141–150 of 160 posts
Why doesn't Apple introduce different options? For example, I would never need a 6k display, but having a nice, matte finish, 1000 nit display at 1440p or 4k would definitely be on my radar. If they sold smaller resolution displays at more appropriate price points, I would be more inclined to buy it. They offer similar pricing structures for their iPhone and MacBook lines, so why not apply the same to monitors?
The real lede here is 1000nits of brightness; even the old LG Ultrafine displays capped out at 500nits.
I mean there's that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That what I meant, a built in calibration arm/camera unit plus easily replacable panel w/o driver unit might have been a killer feature. But replaceable and Apple don't mix. To me this looks like a overengineered consumer device, with insane macro-scale part count and failures/uniformity issues just waiting to happen. Besides local contrast issues with in a LED driven pixel area and the borders between them. You can…
> The $40k Sony device mentioned is OLED btw. ...and it still burns in, degrades, etc. It's not supposed to show a desktop. Even with a replaceable panel, it would be a very costly affair. LCD panels are mass market products, even if they happen to be (cut as) 6K or 8K.
Who is their target market? I'd like to know.
Complaining only signals that you are not the market they’re targeting. This is for Hollywood media makers, high end studios, etc. This was never to be a mass market item.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://youtu.be/YzQZLucY8iw
To my extreme disappointment, "This video is unavailable."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not just buy a 4K monitor from another company?
I have an Apple Thunderbolt Display and a generic 4k. The Apple display powers on instantly, the speakers are fantastic, it functions as a dock, and I can control brightness from the keyboard. The generic 4k display has none of those benefits, oh and I can't seem to get accurate colors. I was prepared to buy a new Apple display today knowing that it would be quality in all those aspects. Instead it'll be trial and er…
https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/6kj0oh/use_the_real_br...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it has an insane resolution for an insane amount of money. The original monitor also had an insane resolution for the time, but did not cost 5k. 1k is pricey for a monitor, but understandable. If they had segmented and offered a lower resolution monitor for a lower price (basically, an updated Cinema/Thunderbolt display), that would have been enough. The greedy beancounters have fully taken over. Subjective, but t…
But its not an insane resolution. Its twice as expensive as 8k monitors and the only reason they used a proprietary resolution was to attempt to justify it. I thought the monitor was going to be around 2-3k like others in its class. I agree that the stand might be the ugliest thing they've ever made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought they made a pretty good case why there is nothing else in its class, the only thing close being the $30k sony reference monitor.
Isn't that thing OLED? I'm not surprised that it's 30k. It's effectively local dimming... for each pixel. Not at all comparable to Apple's HDR display.
And no, OLED, its current form is not the holy grail as some would like to imagine.