4 ms·

That is largely due to the manufacturers focusing on price and display size for their volume business. 4K displays are produced in high volume and can be a lot

That is largely due to the manufacturers focusing on price and display size for their volume business. 4K displays are produced in high volume and can be a lot cheaper and can be larger in absolute display size terms. That means that 5K will be more expensive. For some people that additional resolution and sharpness matter more than a few hundred dollars in cost. I would not expect any Windows users to chose this display unless they are the few who would make the same quality vs price choice that an Apple customer might.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
Even at 4K there isn’t much choice if you want that sort of dpi. Dell had a really nice 4K/24” monitor but discontinued it some time ago.
kllrnohj 5y ago
> who would make the same quality vs price choice that an Apple customer might. That's a pretty elitest take that doesn't really hold up to any scrunity at all. Other than the resolution, this is a pretty mediocre quality display. At this price point there are no shortage of displays with much better overall image quality, other than the resolution. You're paying for that 5k in more ways than just the price at checkout. Even within Apple's own ecosystem it's pretty weak. It's bigger than the display on the MacBook Pro you're probably docking to it, obviously, but it also looks way, way worse than the display on that MacBook Pro.
- thirdsun 5y ago
  > Other than the resolution, this is a pretty mediocre quality display. The resolution is the essential feature of this display. And it's an important one due to the way macOS handles scaling. You basically always want to use 2x scaling in macOS. On a 4k / 27" display (which are ubiquitous) that results in an effective screen real estate of 1080p which makes the UI feel too large and cramped.