this is a huge problem.
The market this is designed for will love this monitor and have no problem shelling out for it, the stand (unless they use an arm) and the Mac to drive it. Places like ILM, Disney, and any other number of studios or design corporations will see this a more than competitive business cost.
This is not the system for people like you to use Photoshop to put celebrities' heads on pornstar bodies or surf Mac forums to post FUD and troll-crap. You can't afford this monitor. You never will be able to, and it makes you angry so you lash out, and stupidly at that.
You ignore the fact that monitors marketed for this rarified designer tier cost either nearly as much, or in the case of the Sony, many many times more, and none offer as much.
So go back to your Acer monitor (a decent if pedestrian offering) and Windows box and do whatever it is you do that makes you a 'pro' user, and buy whatever gear suits your professional income's price range.
The funny thing is that the people who think it's not worth it are those who would never buy it.
That's because they have no professional use for this kind of product and no clue about what it's worth. Well I don't have any use for a $150,000 Peterbilt truck (https://www.allstatepeterbilt.com/vehicle-details/new-2020-peterbilt-389-flat-top-south-st-paul-mn-id-28564208), but you don't hear me bitching that it's not worth the money. That would be stupid.
I wish Apple would make a 32" 5K Retina display equivalent to the 5K iMac's display. That's all I'm asking. 5K@60Hz (or better) would be all I need to make my day.
At the same distance, side by side, my 27" 5K iMac certainly makes my 27" Apple LED screen look dated. As it is my only choice is to settle for a 32" 4K@60Hz screen from somebody else.
People can mock the $1K Pro stand all they want, but I haven't seen any displays with stands as solid as a modern basic iMac or Apple display stand. Sure some are out there, but they're not typical. For most, they're 'good enough'.
My 27" Dell has height and angle adjustments. and holds the screen up, but is by no means a piece of precision engineering. It's fine if good enough is good enough, but it definitely is cheap plastic. Maybe the very latest stands are better. But they don't have to be is 'good enough' is your standard.
Hopefully that'll come along soon enough, and maybe will reap some benefits from what Apple has learned by making the Pro Display XDR.
so does the company think that small sales at little or no profit, simply to fill out a product line is a good idea, or not? Recently, Apple feels the answer is no, which is why they have been collaborating with LG on that monitor range you’re talking about, rather than doing it themselves. I suppose LG could make a monitor for Apple using Apple dress, and Apple could sell it under their name, with their logo. That might make you happy, as you wouldn’t know the difference. Maybe they will.
the other reason they may not want that. This monitor goes with this Mac Pro. Yes, you can buy it separately, if you have TB 3, even on a Wintel machine. But Apple right now, has no computer that naturally would go with one. Yes, a Macbook Pro would, but that’s not a natural fit as it has a screen. The new Mini? Maybe. We’ll just have to see. I don’t know why this bothers you though. If you want a good graphics monitor, for a reasonable price, which really means under $2,000, not $1,000, then I can point you toward several.
i’m not denying that a monitor in aluminum with the Apple logo isn’t appealing, for the purpose of marketing when clients come calling.