Apple Studio Display Drops to Record Low Price of $1,294.99 for Prime Day

[Bodhitree]

1200 dollars is more like what it should have cost, including tilt and height adjustment. 1600 dollars was crazy, not too long ago you would have gotten an entire Mac for that money.

 

[awshucks]

Height adjustment works by putting books under your monitor.

That option is technically more expensive since it would cost more to replace the monitor if it knocks over, as the books may not be the most stable

 

[Jeeve Stubbs]

This (to an extent)!!

My 5k iMac display makes everything look insanely crisp, especially text, like no other display I tried since. I was using my MBP display next to a few 4k ones I bought and it was just disappointing by comparison. The iMac one looks amazing and just as crisp as my “3k” 14” MBP does thanks to the density. And Apple always delivers with the nits.

I'm all for high resolution, but let's face it: most people can't tell the difference between a 4k image and a 5k one. Even when 8k screens come out, I'm not sure the non-geek crowd will say "wow, this is day and night".

 

[driveman]

I'm all for high resolution, but let's face it: most people can't tell the difference between a 4k image and a 5k one. Even when 8k screens come out, I'm not sure the non-geek crowd will say "wow, this is day and night".

Respectfully, how do you know that most people can’t tell the difference?

Like you, I haven’t conducted a double-blind study, but I would be surprised if most people wouldn’t be able to tell the difference - especially on text and UI elements. Perhaps not on video.

In my non statistically significant experience, almost every person (about a couple of dozens over the years) who saw my setup commented on the clarity of the display. Not everyone said it’s a meaningful difference, but honestly, the effect of 2x the pixels from 20” or so distance is certainly noticeable.

 

[Jeeve Stubbs]

Respectfully, how do you know that most people can’t tell the difference?

Like you, I haven’t conducted a double-blind study, but I would be surprised if most people wouldn’t be able to tell the difference - especially on text and UI elements. Perhaps not on video.

In my non statistically significant experience, almost every person (about a couple of dozens over the years) who saw my setup commented on the clarity of the display. Not everyone said it’s a meaningful difference, but honestly, the effect of 2x the pixels from 20” or so distance is certainly noticeable.

I haven't conducted any formal survey, but simply observed reactions around me (family, friends, colleagues) throughout the years, and my best guess is they're reasonably representative of the general public. I know it may seem incredible to geeks like you and me, but many people can't even differentiate DVD and Blu-ray right away. And even less people can tell between Blu-ray and Blu-ray UHD. Granted, this is video, but even for static computer images, the average user just doesn't seem to notice this kind of detail as much as we do. From 1080 to 1440 – day and night for us – many people see some improvement indeed. From 1440 to 2160 (4k), the difference is less obvious. And from 2160 (4k) to 2880 (5k), you need a pretty good eye to tell. And so on. The same could be said about the number of colors, the frames per second, the sound frequency, etc. No need for advanced research to confirm this: it's simply the law of diminishing returns, which applies to technology and many other things in life when you think about it.

 

[Dadcelo]

I haven't conducted any formal survey, but simply observed reactions around me (family, friends, colleagues) throughout the years, and my best guess is they're reasonably representative of the general public. I know it may seem incredible to geeks like you and me, but many people can't even differentiate DVD and Blu-ray right away. And even less people can tell between Blu-ray and Blu-ray UHD. Granted, this is video, but even for static computer images, the average user just doesn't seem to notice this kind of detail as much as we do. From 1080 to 1440 – day and night for us – many people see some improvement indeed. From 1440 to 2160 (4k), the difference is less obvious. And from 2160 (4k) to 2880 (5k), you need a pretty good eye to tell. And so on. The same could be said about the number of colors, the frames per second, the sound frequency, etc. No need for advanced research to confirm this: it's simply the law of diminishing returns, which applies to technology and many other things in life when you think about it.

But they could probably tell the difference between a fuzzy doc on Words. That's where the "small" differences come in. When using it compared to other displays, the difference is clear. Of course, this won't mean anyone would pay the premium for the difference, the value may not be there. But that there is a difference, and that it is noticeable, I would argue.

 

[supercharge]

Why should you care about internals, beyond high correlation with reliability? Because Apple has a strong culture around high quality and attention to details. When this is part of your culture, it runs through everything associated with the product - from the package to the quality of soldering and beyond.

The point is this: Apple sells thoroughly premium products -- at a premium price for the segment that appreciates and can afford them. Most other companies sell regular products at a regular price, and that's great too.

That used to be the case.

I'm reminded of the story of Jobs' father crafting the wall-side of a bookshelf, despite it being out of sight. That philosophy held true with Jobs, but now there is Cook that is trying to keep it going, but has always been more of a logistics man.

In a recent teardown, it seemed Apple was cutting some corners on some of its parts. I think they were capacitors, but forget what they were specifically. The point is: just because something was true, doesn't mean it is still true, or will be true.