The latest LG LCDs have this thing called IPS black technology that doubles the contrast ratio and ends up with blacker blacks.
It is in the new 27 inch and 32 inch 4K dell ultrasharp displays, but not yet in a shipping LG display. I assume these Apple 5k displays have it.
I can’t justify the more than double price difference with the dell, in Australia it’s 240% more with a more limited dock. 320% more if you want to pay for the extra adjustable stand (you have to pay extra for that!!!). The only things it has over the dell is a sexy aluminium frame and more USBc ports, speakers and camera, and 5K of course, and I don’t see the point of thunderbolt anymore. But then the dell has a wider array of port options. inwas expecting it to be about $200 more than the LG Ultrafine, eg USD$1500. The dell is USD$750.
I'm wondering if your comment is satire...
It's only $300 more than the LG 5K Ultrafine. And it has a decent collection of real improvements (not just cosmetic) that collectively easily add up (see my post above). Comparing it with the dell, well, even just the pixel count (5K vs 4K)) is almost double, let alone everything else you listed.
I respect you saying you "can't justify" the price, instead of "waaah it's too expensive". You're exercising your option to choose something different that better suits both your needs and budget. Wouldn't it be great if more people could manage that.
However...
Your "The only things it has over the dell..." comment seems a bit weird. The "only" things it has over the dell are... well... everything. lol.
And, you "don't see the point of thunderbolt anymore"...? Did it have some point that it has now lost? I feel like that's saying "What's the point of a car when you can walk?". Does any other protocol have anything close to the functionality Thunderbolt 3 & 4 have? ...Unless you're saying "what's the point of TB4 when we have USB4...? Thunderbolt 4 includes USB4 but has a little more, not the least of which is TB4 can handle two displays, USB4 only one. So yeah, you kinda lost me on that point.
By far the most popular size. I was hoping for at least 30", but I get why they stuck with 27" for this one - the $1500 price point is pretty amazing and I'm sure they wouldn't have been anywhere near that if they went with a larger panel
Hmmm. For what reason? Not trying to be a contrarian, but what additional value would adding additional width and height to the screen provide for you, especially if the screen remains flat?
My situation may be different than yours, but when I'm sitting in front of my current 27" iMac display I can easily see the entire display within my field of vision without moving my head or neck. I do wear eyeglasses and the 27" screen placed at arms length feels nearly optimal for comfortable viewing for extended periods of time. If the display were wider or taller I would have to move the push the screen further away from me to keep the same field of view without having to moving my head or neck. What would that buy me?
As a reference I also have a 27" monitor with the same display panel that is on my iMac mounted next to my iMac, but in a portrait orientation. When I'm sitting/standing at my desk with the iMac at the default viewing height the monitor in portrait orientation is way too tall, with 1/3rd of the screen too high and 1/3rd of the screen too low. It's still usable and indispensable for working with certain types of documents, but it is never comfortable for extended viewing. Not for me. The upper part is outside the lens aperture of my eyeglasses so I have to crane my neck up. The lower part is less problematic, but at both extremes I'm still looking at those parts of the screen at an off-axis angle, which is suboptimal for the screens in question.
I also have a NUC attached to a 55" 4K IPS television. To use it as a work PC I have to sit several feet back from the screen. This isn't a big deal, because I don't have to be right up next to the screen, but it (along with the portrait mode 27" second monitor on my iMac) does clearly illustrate the dynamic between screen size, field of view, and viewing distance - at least for flat panel displays. I suspect that you can cheat a little with curved displays to alter the dynamic a little, but not a lot. But it does beg the question about why you really want a bigger display on a desktop computer unless you think you're sitting too close to the monitor?
From my experience, having a bigger display simply means that for comfortable viewing you have to sit further away from the screen. I guess this is something some folks have identified as a need for certain applications, but at least for me and my vision, with the 27" display size in landscape mode, Apple really seems to have stumbled upon something that works really well for my desktop computing needs. I can live with the compromises posed by a wide monitor in portrait mode, but only because it's used as a second/auxiliary screen for my usage. If I had to use a tall portrait mode screen as a primary screen, I'd be very uncomfortable. Mounting it at a down angle might help, which is what I've seen done for certain applications.
