Apple Unveils 6K 'Pro Display XDR' Monitor That Starts At $5,000 (cnet.com) 237
One of the most ridiculous announcements made at Apple's WWDC on Monday was the new Pro Display XDR monitor. It's a monitor made to pair with the new Mac Pro, complete with top-level specs and a staggering $5,000 starting price. CNET reports: The monitor's chief feature is high-dynamic range, aka HDR. Doing HDR correctly requires a lot of horsepower to illuminate the screen, and the XDR monitor can get exceedingly bright -- and stay that way. Apple says an advanced cooling system can maintain its 1,000 nits brightness "indefinitely." The monitor has a full-array backlight with 576 zones of full array local dimming -- more than just about any similarly equipped TV available. That advanced dimming tech likely contributes to the incredibly high 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio specification.
At 32 inches and a resolution of 6,016 x 3,384, the Pro Display XDR is Apple's largest retina display ever. While not used in many TVs (which are either 4K or 8K), the 6K resolution is increasingly popular for video capture, with cameras like the Pansonic Lumix S1H, Sony Venice, and models from Red doing 6K. Apple has also improved the screen to better control reflections and offers a new matte option called "nano-texture, with glass etched at the nanometer level for low reflectivity and less glare." The matte option brings the price of the monitor up to $6,000. Apple also talks up its polarizer technology and wide off-axis viewing angle. Pre-set reference modes include HDR video (P3-ST 2084), Digital Cinema (P3-DCI) and Photography (P3-D65). In traditional Apple fashion, the Pro Display XDR does not ship with a stand -- you'll have to buy that separately. The optional $999 Pro stand allows users to articulate the screen and place it in various positions. It has tilt, height, and rotation adjustment, meaning you can rotate it from landscape to portrait mode, juts like your iPhone.
Apple is also selling a VESA mount adapter for $199, but that will require you to buy another third-party stand.
At 32 inches and a resolution of 6,016 x 3,384, the Pro Display XDR is Apple's largest retina display ever. While not used in many TVs (which are either 4K or 8K), the 6K resolution is increasingly popular for video capture, with cameras like the Pansonic Lumix S1H, Sony Venice, and models from Red doing 6K. Apple has also improved the screen to better control reflections and offers a new matte option called "nano-texture, with glass etched at the nanometer level for low reflectivity and less glare." The matte option brings the price of the monitor up to $6,000. Apple also talks up its polarizer technology and wide off-axis viewing angle. Pre-set reference modes include HDR video (P3-ST 2084), Digital Cinema (P3-DCI) and Photography (P3-D65). In traditional Apple fashion, the Pro Display XDR does not ship with a stand -- you'll have to buy that separately. The optional $999 Pro stand allows users to articulate the screen and place it in various positions. It has tilt, height, and rotation adjustment, meaning you can rotate it from landscape to portrait mode, juts like your iPhone.
Apple is also selling a VESA mount adapter for $199, but that will require you to buy another third-party stand.
Ridiculous ? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only ridiculous thing for Apple would be to refrain from milking their cash cows.
Re: (Score:2)
Also Apple: Makes sure most of the web is 72dpi
Also also Apple: Lets never make sure our machines are never good for gaming
So what's this for? Super Hi-res home videos or formats which won't be mainstream (geddit) for a while now?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what's this for? Super Hi-res home videos or formats which won't be mainstream (geddit) for a while now?
Please don't take this to be me attempting to be some Apple fan here, just reiterating what's on their website.
* There's their FPGA daughter board Afterburner that's specifically made for working with 4K and 8K RAW files. Provides a custom connection to the Xeon W Thunderbolt 3 bus for straight from source to RAM/Processor editing without intermediary. So I guess somebody in filming or live TV?
* Co-processor T2 for handling secure enclave. Again this seems to be a custom co-processor for TPM that can ru
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ridiculous ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple used to support and "honor" long time devotees. Not anymore.
