Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

cfenollosa.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 203 posts

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#191

Post by ksec »

veidr wrote: post #180
veidr wrote: post #178

> As soon as I started using the Studio Monitor it felt like I had put glasses on. Every other screen looks blurry now. This is literally how I felt about moving from these 27" 5K screens (I had Apple's iMac Pro and also a couple LG UltraFine external monitors), when I moved to a 31.5" 8K screen (Dell UP3218K). The difference is every bit as dramatic as going 4K → 5K. I had literally just gotten my first prescription…

It's more like 220ppi vs 280ppi (thanks https://www.sven.de/dpi !) and the difference is way, way bigger than I thought. In fact it is the biggest improvment in text-reading ergonomics I have ever experienced from a monitor upgrade, and that includes 4K → 5K. I can't even see the pixels at 220ppi on a 5K, so I thought I didn't need any higher. But in fact, what I see is fuzz . Just a bit, and it's very small and I co…

I thought Apple was moving towards 250PPI when they released their M1 MacBook Pro, and ditching 220PPI standards they have been using on Mac for 10+ years.

And the differences are much more dramatic in complex character languages like Chinese and Japanese.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#192

Post by coder543 »

jmull wrote: post #190
coder543 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the quality of the iPad Pro front camera is exactly what the Reddit post I linked to was complaining about... and I saw a lot of other similarly negative discussions online when I was googling it. At best, the Studio Display’s camera can reach that level of quality. I personally have one of the new iPad minis with Center Stage, and I don't consider the front camera quality to be anything better than "accepta…

Acceptable isn't bad, so I guess we're actually pretty much agreeing.

Depends on who you talk to. If it is barely clearing the bar of acceptability for some people, it will likely be considered bad by a lot of people. I don’t really think Apple should be striving for “acceptable” on a $1600 monitor where the webcam is a significant part of the marketing. Apple literally calls it a “sensational camera”.

The display itself doesn’t even have any kind of local dimming zones or HDR at all, which seems like a huge miss for a monitor released at that price point in 2022.

I played with one at an Apple Store a few days ago. I loved the build quality of the height adjustable model, and the screen was pleasant to use in that well lit environment (a relatively low bar to clear), but Apple seems to have worked overtime to make it hard to justify spending $1600+ on that monitor, in my opinion.

There have been rumors of a Studio Display Pro, and I’m curious to see what happens there.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#193

Post by joeman1000 »

jwalton wrote: post #155
joeman1000 wrote: post #154

To the author: get some glasses and stop being stubborn! The screen will look even nicer if you do. I held out for years and I curse myself for it. I don’t get headaches from squinting and craning my neck now. Also, out of curiosity, why is your laptop keyboard covered with paper? Bonus: why this display over a cheaper M1 iMac?

Or, buy a different 5K monitor? Apple is not the only game in town here.

Because Apple stuff is basically guaranteed to be excellent. I’m over playing the lotto with whatever washed out garbage Acer/HP/Lenovo/BenQ/whatever want to put out for a monitor these days. Whatever Apple has been doing in the last ten years with their panels is great and I’ll stick with it. The panel on my ‘21 MBP (M1 Pro) is the best screen I’ve ever laid eyes on.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#194

Post by tinus_hn »

taylodl wrote: post #113

Wow. Just checked the Apple site and this guy is right, Apple wants $400 for a height-adjustable monitor stand! Why? Also the web cam is crap? Really? Okay, maybe it's not as bad as $699 for wheels for the Mac Pro, but that isn't right either! Consider that Apple is selling the iPhone SE for the same price that they're selling an height-adjustable monitor stand and less than for what they're charging for wheels! Can…

The basic explanation is that they sell it for what the target market will pay. You will not pay the price they sell it for but you are not the target market.

And you can bet they looked at what the result would be if they sold it for less. They’d probably sell more, but ultimately profit less.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#195

Post by D13Fd »

copperx wrote: post #168
D13Fd wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use a 30" 4K monitor, and I still don't notice the DPI difference between it and my MacBook Pro or iPad. Personally I would much rather that they made the display 4K and 120hz instead of 5k and 60hz. At that size, I don't see a big difference between 4K and 5k, but the 60hz vs. 120hz jump is very noticeable.