Bigger makes things different, but not necessarily better.
And another round of "omg Apple made it too expensive, it's a rip-off" comments on a new product release. So ridiculous. Critical thinking too much for you? Why are you people even here? What do you want?
Either Apple stuff is good stuff, and so be prepared to pay for it (it's good because of insane amounts of R&D, plus build quality, features, best in class customer support, etc. all of which cost money)...
...or Apple stuff is overpriced junk in which case, why do you waste your lives giving it the slightest attention?
Of course you're free to have your opinions, but please forgive me if I pity your lives... Again, why are you here? What do you want?
Finally! Apple produces a reasonable display. May have to get one of these for my MacBook Pro - and I wasn't thinking about that, at all! Love that center stage finally came to the Mac too.
The display is a total rip off. Price is insane considering this nearly same 5k display has been offered in the 27” iMac for years.
Better display plus a bunch of other features. See my post above. Compare with everything else on the market. What comes even close that isn't similarly (or higher) priced?
This is nothing like the LG 5K display - not sure why people feel compelled to spout such nonsense.
Except that it is a 5K 27” panel made by LG, so it is something like it.
It's A panel made by LG - LG doesn't offer the coatings Apple does. LG isn't offering the camera. LG isn't offering the speakers. LG isn't offering the connectivity options. And yes, LG isn't offering the stand options either.
But yeah, other than that, they are completely the same
You realize most of these options in a display are nice to have but not essential. A $100 set of External speakers will blow this out of the water and the connectivity options are on the Mac studio as well. This is a slight upgrade of the old 5k 27” Retina display that has been around for years but now the price is sky high.
"You realize most of these options in a display are nice to have but not essential..." Oooohkay? Your point? What do you consider essential vs not essential? Essential for what?
For myself, for one... every feature of this display will make me more productive and/or less stressed (which in turn will make me more productive). Increased productivity will make me more money, which will (a) pay for the purchase, and then some, and (b) improve the lives of myself and my family. And that's the case for nearly everyone who will buy it.
For your diss on the price (of both this display and the iMac 5K display), I repeat my above: Compare with everything else on the market. What comes even close that isn't similarly (or higher) priced?
I tend to agree with the "rip-off" comments on this one.
I would expect a 1500 dollar monitor to be hight-adjustable...
I don't' see any specs that hint at a revolutionary display. Unlike the XDR it sure seems to be a re-packaged panel, with goodies added, sold very expensively.
And before you put me in a corner: I'm precisely a so called "fan-boy" who paid $900 for a stand... so I know everything about being taken to the cleaners - voluntarily!
Ah this is a good one... You expect it to be height adjustable, at no extra charge.
For starters, the MONITOR, is not height adjustable. Not possible. What is height adjustable is the stand or mount that it sits on.
As any decent engineer knows, or heck look at nearly every other monitor on the market, you'll hopefully figure out that any kind of decent height adjustability is actually very difficult to implement. Nearly every monitor stand or mount that's height adjustable simply has some kind of built in vertical spring. This doesn't last over time. It's inconsistent tension across its range. It usually means some kind of cylinder or other parts rubbing against each other and not being tight enough to hold the monitor physically straight/aligned, so it's wobbly and/or slightly tilted. Put two side by side, and it's virtually impossible to get them to line up. At least this is my experience with every height adjustable monitor I've ever used, especially the LG 5K one.
For some people, height adjustable is less important than stability, desk space taken up, and other factors. That Apple provides the option for the minimal base stand is great for them -- they don't have to pay extra for something they don't particularly want.
For those of us who want height adjustability, there are a bazillion options in every budget. That's what the VESA standard (a no-extra-charge option for this display) is all about. You do realize companies make VESA monitor stands, right? Get whatever you want at any budget.
Or if you don't have time to be bothered with any of that, because you work hard and actually make money with your gear, and your time is worth more than the money you'll save finding, purchasing, accepting delivery of, and setting up some other stand/mount/arm, then you can take Apple's off-the-shelf height adjustable stand, which has been carefully engineered (by the company that cares about providing their customers a better experience than most companies), to solve all the problems in my paragraph above. It's not an over-engineered gimmick (nor is the $1K one for the XDR). It solves real problems, that some people (myself included) care about, at a cost for the insane amounts of R&D that figured it out.
