Hacker News Reader

Comment by jamie_ca | Hacker News Reader

Apple, with the new Mac Pro. Mac starting at $6k, Screen starting at $5k, but the monitor itself is only good on a (I hope) VESA mount, if you want an ordinary desk stand it's an extra $1k.

https://www.cnet.com/news/1000-apple-mac-pro-display-stand-s...

View on HN

It's ridiculous to call it an "ordinary desk stand" it's anything but. A 100% perfectly calibrate weightlessly counterbalanced stand is a godsend for those who need it. The rest can get the VESA adapter instead.

Furthermore, this is a product targeting a market that normally spends over $40,000 on a monitor without any mounting gear or stand to do the same work. Apple's display a bargain in context.

If you think this is "an ordinary desk stand" then you are, without one iota of a doubt, absolutely not the consumer who needs or wants the device or even understands it.

It's sad to see such victims of marketing.

While I'm 99% sure you're just trolling, on the 1% chance you're really not, the OP is absolutely correct in that Apple is positioning their $6000 monitor against $30K+ cinema editing monitors. They really exist. A lot of the Pro Display XDR specs are really very very clearly aimed at competing with them. Those specs may not be something you care about, but let's not pretend it's "yeah, whatever, I can get this other 6K monitor over here that's just as good for $499, man" deal. (Dell has an 8K monitor for under $4000, but the Apple monitor is 2.5 times brighter, has a contrast ratio that's over 750 times better, has 9 different reference modes, variable refresh rates specifically matched for film use -- you know, like a cinema editing monitor? Yeah, that.)

Apple certainly made a bad marketing mistake with this monitor, but the mistake was marketing it as a $5000 monitor with a $1000 stand. If they'd just marketed it as a $6000 monitor -- and if they'd made it clear right then that there'd be a 5K option available for $1300, too -- they'd have saved themselves a whole lot of this nonsense.

> the OP is absolutely correct in that Apple is positioning their $6000 monitor against $30K+ cinema editing monitors.

If you want to see Apple's competition, the magic phrase is "reference monitor".

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand the inherent superiority of Apple products...

>this is a product targeting a market that normally spends over $40,000 on a monitor without any mounting gear or stand to do the same work. Apple's display a bargain in context.

Sure, the cost of the stand is peanuts to the overall cost, a pro will buy it without a blink - but that doesn't mean it's not overpriced. Same thing happens in every industry where professional tools come with extras and accessories not worth the price, but not worth the time to shop around either when the cost is a tiny fraction of the total

Are they really only marketing to those customers? Given the pitch in the keynote, I kinda doubt it. Reminds me of those fancy six figure sports cars that are capable of all sorts of things you would never do on a regular street...”it’s a good price for those who need all that power”...well sure but most of the people who bought it were convinced by the marketing that having all that power was cool and made them seem like a pro, not because they will ever really use it themselves, and the marketers know it.

Without access to Apple’s sales data, I could be wrong though.

I think they really are marketing that monitor only to those customers. People who want the computer but don't expect to be editing feature films with it can get a 5K LG monitor for $1300. (Of course, those people -- even the ones editing feature films, when push comes to shove -- could also probably get an iMac Pro, or even just a "normal" iMac with bumped-up specs.)

Naw, not unless you’re firing up an eGPU...not for 4K, anyway.

Everything I'd read suggests that Avid Media Composer gets along just fine with 4K video on a (non-Pro) iMac, if you bump up to a Core i9, Radeon 580, and 32G of RAM or so. The eGPU or the iMac Pro would be nicer, but the base iMac is still powerful enough it's not going to make you hate life. There were 4K movies being edited on less powerful machines just a few years ago, after all. :)

Did you actually watch the keynote? It's painfully obvious they are marketing it specifically to reference monitor buyers. They stressed the features those customers would care about super hard and made outright comparisons to products only those buyers would even know exist let alone actually buy.

So yes, their primary market target is that group.

That being said, coming out and saying "Hey man, we made this thing that normally costs like $40k for only $5k isn't that pretty impressive?" should resonate with anyone interested in tech. I guess the issue here is that Apple assumed people not interested in this product would just not get all upset about something that doesn't involve them. But that's not how we are these days is it? Seems like people can't help but attack everything they see that doesn't precisely please them.

It's impressive but still a bit too... rarefied. I suppose most people who were upset about it were so because Apple looks like it's bragging “Look, we're not just for billionaires any more, now mere multi-millionaires can afford our products!” And this is entirely Apple's own fault: They've been fostering the idea that their product shows are hugely important and relevant, that their walled garden is where it's at. So of course ordinary people will expect the stuff shown there to (be at least supposed to) be relevant to... Well, ordinary people.

Sure, this screen, and its stand and everything, certainly deserves praise and adulation from its intended target audience. But the place to present it and receive that adulation is at the Obscure Graphic Artists Conference (attendance 837), not an event aimed at the general compunerdy public.

Personally, I'll be impressed when they repeat the feat at human scale and present a monitor that used to cost $5K for $500.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com