4 ms·
> The entire external monitor industry is such a no-innovation, customer-hostile dumpster fire. I last few years we've seen a massive shift towards ultrawide,
by izacus 5y ago
> The entire external monitor industry is such a no-innovation, customer-hostile dumpster fire.
I last few years we've seen a massive shift towards ultrawide, high (dynamic) frame rate and HDR screens from pretty much all manufacturers. Many of those technologies Apple just didn't support until recently. They still don't support DisplayPort MST for use of many bigger monitors in daisy configurations.
So, what are you talking about? Did you even check the market outside the Apple store?
- pembrook 5y agoYes, I spent almost a month researching the entire market and every single offering available. Nearly every ultrawide you speak of has very poor pixel density. 4k spanned across 34+ inches diagonally looks pretty terrible when you view it at the distance most people sit from their monitors. I can’t seriously be the only one who can tell the difference. Have you ever compared how text looks on your phone or laptop screen compared to most monitors available today?
- random314 5y agoNever thought I would see the time 4K isn't enough anymore!
- nickpp 5y ago4K was only ever enough for 24" monitors, where you can use a clean 200% scaling. If you've already moved on to 27" or higher, 4K was never enough!
- akvadrako 5y agoThat's why Apple makes their 27" iMac 5K. 4K is almost enough.
- skohan 5y agoIronically it's not easy to find a current-gen 4k 24"
- newaccount74 5y agoThey stopped selling the Dell UP2414Q! What a shame. So it looks like the only option is the pricy LG Ultrafine 24MD4KL. There's also only a single 5k display on the market (also from LG). It's a shame that there are so few high res displays on the market, and they are all 16:9...
- wilsonnb3 5y agoLG also has the 24UD58 for $300
- lucian1900 5y agoIt wasn't enough to start with for large monitors. High pixel density is important for text readability. A 30" screen at typical monitor distance has very few pixels per arcsecond.
- pembrook 5y agoIt all depends on how close you sit to the screen. What matters is pixel density, and that’s a function of both the resolution and how close you’re sitting. So if you have a 4k TV and a 4k monitor, there’s actually quite a difference. If your monitor is bigger than 24” you’re getting way worse pixel density and visible pixels at the distance you’re sitting. On TVs it’s typically never a problem because you’re sitting far enough away.
- Gatsky 5y agoAgreed, there are few/no options if you have decent eyesight and want high pixel density.
- bzzzt 5y agoEven if you don't have decent eyesight crisper text is easier to read than a blurry mess of pixels representing letters.
- akvadrako 5y agoIndeed, still nobody makes the monitor I want – a double-wide 4K (or 5K) 27". The closest we have now are some wide 5K's with good DPI and the Dell 8K.
- burntoutfire 5y agoYep, text looks nicer in 4k. So what? 1080p is still plenty workable. I remember the jump from my 1024x768 CRT Sony to my first LCD monitor (I think it was 1920x1200?). Now THAT was an upgrade. 4k is just trivial in comparison. I for one intend to use my 1080p monitors until they die and cannot be fixed.
- nickpp 5y agoNot the OP but for me: I don't watch movies on my monitor so I don't care about HDR, I don't play games so I don't care about dynamic frame rate. What I need is sweet, sweet resolution! Those ultra-wide or high-frame rate all come at the expense of DPI which is the same with the DPI from 2K monitors...
- sgjohnson 5y ago> They still don't support DisplayPort MST for use of many bigger monitors in daisy configurations. The worst part about this is the fact that macOS does in fact support MST, but only for their 6K (and 5K on older machines, no longer requires MST since DP 1.3) display.