I for one have used the LG 5K displays since release, because I'm more productive with retina 5K than with 4K (I tried it). Those displays suck for build quality, customer support, etc. and yes, their stands suck, and have all the problems I've described above. I put that stand back in the box and bought a high quality VESA based stand/arm -- for a price close to Apple's $400 stand. It, too, is well engineered, solves the problems above, has lasted over 5 years so far, solves the problems above and a couple of others as well, and therefore was worth every penny. I tried cheaper options before going there, and was sorely disappointed. Bottom line: you get what you pay for.
So, I don't see the problem. You've got choice. Each choice is priced comparatively reasonably, for what it offers. Again, I say, compare this display with everything else on the market. What comes even close that isn't similarly priced?
An insane price for a monitor that can only do 60hz. Even my current monitor can do 144hz and it’s so much nicer on the eyes. Although it’s not 5K.
Cost a fraction of the price though and has Gsync / active sync. It may not be in the same class colour wise but the refresh rate is so much nicer and I have no issues with the image or colour quality.
This one's my favorite. So totally clueless. Or, do you actually know better and you're just a troll?
You do realize that to double the refresh rate means doubling the bandwidth, right? Is your 144Hz monitor anywhere near 5K? I'm pretty sure 144Hz 5K (or even 120Hz 5K) is impossible through Thunderbolt 4's 32Gbps video bandwidth.
The overwhelming majority of computer displays on the market are 4K or less. Are there ANY computer displays on the market that are 5K 2880p or higher more than 60Hz? Other than the following list, are there any computer displays on the market that are 5K 2880p at all...???
1. LG Ultrafine 5K
2. Apple Studio Display (ASD) 5K -- this one, obviously.
3. Apple XDR 6K
4. Dell 8K.
5. I'm aware of a couple of others, that are basically the LG 5K (exactly the same specs) but repackaged by some relatively unknown brand.
I'm aware of a couple of other monitors that describe themselves as 5K, but they are only 2160p or less, so they don't compare against this one for this discussion.
Any others?
I'm not aware of any others (and believe me I've looked, but please point me to any others you know of). The point: ALL of these are 60Hz maximum. The Dell 8K only gets that much resolution through because it requires two DisplayPorts to drive it (ie. it's essentially two half-8K displays stitched together through both hardware and software).
That's the displays. Meanwhile I don't know of any computer that's capable of driving any display above 4K at more than 60Hz through one port (ie. without doing the Dell 8K thing).
So yeah... nope, sorry, it doesn't do 144Hz. If you can figure out how to defy the laws of physics to make a monitor that can do it, then hopefully you can figure out how to price it at a non "insane price" while still covering your R&D costs. Let us know how that goes.
It does seem like a lot of money for a 60Hz display with no gsync/freesync (and so much for ProMotion). It may be a great display but if it can't take the place of a PC gaming monitor it won't end up on my desk.
It does seem like a lot of money for a 60Hz display with no gsync/freesync (and so much for ProMotion). It may be a great display but if it can't take the place of a PC gaming monitor it won't end up on my desk.
Are you people serious? What 5K/3K or more display exists on the market from anyone that is more than 60Hz? At any price? I'm pretty sure it's not physically possible through TB3/4 (or any other connection today)?
This is not even remotely trying to be a gaming monitor. The needs, specs, requirements, priorities, are all different. This is prioritizing resolution, brightness, some degree of color accuracy, etc. -- for work. It's not going to compromise any of that for gaming.
Here's an idea. Let's complain that the Ford F150 doesn't typically win sports car races, or have a convertible roof. Or float. And at that price? Good grief. What were they thinking? Ford is doomed.
I was hoping for a display with a reasonable price to go with a Mac mini or let’s say a Macbook air. This was not it. I just don’t get how Apple thinks sometimes.