No. Apple never cared about backwards compatibility. Apple ][ users were abandoned by the Mac. The 68k binaries were abandoned to PowerPC, which was abandoned to x86. Mac OS X gave legacy users of OS 9 a choice of upgrade or fade away.
Apple's "courage" to abandon the old and move on, has helped them avoid bloat and port proliferation, enabling clean designs. But be prepared to get screwed occasionally.
If you want backwards compatibility, stick with Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's "courage" to abandon the old and move on, has helped them avoid bloat and port proliferation, enabling clean designs.
I'll take a couple of USB-A ports and headphone jack over avoiding "port proliferation" and "enabling clean designs".
Re:Ridiculous ? (Score:4, Informative)
How Far back you do want to go for having ports you need.
We can go back to the 1990's with a meter tall towers with the back full of ports most we never used, but each one is specialized for a particular hardware component. Parallel Port for your Printers, SCSI Port for your scanner, One Serial Port for your Mouse, the Second Serial Port for your modem, You Expansion Slots are filled with an IDE interface, a Sound Card, with Line In, Line Out, Microphone and a port for your Joystick. A specialized port just for your Keyboard.
The front will have a 5 1/4 Drive, a 3 1/2 Drive, CD ROM, CD RW (Slower then then your Normal CD)...
Re: (Score:2)
How Far back you do want to go for having ports you need.
Just a single USB-A port is enough. There are still huge numbers of peripherals with USB-A connectors and I want to be able to plug them in without a dongle.
A USB-A port is compatible with stuff going back to the mid 90s, that has me covered.
Re: (Score:2)
How Far back you do want to go for having ports you need.
It's not a question of how far back, but rather a question of how far forward. You can remove the headphone jack when you replace it with something better. You can remove USB-A when the most popular devices on the market actually stop shipping with USB-A.
Re:Ridiculous ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple never cared about backwards compatibility. Apple ][ users were abandoned by the Mac.
Apple attempted to support the Apple II ecosystem after the Mac came out, with the Apple IIGS. But it was hamstrung by software developers not wanting to write new code for the 16-bit machine when they could just graft on color and mouse support to their older 6502 code and keep similar code bases across all the Apple II machines. The IIGS was never able to really shine because of this, and so it was the market, not Apple, that killed off Apple II compatibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the fact it was gimped from the start, so it would not compete too much with the Mac. The CPU was intentionally under-clocked. Apple never really supported the GS.
Also, let's not forget what a trainwreck the Apple III was.
Re:Ridiculous ? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want backwards compatibility, stick with Microsoft.
Actually, IBM beats Microsoft on this.
Stuff written back in the 60's for their System/370 mainframe will run on it's latest direct descendant zSeries today.
Backwards compatibility needs have limits (Score:2)
Stuff written back in the 60's for their System/370 mainframe will run on it's latest direct descendant zSeries today.
Which is great for the very few organizations who need compatibility with software written before the internet, ethernet, or the personal computer even existed. There are a handful of companies with this sort of need and it's good they have options. That said, there are near-as-makes-no-difference zero people who are customers for any products made by Apple or Microsoft who need this level of backwards compatibility. Speaking for myself I can't think of any applications I use day to day which actually ne
Re: (Score:2)
I guess parts, manufacturing and R&D are free in your parallel universe. Or maybe you're a dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
Some stuff written for early unix systems will also still compile and run on modern versions of macos.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, IBM beats Microsoft on this.
Great, let me just get a computer running OS/2 I guess??
Re: (Score:3)
Apples "Courage", is also replacing a tested technology with a new technology that isn't fully worked out.
When the iMac came out without a Floppy Disk, I was in College at the time, While I was (in a computer science program) proficient enough to transfer files over the network most other students were not, even with an easy to use Mac, Because they were transferring files over to a Vax, (Ok it was an Alpha Server with OpenVMS) Most computer labs required users to bring and save onto floppy disk. USB Stic
Re: (Score:2)
I would further add that, today, USB has become the perfect 'good enough' port. Sure it's not great. It's not absurdly fast, and having to rotate it 3 times before you can stick it in is a pain, but for all that, it's good enough for the exact tasks people want to do: attach peripherals (which typically don't require that high bandwidth anyway) and conveniently sharing files in the form of USB keys.
