What makes people think that if it's a "hollywood" production house (most of them aren't in Hollywood) that they are ready to buy a $1k monitor stand, no questions asked? It won't happen, unless they are a) stupid (they aren't) b) flush with cash (they aren't) c) for a client room (maybe).

What is interesting is that new monitor. Spec-wise it's not the same as a good Sony or even Flanders, but it's not that far off and it's not $35k+. Now, that's something that those studios would buy plus a stand - when you put it like that - 6-7k monitor that's 95% there of a 35k monitor.

I really wish people would stop comparing this monitor to the $35k monitors. Yes, it's almost as good, maybe even 95% as good, but guess what? People are not paying $35k for the sake of it, that 5% is really bloody important. If it isn't important to you, you weren't going to buy the $35k monitor already. The reason they're so much more expensive is because they have features and specs that a small number of people find really important and will pay the premium for it. If we want to go down that line fine - but people can just as easily point to $2k displays that are 95% as good as the Apple one.

Having worked for eons in production, I can tell you that's not true. You see, coloring and tech prep work can be done on 95% monitors (compared to sony for example). Certain broadcast techies need 100% (broadcast engineering isn't in studios), and I would definitely challenge that as well - knowing and working with these people over the years.

What is happening in studios is this a) there needs to be a monitor that one can work on (95% IS FINE, broadcast engineering isn't in studios) b) wow factor for clients and dick showing contest in-front of them.

In fact the actual point should be that those production houses will never buy this stand because they already have their stands. (this is what MKBHD said anyway).

And to be honest, if I had the money I would buy that stand, I always loved these move-around-stay-in-place gadgets.

Oh they will for a client den, to show they can. For actual workstations around the offices - no, but also not that monitor.

Look... I hear this argument a lot and I've used it myself.

But after a few days of considering it, I do think the general consensus is correct. The price is completely bonkers.

I haven't read the article BTW.

But it's not correct that production houses are so minted they don't care and just soak up the costs (I work in marketing, I work with these people). Margins can be thin and equipment costs matter.

A grand for a stand is mental and will be questioned on the PO when it goes past the CFO or the person signing the cheques.

This was a weird move by Apple and totally tone deaf for the market the audience at the event.

And the WWDC event is important. They should have known better... the fact they didn't predict the reaction to this speaks volumes. The multi millionaire and billionaire senior management are massively out of touch in some ways.

In other ways they got it right: They actually spoke to the people who wanted this Mac and they got it right.

But WWDC is their premier public international marketing stunt of the year. The grand for a stand is a bad look and just reinforces Apple as a brand for elitists when that is the last thing they need globally.

> This monitor is competing against $25k+ reference displays. And the price is very competitive.

No it isn't. That's just the framing. Yes, reference monitors are expensive. It's not a reference monitor. A reference monitor is a very specialized piece of equipment that fits into infrastructure that you may find at a broadcasting studio:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_reference_monitor#Fe...

It's not necessarily the panel itself that makes them so pricey (though OLED vs. LCD does make a difference). Rather, it's the fact that they're niche products.

edit: link added for clarification

Can you clarify what makes it not a reference monitor ?

Because a reference monitor is surely not defined based on it being niche or whether you find it in a studio or not.

People keep saying this: Is this monitor actually competitive with $25k+ reference monitors? Because the specs seem to indicate "no" to me, but I'm not a professional user so can't judge what's important.

Also, to be able to use your own mount you still need the $200 VESA mount.

Close enough to be considered, yes. However, only tests will show since it's not in pro's hands yet.

Yes it actually is competitive in many ways. Especially for it’s size.

Here are a few other reference displays in the market:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/professionalvideo/Ntt/HDR...

So you're not a professional user and you can't judge what's important. But your gut feeling is telling you that it isn't a good deal ?

I wonder what someone from Apple Product Marketing would think about comments like this when they would've spent the best part of 5 years working closely with potential customers in the product design and specifications.

Come on, it's a fair question, this person said "the specs" seem to indicate, not their gut feeling. As they read the specs it can't literally replace a $25K+ reference display.

Can it, yes or no?

If you are not a professional user how can you interpret the "specs".

You're not seriously saying that you can compare two products that you have no clue about simply by comparing random numbers and picking which is the highest.

It's the equivalent of picking a camera based purely off megapixels whilst ignoring dynamic range, sensor size, lens quality, in camera processing etc.

if Tesla said about a car "this one can compete straight in a nascar race, stock" and really seemed to mean it and kept repeating it, then absolutely it would be a fair question whether it is literally true. Because it's such an unusual claim.

It's yes/no: can it literally go where only a $25k can? Or not literally, no.

> If Apple had said “This is a $6k monitor” and then during configuration time provided a stand-less option for $1k less, then we wouldn’t see any of these dumb articles.

Yes we would! People aren't too dumb to do the math.

If they simply made it a $6k screen, always with the stand, then that's something that would change perception. It would mean slightly less excitement. Probably not much less. But critically, it wouldn't be insulting.

> insulting

?? As in failing to recognize you as a person in some way?

There’s a lot to bemoan about Apple’s product positioning as ‘attainable luxury’. Yet, I find this position confusing and naive.

Word.

> As in failing to recognize you as a person in some way?

...no. As in being rude.

"Nickel and diming", for lack of a better term, is very widely considered rude.

> This is everything that is wrong with journalism today.

What? It's not manufactured hate by journalists. Minutes after the presentation Twitter, reddit etc buzzed with this. So they only report on what people are reacting to.

If the article and reactions are dumb because Apple could have spun this as a $6k monitor, then that's Apple's fault.

Maybe Apple is taking a page from the fashion playbook - every runway show has 1x outrageous item to create buzz & PR. Like that wearable inflatable swimming pool..

Well said! Pasting my comment from Facebook where this was reposted:

---

Idiots. The new monitor and stand isn't made for you. Not even you, clueless Engadget journalist. It's made for graphics, movie studio pros whose company pay $18000 currently for Reference monitors. Compared to that and the fact that this is 6k with that fancy nano coating, this thing is cheap.

And I'm not buying it, because I don't need it. If you don't understand the price, it's not for you either. Move along.

It's not the pricing itself that's wrong, but how Apple presents it. The way Apple presents it puts focus on the ridiculously expensive stand. Apple used to be the master at presenting these kind of new products, but they seem to have lost that edge.