I'm of a different opinion. 120 Hz is nice to have, but it is not a quality of life improvement. The DPI increase of a 220+ DPI monitor is a game changer. Text on a screen becomes readable at 220+ DPI, and that's when I don't feel the need to print PDFs in order to read them at a high resolution (the cheapest $50 laser printer can achieve 600 DPI without a sweat).

To each their own I guess. I really don’t ever notice the DPI difference.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#197

Post by veidr »

awiesenhofer wrote: post #189
veidr wrote: post #178

> As soon as I started using the Studio Monitor it felt like I had put glasses on. Every other screen looks blurry now. This is literally how I felt about moving from these 27" 5K screens (I had Apple's iMac Pro and also a couple LG UltraFine external monitors), when I moved to a 31.5" 8K screen (Dell UP3218K). The difference is every bit as dramatic as going 4K → 5K. I had literally just gotten my first prescription…

I still dream about getting one of those - do you use it at 2x scaling? And how do you drive that thing?

Yeah it is perfect at 2x scaling. I drive it from Linux though (a regular Intel workstation build with an RTX 3060 video card driving it via 2 DisplayPort cables).

AFAIK (and I've looked into it), there is no way to drive this monitor from a Mac unless you have an Intel Mac with a Blackmagic eGPU using the Titan Ridge chipset.

(Haven't confirmed that works, though, since I don't have an Intel Mac.)

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#198

Post by kbob »

Joeri wrote: post #127
tzs wrote: post #117

> Apple, if you ship a monitor with a non-adjustable stand in 2022, please make sure that the default height is at an ergonomic level. It should be at least 5-8 centimeters higher. That's terrible advice. For a non-adjustable stand it needs to be at or near the lowest that people would want, because it is way easier to raise a fixed stand that is too low by putting something under it than it is to lower a fixed stand…

I’ve never really understood how so many people could come to the conclusion that the 5K iMac was too low. An ideal ergonomic screen height is the top of the screen 5 to 10 cm above eye level, and I’ve always wondered what kind of desk setups people have where it ends up way below that to the point that it needs raising. If anything the 5K iMac was a few cm too tall, and it is a good thing the studio display is lower…

Different people are different heights. Amazing but true.

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#199

Post by xoa »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #171
xoa wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's very unfortunate that silicon photonics never hit critical mass. It's intensely painful to constantly see these bandwidth limitations run into and have to deal with ludicrously expensive active cables with extremely short lengths because of the stubborn sticking to copper, when plain old cheap OM3 will cheerfully do 100 Gbps at hundreds of feet. Someday I hope to see the last of copper for data. That said,…

If optical material is as cheap as you say it is, then why are optical cables so expensive? A few meters can run for hundreds of dollars.

>If optical material is as cheap as you say it is, then why are optical cables so expensive? A few meters can run for hundreds of dollars.

This a day old but I just noticed and have to say: WAT!? Go to fs.com or monoprice or wherever else, look at even the super well armored ultra durable direct burial OM4 like:

https://www.fs.com/products/71448.html

That's as nice as it gets, fully customized to exactly the length and connectors you and, and 7' is $11.54. 100' is $60.26. And again that's about as fancy and durable as it gets. Plain old OM3, still perfectly suitable indoors for 100 gigabit at hundreds of feet, is $19 for 100'.

So I'm honestly utterly perplexed at what you're even talking about. Even ultra-low loss very dense 400G rated fiber isn't "a few meters for hundreds of dollars". If you see this I'd be kind of curious what you're thinking. Some sort of cutting edge terabit stuff? Were you looking at something with dozens of strands in a cable and thinking it was single strand?

Re: I didn't return my Apple Studio Display

#200

Post by brokenmachine »

mistersquid wrote: post #22
ysleepy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 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.

Inexplicably, Apple buyers trade price for less functionality.
Post reply on HN