USB-C is great but it's a massive uphill climb because it provides no real tangible benefit to the above us
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple never cared about backwards compatibility.
They had industry-leading translation software in place specifically for backwards compatibility during both of those transitions. That sounds like they cared. Not more than Microsoft cared or anything, or even as much, but they still put some effort in. They had to, because people demanded back compat. They eventually abandoned those subsystems, but that was expected to happen eventually.
It's undeniable that backwards compat is superior on PC, with the newest processors being able to execute literally the
Re: (Score:2)
> No. Apple never cared about backwards compatibility. Apple ][ users were abandoned by the Mac.
That's not _entirely_ accurate. *Within* the Apple 2 line Apple went to great lengths to make sure the //e, //c, and IIgs could run a lot of the Apple ][+ software.
But yeah, Apple definitely isn't afraid to deprecate / not support older APIs / hardware and to march forward regardless of the casualties.
Show me Apple's strength and I see Microsoft's weakness.
Show me Microsoft's strength and I see Apple's weakn
Recent ? (Score:2)
I used to be an ardent supporter of the Macintosh line and their recent narcissistic approach has been off-putting at best.
Recent ? What do you mean recent ? [folklore.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But according to the summary you would need to purchase the VESA mount adapter to mount it to your existing stands. I realize that $200 is cheaper than $1000 but Apple could just bundle the VESA adapter with the monitor instead of the stand.
It looks like the mount on the actual monitor is some kind of proprietary magnetic mount.
Re: (Score:2)
True 6K display (Score:5, Funny)
$5K for the display, $1K for the stand.
Some Apple supporters are going to be left without a leg to stand on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what this will do to 5k display prices. Currently you can get an Iiyama with the same panel that Apple uses for â650, which isn't a bargain but isn't as bad as they used to be either.
Adjust for inflation (Score:5, Informative)
$5K for the display, $1K for the stand.
Most of the people who would even think of buying this monitor likely already have a VESA mount and thus the stand isn't really that important to that crowd. This monitor appears to be targeting certain far more expensive pro (yes actual working pro) equipment that costs tens of thousands of dollars. Whether the people in this market will have any interest in this monitor? I have no idea.
Yes the stand is nice and yes it is probably overpriced. Anyone who would actually buy the stand probably doesn't care anyway. No they aren't going to sell these in huge numbers and Apple knows that. It's more of a halo product than it is a mass market one. This is consistent with Apple's approach as a quasi-luxury brand. Apple is going to continue to make most of their money from the iPhone and other products. This is just so they can keep saying they have some of the best tech available to the masses even if few people actually buy it.
Bear in mind too that adjusting for inflation that an Apple II purchased in 1977 would cost around $5400 [usatoday.com] in today's dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Odds are good that Apple didn't have to do anything but design the case for this display, anyway. That's a relatively small investment. Meanwhile, they will wind up in every movie from here to Timbuktu. The advertising value alone probably justifies the cost of the design.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes the stand is nice and yes it is probably overpriced. Anyone who would actually buy the stand probably doesn't care anyway.
Don't make excuses for them. The stand is a straight up rip-off. It's insane gouging. You can get a similar one for 50 bucks.
The biggest danger is that this starts a trend where other monitor manufacturers think it's okay to have stupidly expensive "accessories" that are really a standard, important part of the monitor. We have to stamp down on this bullshit now*, before it becomes a thing.
* I could have phrased that better.
Luxury goods are nothing new (Score:2)
Don't make excuses for them. The stand is a straight up rip-off. It's insane gouging. You can get a similar one for 50 bucks.
You can get one for $50 but it won't be similar. And it isn't a rip off. Nobody is being cheated and Apple isn't hiding the cost. It will be worth it to some people and not to others. Clearly you fall into the "not" category and that's fine. Apple can ask whatever price they want and people will decide whether it is worth it to them. That's how capitalism works.