I was hoping for a display with a reasonable price to go with a Mac mini or let’s say a Macbook air. This was not it. I just don’t get how Apple thinks sometimes.
Yeah. They've always been "premium". Except in the 90's when they nearly went bankrupt. It was a big thing for Steve that they compete on performance etc. not price. And obviously it's worked, better than anyone else's plan, more or less.
There's always cheaper stuff than Apple. You get what you pay for, but not everyone needs the "premium" tiers they cater to. If you don't need 5K resolution, 600 nits, the fancy A/V, the fancy coating, etc. then you're right, this isn't it for you. But the market is full of great alternatives below that, right?
Mind you, they often enter (or re-enter) a new (to them) market near the higher end, grab the early adopters willing to pay more, and then start moving down (in price and features). The iPod before the iPod mini, nano, etc. The HomePod. The watch. And now their first display in almost 10 years was the $5,000 XDR with more features than most people need or want. This Studio display is a fraction of that catering to a much wider market. Chances are cheaper ones are coming.
LG has always provided the LCD screens to Apple. Heck, my 2020 5K iMac is probably using an LG panel. What's your point?
It's it's just not a "shell", but you keep going with your narrative.
Jesus, you apple fanboys are unbearable. If a comment isn't a glowing review of Apple it's "narrative". It's the same design as the LG 5K (no buttons, built-in camera, speakers, 4 ports on the back, and single uplink cable design). Sure it has newer tech in it, sure AF would hope so after 6 years,but it's functionally the same as the LG 5K but in a prettier shell. Point is that it's NOT anything revolutionary compared to the LG 5K.
Ya'll acting like it's a dis somehow. I love my pair of LG 5Ks and think this is a great replacement for them. Wouldn't get one myself because of the higher cost, but happy for those that got the money for it.
If what you're saying here were true, they'd all be very good points, but it's just not. I hear your frustration with those responding to you, but they're right. The following is probably overkill to make the point, but you're not getting it from the shorter replies of others, so here it is in detail...
LG 5K:
500 nits
USB3 5GBps
14lb
1080p camera (~2MP)
Crappy speakers
Crappy mic
Terrible build quality with persistent hardware issues
Woeful LG customer support
$1300
Apple Studio 5K:
600 nits + True Tone
USB3 10Gbps
12lb
12MP camera (6x the pixels, + Center Stage)
High quality 3 mic array, directional beam forming (if these are anything like the MBP mics then they're amazing)
Superior speakers (+ spatial audio)
Excellent build quality (presumably, if it's typical Apple).
Best in class customer support
built in A13 CPU
$1600
Bottom line, other than the 5K resolution part, it's nothing like the LG 5K. Hardly anyone is complaining that you're dissing it. The problem with your comment is it's just plain wrong.
---------------
You said "...it's functionally the same as the LG 5K but in a prettier shell." and "Point is that it's NOT anything revolutionary compared to the LG 5K."
Those are two very different statements:
The second is true: sure, it's not revolutionary. It's not supposed to be.
The first is false. It doesn't have to be revolutionary to be functionally different, and this display is significantly "functionally" different to the LG 5K.
What do you expect "revolutionary" to be in a mid-tier display? The XDR is revolutionary, and comes with the corresponding price tag. Many (myself included) were disappointed, justifiably, that the XDR is too expensive for our needs. The XDR price is worth it for the features it brings to the relatively small group of high end users it is meant for. But what about the rest of us?
At the other end is all the cheap stuff that Samsung, Dell, LG, etc. make, for < $1K, that all (comparatively) suck. Sure, 4K, 150 dpi, low brightness, washed out color, crappy/no camera/speakers/mic, etc. is fine for a lot of people -- most people, arguably -- and that's great. Good for them (really). But that doesn't meet the needs of some of us.
When you're on the road with a 220+ dpi, 500+ nits, True Tone, amazingly clear MBP display or even the iPhone/iPad displays, and you're used to it, then come back to home/office to washed out, 150 dpi, 350 nits, etc. it's jarring, a strain on the eyes, and a strain on productivity for those of us who make a living with our gear.
