5 ms·

I can't speak for the author, but I find 2560x1440 /logical/ pixels (what apple calls points) at 27" to be the ideal amount of screen real estate (and physical

I can't speak for the author, but I find 2560x1440 /logical/ pixels (what apple calls points) at 27" to be the ideal amount of screen real estate (and physical size for UI elements). Unless it's a small 21" display, 4k at high-DPI would result in less screen space. Going up to 5k is the best way to get that combination of real estate and pixel density.

ysleepy 5y ago
1000$ worth of difference? - Why not buy the LG then 5 years ago for cheaper?
- mistersquid 5y ago
  > Why not buy the LG then 5 years ago for cheaper? The LG Ultrafine 5K is notorious for its high unreliability (WiFi interference), low build quality (creaky plastic), and low durability (flaky ports). The target market for Apple Studio Display does not look to trade price for lower quality. Rather, Apple's target market are premium buyers, people looking to pay a bit more for higher quality.
  - kitsunesoba 5y ago
    Not only is the UltraFine 5k’s chassis creaky, it can’t handle the heat the display produces and has an extremely high rate of cracking with pieces flaking off. The whole product is abysmal in terms of quality, I don’t know how LG thought it was ok to release.
    - gonehome 5y ago
      What's weird to me is it doesn't take a genius to guess at what an Apple monitor would have looked like. Why can zero other companies execute on something like this? Sure Apple has advantages with scale, but it's not like they're squeezing tight margins. There was a lot of room under the cost of the Pro Display XDR. I'm not sure why none of these other companies can really execute on high quality hardware.
      - hnlmorg 5y ago
        Maybe the demand isn’t there? There might not be a big intersect between those who are willing to spend > $1000 on a monitor and those who wouldn’t want to buy non-Apple hardware.
        gonehome 5y ago
        Maybe? There were years without any viable option where I think people would have. Now that Apple is back in the game you're probably right.
      - mort96 5y ago
        Hell, just take the same LG panel that's used by both the LG UltraFine and the Apple Studio Display, put it in a well-built metal case, don't waste money on things like the A13 CPU, 64GB of flash, 13 megapixel camera, high-quality speaker system, etc, don't spend as many engineering resources on making the monitor as thin-and-light as possible. You could've made the standard monitor for anyone who wants a 5k 27" screen. I don't understand why the only manufacturer in the 5k 27" screen market was LG for half a decade and now only LG and Apple. There should be so much room here.
        kitsunesoba 5y ago
        IIRC there was a Dell monitor that used this panel too, but its availability was extremely brief and Dell EOL’d it not too long after release. I believe it had issues with waking from sleep and its picture blinking out sometimes, I guess they had QC issues with their driver board.
        aesh2Xa1 5y ago
        There might have been a Dell, but the company I remember was Planar. The panel even had the webcam cutout (but no webcam) as I recall. https://www.planar.com/media/439284/planar-ix2790-specsheet.pdf https://www.planar.com/media/439284/planar-ix2790-specsheet....
  - aabhay 5y ago
    As a counterpoint, I absolutely love my LG Ultrafine 5k. I bought a second one even. Never had any issues at all, and I love taking video calls, doing design work, etc. on them.
  - brokenmachine 5y ago
    Inexplicably, Apple buyers trade price for less functionality.
canuckintime 5y ago
> 2560x1440 /logical/ pixels (what apple calls points) at 27" to be the ideal amount of [MacOS] screen real estate (and physical size for [MacOS] UI elements) ftfy. Apple is double dealing you here. Apple developed MacOS to look best at that size/density, and forced the development of the few expensive displays are that size/density... After a decade waiting for third party displays to meet up their standard, to no avail, perhaps Apple should just modify the OS to better support other HiDPI displays available
- mort96 5y ago
  Nah, that's not true. Linux also looks best at roughly that scale. Everything is way too big at 1080p@1x/4k@2x at 27" -- in both macOS and Linux. I'm not too sure about Windows, but given the fact that cross-platform apps like web browsers render everything at the same logical size across the systems, and the fact that browsers don't look hilariously out of place in Windows. I'm gonna assume that it applies to Windows as well. I used to have a 27" 1080p monitor for my Linux box, now I have a 27" 1440p monitor and a 24" 1080p monitor. Everything looks less oversized now.
  - skydhash 5y ago
    I don't know about 4k@27, but 1080@27 is indeed too big. The only thing I want to be big is the text - and icons maybe -, But I can't stomach big UI elements.
    - mort96 5y ago
      FWIW, 4k is 3840x2160, which is (19202)x(10802). So 4k@27 running at a 2x scale is exactly the same physical area per logical pixel as 1080p@27 running at a 1x scale.
      - skydhash 5y ago
        I have a 1440p@27 monitor. That gives me enough real estate to actually use editors and IDE and have some real estate. I could probably do 4k, but maybe @32 inches and native resolution.

