> 2560x1440 /logical/ pixels (what apple calls points) at 27" to be the ideal amount of [MacOS] screen real estate (and physical size for [MacOS] UI elements)

ftfy. Apple is double dealing you here. Apple developed MacOS to look best at that size/density, and forced the development of the few expensive displays are that size/density... After a decade waiting for third party displays to meet up their standard, to no avail, perhaps Apple should just modify the OS to better support other HiDPI displays available

Nah, that's not true. Linux also looks best at roughly that scale. Everything is way too big at 1080p@1x/4k@2x at 27" -- in both macOS and Linux. I'm not too sure about Windows, but given the fact that cross-platform apps like web browsers render everything at the same logical size across the systems, and the fact that browsers don't look hilariously out of place in Windows. I'm gonna assume that it applies to Windows as well.

I used to have a 27" 1080p monitor for my Linux box, now I have a 27" 1440p monitor and a 24" 1080p monitor. Everything looks less oversized now.

I don't know about 4k@27, but 1080@27 is indeed too big. The only thing I want to be big is the text - and icons maybe -, But I can't stomach big UI elements.

FWIW, 4k is 3840x2160, which is (19202)x(10802). So 4k@27 running at a 2x scale is exactly the same physical area per logical pixel as 1080p@27 running at a 1x scale.

I have a 1440p@27 monitor. That gives me enough real estate to actually use editors and IDE and have some real estate. I could probably do 4k, but maybe @32 inches and native resolution.

Yes, I made the reasonable assumption that anyone interested in an Apple display is using a Mac.

> Apple should just modify the OS to better support other HiDPI displays available

For a number of years[1][2], OS X did partially support fractional scaling. They ultimately decided the tradeoffs, as mentioned in other comments, weren't worth it and went integer-only[3]. Even if it were still supported, it wouldn't be a complete substitute for displays of appropriate pixel density for integer scaling.

[1]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2005/04/macosx-10-4/20/#scal... [2]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2007/10/mac-os-x-10-5/9/#res... [3]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7/14/#hi...

I don't like the idea of my Mac OS being tainted by concessions to the hardware reality of the products the rest of the industry produces. Then there's no one at all to embarrass the state of the industry.

Why are you saying this is a macOS thing? It's the same for Windows and Linux.

Windows supports non-integer DPI scaling. The typical riposte is many (most?) third party Windows programs don't support it* BUT many third party MacOS didn't support 'Retina' scaling for some time after launch either (I have more faith in MacOS developer system to jump on board if Apple added support)

True, though “no supporting” mainly meant that icons and images looked a little blurry because they were scaled up from 1x. The text and app layouts were fine.

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.

As a counterpoint, I absolutely love my LG Ultrafine 5k. I bought a second one even. Never had any issues at all, and I love taking video calls, doing design work, etc. on them.

Not only is the UltraFine 5k’s chassis creaky, it can’t handle the heat the display produces and has an extremely high rate of cracking with pieces flaking off. The whole product is abysmal in terms of quality, I don’t know how LG thought it was ok to release.

What's weird to me is it doesn't take a genius to guess at what an Apple monitor would have looked like.

Why can zero other companies execute on something like this? Sure Apple has advantages with scale, but it's not like they're squeezing tight margins. There was a lot of room under the cost of the Pro Display XDR.

I'm not sure why none of these other companies can really execute on high quality hardware.

Hell, just take the same LG panel that's used by both the LG UltraFine and the Apple Studio Display, put it in a well-built metal case, don't waste money on things like the A13 CPU, 64GB of flash, 13 megapixel camera, high-quality speaker system, etc, don't spend as many engineering resources on making the monitor as thin-and-light as possible. You could've made the standard monitor for anyone who wants a 5k 27" screen.

I don't understand why the only manufacturer in the 5k 27" screen market was LG for half a decade and now only LG and Apple. There should be so much room here.

IIRC there was a Dell monitor that used this panel too, but its availability was extremely brief and Dell EOL’d it not too long after release. I believe it had issues with waking from sleep and its picture blinking out sometimes, I guess they had QC issues with their driver board.

There might have been a Dell, but the company I remember was Planar. The panel even had the webcam cutout (but no webcam) as I recall.

https://www.planar.com/media/439284/planar-ix2790-specsheet....

Maybe the demand isn’t there? There might not be a big intersect between those who are willing to spend > $1000 on a monitor and those who wouldn’t want to buy non-Apple hardware.

Maybe? There were years without any viable option where I think people would have.

Now that Apple is back in the game you're probably right.

Inexplicably, Apple buyers trade price for less functionality.