So what about that group? In the middle, there's been this gaping hole (in both products, and users who don't need the XDR features, but want more than washed out 4K, 150dpi, 350 nits, etc). The iMac 5K display sits very nicely in that hole, but we couldn't get that for our MBP or Mac mini, without the built in Mac, nor with Apple's build quality, customer service, etc... Until today.
It's $300 more than the LG, which seems pretty darn reasonable for all the improvements it adds, for the people it's targeted at. As with all Apple products, for the people it is not targeted at, it's a lousy choice, but that's fine because those people have plenty of other choices. But for those of us in the above mentioned hole, this is what we've been waiting for since the Thunderbolt Display was discontinued 10+ years ago.
Those "unbearable ... apple fanboys" (careful with that phrase -- might want to check the forum rules) are faulting your comments, not because they aren't glowing reviews, but because they're just plain wrong.
I think this might be the best reply post I've ever seen on AI.
The refresh rate is a little disappointing but I've still ordered one. The LG 5K monitor got discontinued in the UK a long time ago and there really aren't any other 5K options out there. It's more than I'd like to pay for a monitor (my LG 55" OLED TV only cost £100 more!) but that's true of pretty much any Apple product I've bought over the years.
I've been purchasing 4k LG Ultrafine displays (The 5k is no longer available in the UK) for our print designers which only have 95% P3 spectrum coverage for around £600 and 100% P3 displays would run around £3000. We'll likely be passing the LG displays down to editors and giving our designers these new Studio displays.
For reference, BenQ sell a 4k wide gamut display that only has 95% P3 for £1,599 - Apple are charging £1,499 for a 5k with 100% P3
The only reason it looks expensive is because we've been spoiled by the iMac 5k.
Are you people serious? What 5K/3K or more display exists on the market from anyone that is more than 60Hz? At any price? I'm pretty sure it's not physically possible through TB3/4 (or any other connection today)?
This is not even remotely trying to be a gaming monitor. The needs, specs, requirements, priorities, are all different. This is prioritizing resolution, brightness, some degree of color accuracy, etc. -- for work. It's not going to compromise any of that for gaming.
Here's an idea. Let's complain that the Ford F150 doesn't typically win sports car races, or have a convertible roof. Or float. And at that price? Good grief. What were they thinking? Ford is doomed.
I never said Apple is doomed, they'll be just fine, but they've chosen to make an extremely niche single purpose monitor (contrast the F150, which fills one of the biggest niches in the world).
For reference DisplayPort 2.0 offers 80 (77.4) Gb/s, twice that of TB3/4. I'm not sure why Apple decided to abandon DisplayPort, which, incidentally, is one more reason the Studio display is only a single-purpose beast.
Comments
It's only $300 more than the LG 5K Ultrafine. And it has a decent collection of real improvements (not just cosmetic) that collectively easily add up (see my post above). Comparing it with the dell, well, even just the pixel count (5K vs 4K)) is almost double, let alone everything else you listed.
I respect you saying you "can't justify" the price, instead of "waaah it's too expensive". You're exercising your option to choose something different that better suits both your needs and budget. Wouldn't it be great if more people could manage that.
However...
Your "The only things it has over the dell..." comment seems a bit weird. The "only" things it has over the dell are... well... everything. lol.
And, you "don't see the point of thunderbolt anymore"...? Did it have some point that it has now lost? I feel like that's saying "What's the point of a car when you can walk?". Does any other protocol have anything close to the functionality Thunderbolt 3 & 4 have? ...Unless you're saying "what's the point of TB4 when we have USB4...? Thunderbolt 4 includes USB4 but has a little more, not the least of which is TB4 can handle two displays, USB4 only one. So yeah, you kinda lost me on that point.
My situation may be different than yours, but when I'm sitting in front of my current 27" iMac display I can easily see the entire display within my field of vision without moving my head or neck. I do wear eyeglasses and the 27" screen placed at arms length feels nearly optimal for comfortable viewing for extended periods of time. If the display were wider or taller I would have to move the push the screen further away from me to keep the same field of view without having to moving my head or neck. What would that buy me?