The biggest danger is that this starts a trend where other monitor manufacturers think it's okay to have stupidly expensive "accessories" that are really a standard, important part of the monitor.
"Starts a trend"? Luxury goods have ALWAYS been a thing. You think a Rolex watch keeps time better than a $20 quartz digital watch? You thi
Re: (Score:2)
You can get one for $50 but it won't be similar.
Have you seen the stand? It's nothing special.
"Starts a trend"? Luxury goods have ALWAYS been a thing.
Yes, but monitor stands have not been luxury goods until today.
It's like what happened with memory in phones. Apple made it acceptable to charge massive amounts for memory upgrades. Compared to OnePlus who will give you an extra 2GB of RAM *and* 128GB of flash memory for $30.
Re: (Score:3)
Is a 6k display really worth it?
4k displays are good enough for us not to see pixels, How much higher resolution do we need, where the computing power to run such a display can be used to a better purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
4k at 32" is only about 130 PPI. It's a bit low for something you sit so close to. For comparison my phone is 534 PPI, and an old 17" 1280x1024 4:3 was about 96 PPI.
For a desktop monitor you really want 200 PPI for really good text rendering and invisible pixels, which comes out as:
24" - 4k
28" - 5k
32" - 6k
And sure enough that's what Apple have stuck to.
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is that the prices of these workstations are starting to get insane price levels that we saw for Next computers back in the 90's.
If a remember right, they didn't sell all that well because of that pricing. Perhaps Apple needs to learn from the past pricing mistakes of Steve Jobs (again) now that he's no longer with us?
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is that the prices of these workstations are starting to get insane price levels that we saw for Next computers back in the 90's.
If a remember right, they didn't sell all that well because of that pricing.
It wasn't just pricing. They didn't run any other platform's software, and there was very little software produced for the platform. You could pay an arm and a leg on top of the limbs you'd already given up for the system price to get some Adobe applications, and that was most of what was available. The system was superior in a lot of ways, but it didn't offer you the ability to do anything you couldn't do in some other, cheaper way. Even at price parity, they'd have been a hard sell.
Re: (Score:3)
What kind of use would you have for one of these overpriced monsters? I can see use for general purpose processors, i5 and i7 run the business world. An multicore Xeon monsters with dozens of cores for virtual server farms. But I just can't think of a use off hand for same classes of Xeon processors in desktop workstations.
My first thought is CAD and Animation rendering but the grunt work of those would be handed off to custom GPU cards for the actual work.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think about 50 production houses will purchase $50K to $500K at a time, while about 10 movie studios will purchase $1M-$10M per invoice.. every other year. So, about 60 customers is probably a fifth of the global market, and they'll get twice the hardware for their dollar.
Editing feature length movies and mastering color ain't like high fps gaming, boy. You're an idiot if you think this is for you, at best you're a garden-variety web surf/gaming/media center/webdev/appdev/commercial business consumer.
Thes
Re: True 6K display (Score:2)
Where can you buy a 6K monitor for $200?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: True 6K display (Score:2)
Don't burst a blood vessel mate.
Re: ain't for gaming rigs (Score:5, Insightful)
This thing isn't for post production. It's for poseurs who want it to seem that way.
Apple has known their market for generations.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You sure? I think Apple's midrange computers have outsold the Mac Pro for many, many years.
Well, Apple hasn't updated the Mac Pro for many, many years. So there's that.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that true of ANY market where you have cheap, mid-tier, and high-end niche products though?
e.g. How many $1,000+ phones are sold compared to inexpensive sub $200 phones? Swap out phones for GPUs, watches, etc.
Good enough is also cheap enough for the vast majority.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is going to sell boat loads of these to post-production houses.
Agreed. I think the new display is a lot more interesting than the new Mac Pro itself.
