I was hoping for OLED or dual-OLED based monitors, especially for this price point but I’d want this slightly lower than the XDR price. Sequoia+Tahoe seems like they’ve been laying the groundwork for OLED macs — removing the menu bar background and making text dynamically change colour, moving/cycling backgrounds, liquid glass reducing the effect of static UI elements, etc.

I personally wouldn’t buy a new LCD based display anymore at this price. There are flaws inherent to the technology that affect all of my recent Apple displays (Studio Display, M1 Pro iPad, M1 Pro MPB, M4 Pro MPB). After using OLED TVs and OLED iPhones for years, it’s very difficult to look past LCD’s issues (edge yellowing+dimming specifically affects all my Apple screens more than I am happy with).

There are no reviews/studies on long-term aging of Apple’s LCD displays, so all of this should be taken with a grain of salt, maybe my devices are just unlucky.

I don’t know if the Pro XDR line is better or how that would carry over to the Studio XDR. I haven’t seen many complains about the Pro XDR, but the Studio Display form factor has a different cooling design which would affect longevity.

I will say I can never go back from retina resolution text, and that alone has made the experience of Studio Display good. If we could get OLED it would be perfection. I think I would have to see the XDR in practice to be convinced, but 120hz requiring a whole new computer does make it a non-starter for me.

▲

craftkiller 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Along similar lines, there's no way I would buy an OLED at this price point. If I'm dropping $3k on a monitor, it needs to be a technology that lasts, not a technology that wears out over time.

▲

szmarczak 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Current gen OLEDs almost don't wear out (saying this as an OLED owner). To see the wear you need to have a completely black room and the wear is unnoticeable unless you're specifically looking for it. You don't need to spend 3k, 1k is enough.

▲

craftkiller 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Ah, you should update wikipedia then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED#Lifespan

▲

szmarczak an hour ago | parent [-]

> In 2016, LG Electronics reported an expected lifetime of 100,000 hours

23 years for an older generation OLED seems fine to me, I don't understand the problem here?

	▲	craftkiller 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The US Department of Energy report from the same year reports far lower numbers, which I'd be more inclined to trust since they are impartial / not trying to market a product.

▲

film42 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I bought an LG 32" 4k OLED for $999 and it's hands down the best display I've ever used. No burn in even with lots of static browser/terminal windows for days and days. The fact that it's $3k and _not_ OLED is insulting.

	▲	craftkiller 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I believe these monitors are meant for professionals, which means it is going to be used in bright office buildings. That means running the display at high brightness which is the worst case for OLED since they degrade faster at higher brightness. Quoting wikipedia: > A US Department of Energy paper shows that the expected lifespans of OLED lighting products goes down with increasing brightness, with an expected lifespan of 40,000 hours at 25% brightness, or 10,000 hours at 100% brightness

▲

nicce 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> If I'm dropping $3k on a monitor, it needs to be a technology that lasts, not a technology that wears out over time.

I bought my OLED TV when fearmongering was the highest, and it still works perfectly with zero burn-ins. So it is definitely possible. I bought the tv 8 years ago.