As a reference I also have a 27" monitor with the same display panel that is on my iMac mounted next to my iMac, but in a portrait orientation. When I'm sitting/standing at my desk with the iMac at the default viewing height the monitor in portrait orientation is way too tall, with 1/3rd of the screen too high and 1/3rd of the screen too low. It's still usable and indispensable for working with certain types of documents, but it is never comfortable for extended viewing. Not for me. The upper part is outside the lens aperture of my eyeglasses so I have to crane my neck up. The lower part is less problematic, but at both extremes I'm still looking at those parts of the screen at an off-axis angle, which is suboptimal for the screens in question.
I also have a NUC attached to a 55" 4K IPS television. To use it as a work PC I have to sit several feet back from the screen. This isn't a big deal, because I don't have to be right up next to the screen, but it (along with the portrait mode 27" second monitor on my iMac) does clearly illustrate the dynamic between screen size, field of view, and viewing distance - at least for flat panel displays. I suspect that you can cheat a little with curved displays to alter the dynamic a little, but not a lot. But it does beg the question about why you really want a bigger display on a desktop computer unless you think you're sitting too close to the monitor?
From my experience, having a bigger display simply means that for comfortable viewing you have to sit further away from the screen. I guess this is something some folks have identified as a need for certain applications, but at least for me and my vision, with the 27" display size in landscape mode, Apple really seems to have stumbled upon something that works really well for my desktop computing needs. I can live with the compromises posed by a wide monitor in portrait mode, but only because it's used as a second/auxiliary screen for my usage. If I had to use a tall portrait mode screen as a primary screen, I'd be very uncomfortable. Mounting it at a down angle might help, which is what I've seen done for certain applications.
Bigger makes things different, but not necessarily better.
Either Apple stuff is good stuff, and so be prepared to pay for it (it's good because of insane amounts of R&D, plus build quality, features, best in class customer support, etc. all of which cost money)...
...or Apple stuff is overpriced junk in which case, why do you waste your lives giving it the slightest attention?
Of course you're free to have your opinions, but please forgive me if I pity your lives... Again, why are you here? What do you want?
Better display plus a bunch of other features. See my post above. Compare with everything else on the market. What comes even close that isn't similarly (or higher) priced?
"You realize most of these options in a display are nice to have but not essential..." Oooohkay? Your point? What do you consider essential vs not essential? Essential for what?
For myself, for one... every feature of this display will make me more productive and/or less stressed (which in turn will make me more productive). Increased productivity will make me more money, which will (a) pay for the purchase, and then some, and (b) improve the lives of myself and my family. And that's the case for nearly everyone who will buy it.
For your diss on the price (of both this display and the iMac 5K display), I repeat my above: Compare with everything else on the market. What comes even close that isn't similarly (or higher) priced?
Ah this is a good one... You expect it to be height adjustable, at no extra charge.
For starters, the MONITOR, is not height adjustable. Not possible. What is height adjustable is the stand or mount that it sits on.
As any decent engineer knows, or heck look at nearly every other monitor on the market, you'll hopefully figure out that any kind of decent height adjustability is actually very difficult to implement. Nearly every monitor stand or mount that's height adjustable simply has some kind of built in vertical spring. This doesn't last over time. It's inconsistent tension across its range. It usually means some kind of cylinder or other parts rubbing against each other and not being tight enough to hold the monitor physically straight/aligned, so it's wobbly and/or slightly tilted. Put two side by side, and it's virtually impossible to get them to line up. At least this is my experience with every height adjustable monitor I've ever used, especially the LG 5K one.
For some people, height adjustable is less important than stability, desk space taken up, and other factors. That Apple provides the option for the minimal base stand is great for them -- they don't have to pay extra for something they don't particularly want.
For those of us who want height adjustability, there are a bazillion options in every budget. That's what the VESA standard (a no-extra-charge option for this display) is all about. You do realize companies make VESA monitor stands, right? Get whatever you want at any budget.