That said, I'm thinking most people will end up buying a third-party stand for the display - no matter how cool it is (and the engineering that seems to have gone into the stand is significant), $1k for a stand is hard to justify unless you're basically operating without budget limitations.
Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple’s done a very good job of making something for the professional medium-high end video market.
No-one needs a 6k HDR display to play Fortnite and thats ok.
Its very much for the “real” pro market - ie if this kind of display isn’t going to help you make money in your job, then it probably isn’t for you unless you have an awful lot of free cashflow.
There pricing actually isn’t crazy - they weren’t kidding about it competing against $40k monitors.
Re: (Score:2)
So why would you get one of these instead of a Dell 8K monitor? The Dell is only $4,000 (including stand) and will work with PCs as well. It's got 10 bit colour and similar coverage of the various standards.
What makes Apple's display worth an extra $2,000?
Re: (Score:2)
I think a key differentiator is actually their custom backlighting setup - it's no joke to be able to promise 1000-nits *sustained*. And the contrast ratio!
I think the Dell has 400 nits? and a 1,000-something-to-1 contrast ratio. If these things matter to you for your work, you'll be handing the extra money over to Apple and be glad of it.
Re: (Score:2)
OK it's specified as 400 nits and 1300:1 contrast ratio -
https://www.dell.com/en-us/sho... [dell.com]
Apple's "XDR" (I don't like the name but I'm not in charge so oh well) is specified as 1000 nits sustained and 1600 nits peak, and a 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio ...
Re: (Score:2)
But what does this actually do for you? Normally monitors are calibrated at 120-150 nits, with 200 considered being too bright for comfortable everyday use. Any professional is going to arrange things so 120 nits is enough.
So having a peak of 10x that, which requires a fan, seems rather pointless.
lice! (Score:2)
It was bad enough when we started attaching rodents to our computers, but now they're *advertising* displays with lice???
Do you have *any* idea how many lice you get from 1000 nits???
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
oddly i can find plenty of 24" reference monitors at over $20,000 several that are only 1080p. The current crop of cameras shoot at 6k giving you room to edit down to 4k. its good to be able to see everything you shoot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because (Score:2)
Why does anyone even need this?
Do you seriously think Apple never considered that question?
There is a market for it. Just because you almost certainly aren't in that market is not relevant to the decision to make and sell the product. I don't pretend to know how successful this product will be for Apple. My guess is that it is more of a marketing play than a serious attempt to bring in profits but that has it's place too. Most likely it is an attempt at a halo product [wikipedia.org].
There are lots of products that only a handful of customers will a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just trying to nail down whether people really do need it, or if it is just completely ridiculous egomaniacs that want it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot resource hogs are not the customers. No "anyone" needs anything more than a $500 box amd display to code or surf or comment here. The customers will be Disney/Pixar, Paramount Studios, Universal Studios, and the like, that will puchase $100K worth of this equipment at a time, and it will give them better performance and results for far less cost than what is currently available.
Apparently, the entire point of the design, release and price went so far over the heads of slashdot submitters, editors a
Re: (Score:2)
LOL... you actually believe that Apple is making the best hardware for the lowest price point. You can get what this thing offers right now if you want, for half the price, and no doubt those studios already are using such hardware (or likely, even better hardware).
Re: (Score:2)
LOL... you actually believe that Apple is making the best hardware for the lowest price point. You can get what this thing offers right now if you want, for half the price, and no doubt those studios already are using such hardware (or likely, even better hardware).
OK, show me a machine with the same or better specs for half the price.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot resource hogs are not the customers. No "anyone" needs anything more than a $500 box amd display to code or surf or comment here.
/. used to be primarily composed of people that were resource hogs. Engineers, programmers, DBAs and gamers. People who would use huge amounts of compute resources.
However if you want to spin up a database lab, programming environment or gaming boxen you can easily do that with $2000 including a fucking nice monitor. Hell if you're planning on a regular replacement cycle, you can do it for $1500 easy.
