Hacker News Reader

Comment by tshaddox | Hacker News Reader

That's decent pixel density considering the size of the monitor. A 32" 4K monitor has slightly higher PPI at around 138.

View on HN

I have a 40in 5k (32in 4k, but wider). IMHO, 138ppi is the bare minimum, but it really depends on a person's eyesight and preferences.

I would love a large-ish ultra-wide with > 160ppi. One day, maybe, that being said, by that time those things will exist and be reasonably priced, my eyes might not be able to appreciate the difference.

I'm using three 4k 32" screens arranged vertically, for 6480 x 3840 desktop size.

The only real monitor upgrade I'm willing to entertain is a ~50" 8k curved screen (basically a curved TV-sized screen), which has not been made yet AFAIK. I'm not into "ultrawide", for me it has to be "ultrawide" and "ultratall". I want all that screen real estate in high PPI.

I tried test-driving a 50" 4k TV for a week and the flatness of it was not what I wanted, it has to be a curved screen for workstation use.

100% I used to have a 43-inch 4K "monitor" (16:9). The lack of curvature meant that at the sides of the screen, there was noticeable color shifting due to variations in viewing angle. That's with an IPS panel.

Your dream is probably a ~50in 8K TV (with RGB pattern if you are on macOS), but curved. I don't know if that will ever exist.

Personally, I found that with a bigger 16:9, I would not use the top and bottom of the screen. When I "downgraded" to a 40in ultra-wide, there was not much difference in the space I was using.

I use all of the screen, top, bottom, everything. I need the space. An ultra-wide just will not do for me, or I would have bought one already.

It’s a fraction of what most Apple customers are used to.

I'm an Apple customer and I'm used to 109 PPI. I imagine it's not that rare for Apple customers to buy monitors not made by Apple.

In terms of pixel count it's between Apple's 5k and 6k monitors, and its pricing is between the two. It's also far lower pixel density. So, not really.

The freakin stand alone is $1300 CAD.

What planet are those people on? That's Gucci bag territory. They can take their res and shove it, that's almost NINE GRAND (granted, Canadian pesos) for a freakin display! Who is this for, just Pixar employees?

It's a halo status symbol for price insensitive people. Lamborghini makes compromised overpriced vehicles but they have a market.

And how much do you think the Humanscale mount costs that you would otherwise use? The Pro Display XDR is too heavy for a $30 Amazon Basics mounting arm or anything similarly cheap.

If you’re suggesting the only way to mount a display of that weight drives you into that price territory, that’s just ridiculous.

There’s huge monitors from other companies that come with mounts that handle more weight than that. Granted, it’s not some art deco CNC monstrosity.

I think the sibling comment nailed it: this is just a status symbol.

The Pro Display XDR is 7.48 kg and a $199 Ergotron LX Pro is rated up to 10 kg, so that's a fifth of the Apple stand's price.

And looking at Amazon.de listings, it's definitely possible to buy a cheap arm that's good for 7.5 kg. A "suptek Monitor Mount" is good for 10 kg according to the listing: https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0833NQ8CR

> The freakin stand alone is $1300 CAD.

We're not just talking about Apple's stand-alone display, but even their laptops are high-ppi. 13" M4 Apple Air:

> 13.6-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit display with IPS technology;2 2560-by-1664 native resolution at 224 pixels per inch

* https://www.apple.com/ca/macbook-air/specs/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com