Rogue01

I got a Mac Pro 1,1 for free from someone on Facebook.  After buying two used 3.0 GHz quad-core Xeons on eBay for $50 and updating the firmware and SMC to the Mac Pro 2,1 firmware, it is now a '2008' Mac Pro with 8-cores.  Great for running older software.  That $50 CPU upgrade doubled the performance of the original Mac Pro 1,1, and that was already 3x faster than the Power Mac G5.  Those Mac Pros 1,1 to 5,1 were the best Macs.

I wouldn't call the Apple Silicon transition 'successful'.  It has been over two years and Apple just now replaces the M1 with a new CPU, and they still don't have a replacement for the Mac Pro?  How is that successful?  Apple finished the Intel transition in 270 days and had newer and faster models the following year, and continued to do so for 15 more years.  Granted there is a supply chain issue, but the Apple Silicon transition has been slow as molasses.  There used to be high-end, high-performance iMacs. Now we are stuck with a single model with a low-end base model CPU (M1) that maxes out at 16GB of RAM, when the model it replaced maxed out at 128GB of RAM.  Everyone thought the Macs would come down in price with Apple making their own CPUs, but it has been the opposite.  The Macs are now more expensive than ever, and new models come with an unpleasant price hike.  And now you are forced to pay the Apple-Tax for memory and storage at the time of purchase.  No upgrading later.

Watch the old Apple keynotes in which Steve Jobs introduced new models that were faster, but less expensive, or the same price as the outgoing models.  Speaking of this trip down Mac Pro memory lane, Apple made a point to show that the new Mac Pro started at $2,499, but the equally configured PC was over $4,700.  Now Apple's base model Mac Pro is $5,999, and the 2020 iMac 27" with 10-core i9 and 5700XT graphics beats it on most benchmarks, and cost less (at the time).  Of course the Mac Studio beats it hands down.  Yet Apple still sells it for $5,999.

It doesn't matter how many software updates Apple releases, you can't fix a bad hardware choice.  Apple should not have used the lower quality ultra-wide camera from the iPhone 11.  Center stage is unnecessary on a non-moving desktop monitor.  The image quality will always be bad because of the camera, not because of the software trying to run it.

22july2013 said:

Could Apple update the camera's hardware in a revision of the Studio Display without having to refund or fix the display for current owners?

Apple could, but they used a faulty keyboard for 3+ years in the MacBooks before finally giving up and replacing it with a keyboard that actually works.  It took them 6 years to fix the mistake of the 2013 Mac Pro.  So don't expect miracles with this very expensive display using iPhone 11 parts.

You can't fix the lower quality ultra-wide camera with software patches.  The fact that the software does a digital zoom destroys the image quality.  A desktop monitor doesn't need center stage when you are sitting directly in front of it.  Sad that Apple touted the camera features, and then used the lower quality ultra-wide camera in a $1,599 device. The 1080P camera in the 2017 iMac Pro and 2020 iMac 27" are better cameras and produce a far better image.