You do have a point that all the browsing, insta-twit-book needs of Dopey Doris can be met by a $300 l
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, a $5000 monitor is going to drive them away from Apple even faster, as that is the direction the industry has taken.
I'm guessing you haven't priced professional monitors before have you? 5K for the specs they showed is not going to drive industry away, it's going to have then knocking the doors down to buy them.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't the movie industry being a business, probably get a display that is a little cheaper but gets the work done as well.
The Mac Pro, with the display and the stand, is exceeding the failed Lisa price.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no LCD in existence with 1M:1 contrast ratio. That's a dynamic ratio using regioned backlighting.
The Dell ratio you're stating there is the static ratio. It's dynamic ratio is 5M:1.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Apple monitor looks like a great high end monitor. It's just not world-busting, a reference monitor, or anything significantly better than its similarly priced competitors.
oh boy (Score:2)
it must have been a great day at the Apple top floor office when they came up with the $999 price for a monitor stand.
And they know people will buy it too, really absurd.
Anyone remember the Radius Full Page Display? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://32by32.com/wp-content/u... [32by32.com]
$1995 in 1986. Adjusting for inflation would make it $4595 in 2019 money.
Re: (Score:2)
My mother's Macintosh IIci system had a retail price of almost $9000, with the 8*24 (not GC) and the Macintosh two-page mono display, and of course the extended keyboard. ISTR it came with 5MB/80MB. That was an absolute shedload of cash. Let's call the year it was purchased 1990, which might be accurate, it was thereabouts. That's over $17k in today's money, without even a color display.
Re: (Score:2)
Your mother was an either very rich, or an idiot.
Well, she got it at a discount, but it was still over half that much. And she was doing DTP for a living, but she was doing physical pasteup. I was too new to computing to know about NT, and Windows 3.1 wasn't a suitable place to run Pagemaker. So she got a Mac. If you asked a hundred DTP pros at the time whether to go PC or Mac, 99 of them would say Mac, and the 100th one would prevaricate.
The IIci was a great machine, if grossly overpriced. It had excellent case design, and the hardware was dead-nuts reli
Ridiculous? (Score:3)
My last CRT Eizo 21" costed more over a decade ago.
Re: (Score:2)
The Dell UP3218K monitor, which is 8k, is only $4000. It's factory calibrated, 10 bit colour, etc. etc.
No fan either.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.dell.com/en-us/sho... [dell.com]
400 nits and 1,300:1 contrast ratio, vs. the Apple display's 1000 nits sustained/1600 nits peak and 1m:1 contrast as specified
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but you really want to be using your monitor at about 250 nits for comfort in a normally lit room. 1000 nits is outdoor viewing levels and will set your eyeballs on fire. The only reason it goes that high is to get the ridiculous 1m:1 contrast ratio.
Re: (Score:2)
Now- with 572 light regions, it may be superior to the competition in that department. The last time I tore one apart, it had like 30 something light regions.
Re: (Score:3)
400 nits and 1,300:1 contrast ratio, vs. the Apple display's 1000 nits sustained/1600 nits peak and 1m:1 dynamic contrast as specified
Are we seriously back to comparing virtual contrast ratio penis length? Spare me.
The Dell is stating their static contrast ratio. The dynamic for it is 5m:1.
Re: (Score:2)
It also comes with free backlight bleed, and will only last about a year before dying. By the way what is factory calibration? What kind of an idiot came up with that marketing scheme? Screens for critical applications generally need to be calibrated once a week, doing it in the factory is pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
> My last CRT Eizo 21" costed more over a decade ago.
Well then you're a poor shopper as most 21" CRTs I saw, including the pair of excellent Mitsubishi ones I used went for about $1000 each in the early 2000s, and those were flat tube Trinitron style.
Even in the early 90s a quality 21" CRT cost no more than around $2500.
'The best' is probably a mistake (Score:2)
I have no doubt that this is a great monitor and stand for the top-tier 'Lamborghini' crowd. You can probably even argue that they're good value for what they offer.