ysleepy 5y ago

1000$ worth of difference? - Why not buy the LG then 5 years ago for cheaper?

mistersquid 5y ago
> Why not buy the LG then 5 years ago for cheaper? The LG Ultrafine 5K is notorious for its high unreliability (WiFi interference), low build quality (creaky plastic), and low durability (flaky ports). The target market for Apple Studio Display does not look to trade price for lower quality. Rather, Apple's target market are premium buyers, people looking to pay a bit more for higher quality.
- kitsunesoba 5y ago
  Not only is the UltraFine 5k’s chassis creaky, it can’t handle the heat the display produces and has an extremely high rate of cracking with pieces flaking off. The whole product is abysmal in terms of quality, I don’t know how LG thought it was ok to release.
  - gonehome 5y ago
    What's weird to me is it doesn't take a genius to guess at what an Apple monitor would have looked like. Why can zero other companies execute on something like this? Sure Apple has advantages with scale, but it's not like they're squeezing tight margins. There was a lot of room under the cost of the Pro Display XDR. I'm not sure why none of these other companies can really execute on high quality hardware.
    - hnlmorg 5y ago
      Maybe the demand isn’t there? There might not be a big intersect between those who are willing to spend > $1000 on a monitor and those who wouldn’t want to buy non-Apple hardware.
      - gonehome 5y ago
        Maybe? There were years without any viable option where I think people would have. Now that Apple is back in the game you're probably right.
    - mort96 5y ago
      Hell, just take the same LG panel that's used by both the LG UltraFine and the Apple Studio Display, put it in a well-built metal case, don't waste money on things like the A13 CPU, 64GB of flash, 13 megapixel camera, high-quality speaker system, etc, don't spend as many engineering resources on making the monitor as thin-and-light as possible. You could've made the standard monitor for anyone who wants a 5k 27" screen. I don't understand why the only manufacturer in the 5k 27" screen market was LG for half a decade and now only LG and Apple. There should be so much room here.
      - kitsunesoba 5y ago
        IIRC there was a Dell monitor that used this panel too, but its availability was extremely brief and Dell EOL’d it not too long after release. I believe it had issues with waking from sleep and its picture blinking out sometimes, I guess they had QC issues with their driver board.
        aesh2Xa1 5y ago
        There might have been a Dell, but the company I remember was Planar. The panel even had the webcam cutout (but no webcam) as I recall. https://www.planar.com/media/439284/planar-ix2790-specsheet.pdf https://www.planar.com/media/439284/planar-ix2790-specsheet....
- aabhay 5y ago
  As a counterpoint, I absolutely love my LG Ultrafine 5k. I bought a second one even. Never had any issues at all, and I love taking video calls, doing design work, etc. on them.
- brokenmachine 5y ago
  Inexplicably, Apple buyers trade price for less functionality.

canuckintime 5y ago

> 2560x1440 /logical/ pixels (what apple calls points) at 27" to be the ideal amount of [MacOS] screen real estate (and physical size for [MacOS] UI elements) ftfy. Apple is double dealing you here. Apple developed MacOS to look best at that size/density, and forced the development of the few expensive displays are that size/density... After a decade waiting for third party displays to meet up their standard, to no avail, perhaps Apple should just modify the OS to better support other HiDPI displays available

mort96 5y ago
Nah, that's not true. Linux also looks best at roughly that scale. Everything is way too big at 1080p@1x/4k@2x at 27" -- in both macOS and Linux. I'm not too sure about Windows, but given the fact that cross-platform apps like web browsers render everything at the same logical size across the systems, and the fact that browsers don't look hilariously out of place in Windows. I'm gonna assume that it applies to Windows as well. I used to have a 27" 1080p monitor for my Linux box, now I have a 27" 1440p monitor and a 24" 1080p monitor. Everything looks less oversized now.
- skydhash 5y ago
  I don't know about 4k@27, but 1080@27 is indeed too big. The only thing I want to be big is the text - and icons maybe -, But I can't stomach big UI elements.
  - mort96 5y ago
    FWIW, 4k is 3840x2160, which is (19202)x(10802). So 4k@27 running at a 2x scale is exactly the same physical area per logical pixel as 1080p@27 running at a 1x scale.
    - skydhash 5y ago
      I have a 1440p@27 monitor. That gives me enough real estate to actually use editors and IDE and have some real estate. I could probably do 4k, but maybe @32 inches and native resolution.