3 ms·

Apple is not interested in releasing a cheap dumb commodity PC-compatible monitor and never will be. It just doesn't make sense for them. For a lot of reasons.

by Bud 5y ago

Apple is not interested in releasing a cheap dumb commodity PC-compatible monitor and never will be. It just doesn't make sense for them. For a lot of reasons. Other companies can handle that market.

015a 5y ago
I don't feel that's a reasonable take, in this case. Apple's own marketing images show tons of these displays side-by-side with one-another. And that makes total sense; the M1 Ultra can run four of them IIRC. Apple customers, especially big businesses, will buy multiple of these just for the sake of them looking good next to one-another. Not unreasonable. But what's the point of having three webcams & microphones? 18 speakers? Its just needless cost overhead; not to mention, I'm calling it here, when these things start shipping we're going to get a Verge article or something of people with dual+ displays complaining about how the webcam selection dialog in Zoom/etc is confusing because they're all ambiguously named like "Studio Display Webcam (1) (2) (3) etc". I can see it now. I think it behooves Apple to offer one of these without all the bells & whistles. Knock $200 off the price or not, I'm not sure that's relevant; but as a secondary display, the bells & whistles actually get in the way. Its not about being a cheap dumb commodity PC compatible monitor; its just about serving what their customers are overwhelming going to want.
- Bud 5y ago
  It doesn't matter whether you think it's reasonable. It makes no sense for Apple to try to do this. You're entirely right that it makes no sense to have multiple sets of Dolby Atmos sound systems and cams and mics. But that doesn't mean it makes sense for Apple to do commodity displays. They're clearly betting that one 5K display will be enough in many cases. Stocking multiple SKUs of large displays just doesn't make sense in their retail stores. I suspect the profit margins are iffy as well compared to, say, iPhones obviously, where the margin is circa 40% and the size of the box is tiny.
  - 015a 5y ago
    This entire comment just screams "it is how it is, until it isn't". Whether or not they decide to do it has nothing to do with anything you've said. They're already stocking six Studio Display SKUs in-store (if they decide to stock them all in-store, that is). Two variations of glass finish times three variations of stands. Yes, that's right: "Each stand or mount adapter is built in. They are not interchangeable, so it’s important to consider your workspace needs at the time of purchase." They're not a separate component, and not even easily swappable outside the factory. Their profit margins are fine. They can charge whatever they want for it, its not relevant because, clearly, if they were concerned about being price competitive with other displays they would not be charging $1600 for this one. Even the LG 5K Ultrafine is $400+ cheaper. In one comment you assert that Apple isn't interested in being a commodity monitor manufacturer, and in another you assert that the profit margins are low; so, which is it?
    - Bud 5y ago
      You could be right if they end up actually stocking those in all stores. I'm not sure whether that will be the case. One small counterpoint to that part of what you said is that the 27" iMac has apparently now been pulled from the lineup, so, that should clear up some space in the stockroom. As for the "which is it?" question, I don't feel those two points were mutually exclusive, so therefore I don't think your question is really valid. I think both of my arguments were true and valid; that's why I made them to begin with. You might disagree, of course. :)

by Bud 5y ago

Apple is not interested in releasing a cheap dumb commodity PC-compatible monitor and never will be. It just doesn't make sense for them. For a lot of reasons. Other companies can handle that market.

015a 5y ago

I don't feel that's a reasonable take, in this case. Apple's own marketing images show tons of these displays side-by-side with one-another. And that makes total sense; the M1 Ultra can run four of them IIRC. Apple customers, especially big businesses, will buy multiple of these just for the sake of them looking good next to one-another. Not unreasonable. But what's the point of having three webcams & microphones? 18 speakers? Its just needless cost overhead; not to mention, I'm calling it here, when these things start shipping we're going to get a Verge article or something of people with dual+ displays complaining about how the webcam selection dialog in Zoom/etc is confusing because they're all ambiguously named like "Studio Display Webcam (1) (2) (3) etc". I can see it now. I think it behooves Apple to offer one of these without all the bells & whistles. Knock $200 off the price or not, I'm not sure that's relevant; but as a secondary display, the bells & whistles actually get in the way. Its not about being a cheap dumb commodity PC compatible monitor; its just about serving what their customers are overwhelming going to want.

Bud 5y ago
It doesn't matter whether you think it's reasonable. It makes no sense for Apple to try to do this. You're entirely right that it makes no sense to have multiple sets of Dolby Atmos sound systems and cams and mics. But that doesn't mean it makes sense for Apple to do commodity displays. They're clearly betting that one 5K display will be enough in many cases. Stocking multiple SKUs of large displays just doesn't make sense in their retail stores. I suspect the profit margins are iffy as well compared to, say, iPhones obviously, where the margin is circa 40% and the size of the box is tiny.
- 015a 5y ago
  This entire comment just screams "it is how it is, until it isn't". Whether or not they decide to do it has nothing to do with anything you've said. They're already stocking six Studio Display SKUs in-store (if they decide to stock them all in-store, that is). Two variations of glass finish times three variations of stands. Yes, that's right: "Each stand or mount adapter is built in. They are not interchangeable, so it’s important to consider your workspace needs at the time of purchase." They're not a separate component, and not even easily swappable outside the factory. Their profit margins are fine. They can charge whatever they want for it, its not relevant because, clearly, if they were concerned about being price competitive with other displays they would not be charging $1600 for this one. Even the LG 5K Ultrafine is $400+ cheaper. In one comment you assert that Apple isn't interested in being a commodity monitor manufacturer, and in another you assert that the profit margins are low; so, which is it?
  - Bud 5y ago
    You could be right if they end up actually stocking those in all stores. I'm not sure whether that will be the case. One small counterpoint to that part of what you said is that the 27" iMac has apparently now been pulled from the lineup, so, that should clear up some space in the stockroom. As for the "which is it?" question, I don't feel those two points were mutually exclusive, so therefore I don't think your question is really valid. I think both of my arguments were true and valid; that's why I made them to begin with. You might disagree, of course. :)