I'd love to see what Apple could do for some 'mid-range' products. St
Re: (Score:2)
Looks and features/performance are not actually always compatible. Apple has comprimised more than once on features and performance because of form.
Re: (Score:2)
From the I'm too old dept. (Score:3)
Ridiculous, really? (Score:5, Insightful)
It may be overkill for the submitter's needs, that doesn't make it ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
A 6K screen, unless it's about 400' wide, is beyond anyone's needs. The HDR may or may not be visible (or matter) but, yes, this screen is ridiculous. As for "journalists" that cover this sort of utter garbage, they're of the same species that review Hi-Fi equipment - and as completely bribe-able.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd take reports with a bucket of salt. Exhibition hall, no opportunity to use verified test and measurement tools etc.
No doubt it's good but let's wait for some detailed reviews in controlled conditions.
Greed much? (Score:3)
There could be a number of reasons to justify the cost of the technology that went into the display that drove the cost to $5000. But there is not one who can justify $999 for a stand. For that kind of a price for fancy collection of ball joints, swivels, metal, and plastic; the damn thing better blow me as soon as I sit down at my desk. And $200 for a VESA mount? Its litterally a piece of metal that matches up purposefully proprietary holes with the standard vesa geometry.
I’ll give it a few months before some Chinese knock off of both of these things show up on Amazon. And Apple will have deserved every bit of the lost revenue. There’s no reason why that damn vesa mount should cost more than $35. Possibly $200 for the fancy articulating stand. It’s not like it’s the only articulating stand out there. Buy your $35 vesa mount knock off and use an articulating stand that has a vesa mount, save $800.
However I’m sure there’s plenty of Hollywood elitist that will pay $1000 so they can rock the logo. It’s like the people that I see paying eight dollars on a cruise for a mocha at the Starbucks counter when they can get a mocha at the ships café, made with Seattle’s best, that’s included with the alcohol beverage package that they already purchased. Apparently it taste different when the cup says Starbucks. As my grandmother used to say there is no fixing stupid
They should offer a $500 power cord as well (Score:2)
They should offer a $500 power cord as well. Audiophile grade, silver conductors, improves the quality of the image, just like that $3K inch thick "danceable" power cable and wooden knobs in your audiophile sound system.
Re: Who pays $20K for a workstation anymore? (Score:2)
Not many. If you donâ(TM)t need this workstation or monitor, it will seem ridiculous. And if you do, this will be huge.
Re: Who pays $20K for a workstation anymore? (Score:2, Interesting)
This monitor is an order of magnitude better than the $500 Dell, and an order of magnitude worse than the $50000 monitors. So, $5000. Having one of these along your entire movie or layout pipeline instead of having to correct at the end will save way more than $5000 in person hours.
Basically, if you need it, this system is awesome, and competitive. If you donâ(TM)t, it seems ridiculous and incredibly over-priced. This is not the target monitor for the sysadmins and C++ coders that frequent Slashdot.
Re: Who pays $20K for a workstation anymore? (Score:4, Interesting)
This monitor is an order of magnitude better than the $500 Dell, and an order of magnitude worse than the $50000 monitors. So, $5000. Having one of these along your entire movie or layout pipeline instead of having to correct at the end will save way more than $5000 in person hours.
Basically, if you need it, this system is awesome, and competitive. If you donâ(TM)t, it seems ridiculous and incredibly over-priced. This is not the target monitor for the sysadmins and C++ coders that frequent Slashdot.
This is what people aren't getting. This isn't a consumer model system. It's aimed at professionals and in those markets, it's price is actually competitive. Will some consumers with more money than sense buy them? Yep. But the vast majority will be purchased on company POs.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like you got your wish:
https://apple.slashdot.org/sto... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I hope they're oxygen free, or that would be a total ripoff.
Re: (Score:2)
If you sit so that the whole monitor is in your viewing area (~50 degrees) the average human eye has a resolution of 1.15 pixels on a 4k monitor. There are few reasons to purchase an 8k monitor or TV.