Laptops in the early 2010's were stuck on 1336x768 until Apple kicked up a fuss about having "retina", same with phones which had comically low resolutions until Apple made a fuss about it with the iPhone 4.

Sadly my eyes aren't as good as they used to be so I can't make a lot of use of the extra real-estate, but it always seems as if they're ahead when it comes to resolutions on consumer devices.

Of course macOS supports these higher resolutions but there’s also the color calibration and support for wider color gamuts other than sRGB and having that all integrated together.

For example, the iMac had Display P3 (a color space 50% bigger than RGB) support starting in 2015.

Faster refresh doesn't necessarily mean a better display. I suspect Apple's displays are higher quality than most competitors even if they max out at 120Hz.

Here are the specs for the latest MacBook Pros:

    16.2-inch (diagonal) Liquid Retina XDR display;1 3456-by-2234 native 
    resolution at 254 pixels per inch
 
    XDR (Extreme Dynamic Range)

    1,000,000:1 contrast ratio
    XDR brightness: 1000 nits sustained full-screen, 1600 nits peak2 (HDR content only)
    SDR brightness: 500 nits


    1 billion colors
    Wide color (P3)
    True Tone technology
    Refresh rates

    ProMotion technology for adaptive refresh rates up to 120Hz
    Fixed refresh rates: 47.95Hz, 48.00Hz, 50.00Hz, 59.94Hz, 60.00Hz

This been said, I can remember CRTs at 60hz with side scrollers and demos at 60fps with perfect image stability while scrolling. You could read tiny texts scrolling up and down perfectly. This is not the case anymore with LCD panels...

Try to read a webpage while scrolling, impossible.

60hz or 120hz I would pay for a stable image in motion. It would bring tremendous confort.

This isn't really contested anywhere.

We're fine with 24FPS for films and tv shows, but try that for an FPS and it's considered nigh unplayable. I remember when the line was "the human eye can't see past 30FPS" now it's at 60. The treadmill keeps going.

Check the t- or x- series which are many many orders of magnitude wider deployed.

Random cheapo laptop: 1366x.. One better: apple Even better: higher priced laptop had 1920x.... Oh, and those had IPS displays unlike apple with (halfway decent) TN panels.

So everybody else pushed, then apple not only caught up but jumped ahead. And now they are again behind with 3k vs 4k and 5k vs 8k and miniled vs oled with the same order: cheap < apple < expensive.

Same for the macbook air/ultrabook form factor: Invented by Sony but only got popular once apple jumped on the train years later.

Apple is really good at "sherlocking" and getting out a polished/well-integrated version of something that has been around for years and making it popular.

With proper 2x scaling as intended by Apple there is no extra screen real-estate. 5k at 2x scaling gives you the real-estate of a 2560 x 1440 display, just with a doubled pixel density and thus much sharper. This is the actual value of HiDPI display.

352 × 416 pixels at 2.1" is about 259 pixels per inch.

When introducing the iPhone 4, Steve Jobs said the number of pixels needed for a Retina display is about 300 PPI for a device held 10 to 12 inches from the eye.

So, not far off at all, you're right.

Has this monitor's price been announced?

the Pro stand is $999 or VESA Mount Adapter is $199.

https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/pro-display-xdr/standard-...

[1]: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12568/iiyamas-prolite-xb2779q...

[2]: https://www.dell.com/ae/business/p/dell-up2715k-monitor/pd

Low refresh rate is bad for pros for the same reason it's bad for gamers, it makes it harder to quickly and accurately perceive things in motion and it slows down your ability to accurately execute inputs. I feel the effects of the reality distortion field has caused everybody to believe that quite simply no real professionals could dislike working on 60hz LCDs and the disappointment is all caused by all those silly gamers.

I actually like extra wide displays. There are few interesting options like that but the rest seems to be dominated by low color, low resolution, low latency stuff.

Not just latency, but framerate too.

I wanted to build a gaming PC that would double as a Windows dev machine, so I wanted more pixels than 1080p.

Even with my 3090, I can only reasonably do 1440p @ 240Hz, and even then I lose some frames on Fortnite with graphics settings turned down. 4k was out. Thankfully Alienware makes a very nice 1440p 240Hz monitor.

How color accurate is the screen? How well does it handle HDR? Does it ever get blurry? If you've ever tried run Linux, either bare or VM, did it handle dpi correctly?

I haven't tested for color accuracy or HDR. No Linux. Does not get "blurry" while I'm gaming.

My only recent comparisons are my new 16" M1 MBP and my 1440p Dell U2719 monitor (provided by work). Colors are wildly better than the Dell (of course) and it seems close to the MBP, although the MBP looks better out of the box of course.

At time of purchase, the only viable 240Hz 1440p options were this Alienware or the Samsung Odyssey G7. The Alienware offered better latency, and it was 40% off on the Dell website for some reason, so that's the one I went with.

TFTCentral does pretty thorough reviews, they seem to like the Alienware. https://tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_alienware_aw2721d

I'd rather have higher density like the laptop it is connected to, with 4k. Perhaps 200dpi 3:2 or 16:10 around ~22"(56cm) diagonal that can do portrait would be my preferred monitor. Haven't seen that around unfortunately.

I could deal it being around 22" for higher density for Mac users.

It seems there's a few people in our same camp, but we haven't been heard by manufacturers yet.

Didn't Apple corner the market on these displays by buying up all available capacity for retinas?

LG, Dell, and Iiyama all made such monitors; the only survivor is the LG one. They didn't sell well, apparently.