neilm

We have three of the LG 5K UltraFines, one first gen from early 2017, and two later versions bought in the last couple of years. All have been used with recent version Intel MacBook Pros, and more recently with M1 MacBooks. All three displays have been reliable. My only negative comments about them would be their lackluster aesthetics — well, by Apple standards — and the slightly wobbly stand system. I hardly ever use the web cam, but it's OK. The built-in speakers are meh, but good enough for casual use.

We recently took delivery of a new Studio Display, the standard model with tilt-only stand. First impressions are that the build quality and design are in a whole different league from the LG. Color rendition seems a little bit more vivid on the Apple, which might be due to its smooth glass compared to the LG's matte screen. The Studio can be dialed up brighter, although frankly that doesn't matter for a product that's hardly likely to be used outdoors — either display is plenty bright. We won't ever be using the Studio's camera, so I can't comment on it directly, but I disagree with the AI reviewer's comment that it's washed out in their comparison photo. What it does look look like is an over-processed image. While that has successfully brought up the shadows, it has also softened the facial detail. In comparison the LG photo is sharper, but lacks shadow detail. That could be a more accurate representation of the actual lighting conditions, but it's nonetheless not really what you want for a video conference. Still, Apple's got work yet to do here. (Incidentally, on first startup the Studio Display almost immediately prompted me to install a firmware update.)

My bottom line is that these are both expensive monitors, but that the Apple Studio is well worth the premium over the LG.

I do think that there was missed opportunity here. Apple could and should have standardized on the height adjustable stand at a modestly higher price, say $50-100 extra. Its $400 premium is kind of insulting, and is a self-fulfilling prophecy of how few of that version they're likely to sell. And these days 27" is pretty ordinary — think how attractive and distinctive this display would have been as a ~30" 5.5K with the same dpi! 

The problem is that Mexico has a reasonable industrial infrastructure for mechanical and electro-mechanical goods — think household appliances, automotive, etc. — but not for electronics. Basically every basic component inside a typical Apple product comes from a shortlist of Asian countries: China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan. It's cheaper and easier to assemble electronic products in the region from which their components are sourced, and then ship the final product, than to manage separate supply chains for all these components to a third assembly location.

China in particular also has incredible resources in design and manufacturing engineers, tool and die shops, sub-tier suppliers and all that other stuff needed to support modern manufacturing. Moving out of China is a big challenge.

The lack of dual external monitor support is very disappointing. Yeah, the MBA will drive a 6K screen, but who uses a $1500 laptop with a $6000 (including $1000 stand, thanks Apple) display? It’s a big jump in price, size and weight to the 14" MBP that’ll handle a pair of monitors.

AppleInsider said:

[The Apple Studio Display's] L-shaped tilt-adjustable stand can be switched out for a VESA mount adapter or a tilt and height-adjustable version. 

That's incorrect: in no way can the other mounts be "switched out".

The Apple Studio Display's normal tilt stand can instead be optioned at time of purchase for a VESA mount at no cost, or for the tilt/height version at a $400 premium. Whichever mount is chosen is permanent.

Hedware said:

How’s this for an nonsensical statement “ There's certainly a case to be made for Apple to add a new 27-inch iMac to its lineup, but it wouldn't have met the need of many users that the Mac Studio caters to.”

Ok there’s some (no evidence for many) that want something like the Mac Studio and its component style. But the history of strong sales of the integrated 27” iMac makes a strong case for a demand for a M1 27” iMac and probably a higher demand than for Mac Studio. The business market was a strong buyer of 27” iMacs for its appearance and easy upkeep and no cables. Apple writers seem to be ignorant of business when they make statements such as the foregoing one. 

There's still a big hole in Apple's lineup, but it's now a different hole.

We have a small fleet of 27" 5K iMacs used as graphic design workstations. Each of these cost in total about $3 grand plus/minus, configured with either 32GB or 40GB RAM and a 512GB SSD. Replacing any of these with a 32GB/512GB Mac Studio Max, a Studio Display, plus keyboard and mouse, will now run about $4 grand. Yes, performance would be substantially improved, however because for 2D graphics work (mostly Adobe CC apps) we're really not performance constrained, there would be no payback from the faster, but much more expensive Studio Max. (Note that the M1 Mac Mini isn't an option due to its 16GB RAM limitation.)

We also have an iMac Pro 10-core Xeon W with 64GB/1TB for which we paid about $7500 in 2019. It's used for video editing. If I had to replace this with a 64GB/1TB Mac Studio Ultra and Studio Display, plus keyboard and mouse, it would come in at under $6 grand. So in this case I'd be paying way less and getting substantially higher performance for video tasks that will benefit from that.