Or if you don't have time to be bothered with any of that, because you work hard and actually make money with your gear, and your time is worth more than the money you'll save finding, purchasing, accepting delivery of, and setting up some other stand/mount/arm, then you can take Apple's off-the-shelf height adjustable stand, which has been carefully engineered (by the company that cares about providing their customers a better experience than most companies), to solve all the problems in my paragraph above. It's not an over-engineered gimmick (nor is the $1K one for the XDR). It solves real problems, that some people (myself included) care about, at a cost for the insane amounts of R&D that figured it out.
I for one have used the LG 5K displays since release, because I'm more productive with retina 5K than with 4K (I tried it). Those displays suck for build quality, customer support, etc. and yes, their stands suck, and have all the problems I've described above. I put that stand back in the box and bought a high quality VESA based stand/arm -- for a price close to Apple's $400 stand. It, too, is well engineered, solves the problems above, has lasted over 5 years so far, solves the problems above and a couple of others as well, and therefore was worth every penny. I tried cheaper options before going there, and was sorely disappointed. Bottom line: you get what you pay for.
So, I don't see the problem. You've got choice. Each choice is priced comparatively reasonably, for what it offers. Again, I say, compare this display with everything else on the market. What comes even close that isn't similarly priced?
This one's my favorite. So totally clueless. Or, do you actually know better and you're just a troll?
You do realize that to double the refresh rate means doubling the bandwidth, right? Is your 144Hz monitor anywhere near 5K? I'm pretty sure 144Hz 5K (or even 120Hz 5K) is impossible through Thunderbolt 4's 32Gbps video bandwidth.
The overwhelming majority of computer displays on the market are 4K or less. Are there ANY computer displays on the market that are 5K 2880p or higher more than 60Hz? Other than the following list, are there any computer displays on the market that are 5K 2880p at all...???
I'm not aware of any others (and believe me I've looked, but please point me to any others you know of). The point: ALL of these are 60Hz maximum. The Dell 8K only gets that much resolution through because it requires two DisplayPorts to drive it (ie. it's essentially two half-8K displays stitched together through both hardware and software).
That's the displays. Meanwhile I don't know of any computer that's capable of driving any display above 4K at more than 60Hz through one port (ie. without doing the Dell 8K thing).
So yeah... nope, sorry, it doesn't do 144Hz. If you can figure out how to defy the laws of physics to make a monitor that can do it, then hopefully you can figure out how to price it at a non "insane price" while still covering your R&D costs. Let us know how that goes.
-ib
Are you people serious? What 5K/3K or more display exists on the market from anyone that is more than 60Hz? At any price? I'm pretty sure it's not physically possible through TB3/4 (or any other connection today)?
This is not even remotely trying to be a gaming monitor. The needs, specs, requirements, priorities, are all different. This is prioritizing resolution, brightness, some degree of color accuracy, etc. -- for work. It's not going to compromise any of that for gaming.
Here's an idea. Let's complain that the Ford F150 doesn't typically win sports car races, or have a convertible roof. Or float. And at that price? Good grief. What were they thinking? Ford is doomed.
There's always cheaper stuff than Apple. You get what you pay for, but not everyone needs the "premium" tiers they cater to. If you don't need 5K resolution, 600 nits, the fancy A/V, the fancy coating, etc. then you're right, this isn't it for you. But the market is full of great alternatives below that, right?
Mind you, they often enter (or re-enter) a new (to them) market near the higher end, grab the early adopters willing to pay more, and then start moving down (in price and features). The iPod before the iPod mini, nano, etc. The HomePod. The watch. And now their first display in almost 10 years was the $5,000 XDR with more features than most people need or want. This Studio display is a fraction of that catering to a much wider market. Chances are cheaper ones are coming.
For reference, BenQ sell a 4k wide gamut display that only has 95% P3 for £1,599 - Apple are charging £1,499 for a 5k with 100% P3
The only reason it looks expensive is because we've been spoiled by the iMac 5k.
I never said Apple is doomed, they'll be just fine, but they've chosen to make an extremely niche single purpose monitor (contrast the F150, which fills one of the biggest niches in the world).
For reference DisplayPort 2.0 offers 80 (77.4) Gb/s, twice that of TB3/4. I'm not sure why Apple decided to abandon DisplayPort, which, incidentally, is one more reason the Studio display is only a single-purpose beast.