Apple's Arrogance on Full Display

Apple's Arrogance on Full Display

There are many reasons for a professional photographer or video editor to shell out thousands of dollars for Apple's new Pro Display XDR monitor. But only Apple would be arrogant enough to think anyone — professional or otherwise — should shell out $1,000 for a stand to go with it. 

You read that right. One thousand U.S. dollars to hold upright the monitor you just spent $5,000 or $6,000 to purchase. It tilts! It rotates! It raises and lowers! Come on. 

I'm an unabashed Apple fan. I typed this story on a MacBook Pro, I use two iPad Pro 12.9" tablets for work and for fun, and I have an iPhone X. I love tech, and I'm willing to put out the money to acquire the latest and greatest gadgetry that makes my life a little more streamlined and, yes, fun. And I'll defer to Fstoppers colleague Steven Kampff who argues Apple's Pro Display XDR is worth it. But charging $1,000 for a monitor stand is the height of absurdity. 

The very idea of spending as much on a hunk of metal to hold up your display as you would for a portable computer that puts the world at your fingertips and fits in your pocket is almost maddening. 

Some may argue that given the exorbitant cost of a high-end monitor such as a Flanders, paying an additional $1,000 to bring your total cost to $6,000 or $7,000 for a quality display (and stand) is still a bargain. But, realistically, what's the point of spending that much extra money for a stand? 

You can literally just lean the monitor against your new Mac Pro computer or even prop it up with a stack of books, such as Business Plans For DummiesThe Total Money MakeoverStack Your Savings, and Why Didn't They Teach Me This in School?: 99 Personal Money Management Principles to Live By, all of which would represent a better investment spending than $1,000 on a stand. 

You'll probably want a more stable solution for your $6,000 monitor, but there are plenty of actual stands that retail for far less than Apple's. While they may not carry the status of a Cupertino product, they'll hold your monitor in place all the same. 

I'm all for getting immersed in the Apple ecosystem, but the Pro Stand simply doesn't fit in at that price.

Would you spend $1,000 on a monitor stand? Drop a comment below and let us know what you think of Apple's pricing. 

Log in or register to post comments


Get over it already honestly. Should they have just priced the entire package at 6k, probably? But many people who would get this, don't need the stand because they put it on a cart, or arm.

This is not a monitor for me, it's overkill but for what it does it's amazing. How about it can show you an HDR display in the top window while editing while the timeline is can be shown differently. This goes well beyond just bitching about a stand.

luxludus's picture

Exactly. All this faux rage is tiring... Comparable REFERENCE monitors cost at least double the price of the monitor PLUS stand, so - while I'm not interested in the package; my iMac Pro suits my needs perfectly - this monitor, even with this stand thrown in, is a bargain. Add to that I could just buy the monitor and use my existing VESA stand instead of the shiny new one, and I'd be set and done. But yes, they should just have announced the monitor/stand combination and left it at that.

Any way you slice it, this monitor is an amazing piece of tech. Not for me, but I can appreciate the beauty and amazingness of it. So, if you think it's too expensive - DON'T BUY IT. It REALLY is that simple. Maybe the author should stick to 'coastal landscapes' instead of opining about tech...

michaeljin's picture

I don't think it's "faux rage". It seems to me that the rage is pretty real...

Brian Pernicone's picture

Also, there wasn't a single complaint about the price of the monitor in the article.

Plus it is all a "self-nuke" by Apple to have caused the bad press to begin with, because they separated the monitor from the stand. As such, each product lives (or dies) on its own individual merits.

On the $1K stand, the MSRP is clearly absurd, even if it had been made out of Titanium (which it is not). Sure, we can get into discussions of cost-of-manufacturing with small quantities, but the bottom line is that Apple's NRE (Non-Recurring Engineering) expenses should have been paid from a different account (such as the Marketing Damage Control from having no product updates for six years) and not saddled onto this product - - that's a management/leadership failure, pure and simple.

And on the monitor, Apple chose to use a non-standard bolt hole pattern for VESA interface, which couldn't not have been deliberate. The fix is a $10 sheet of bent aluminum with the correct VESA hole pattern, not the $200 that Apple is asking for.

And given that hole patterns ... especially a round one ... are not innovative such that they can be granted IP-protection, I sincerely hope that some entrepreneurial machine shop will stand up to offer their VESA interface adaptor plate for $75 and get good press so that the entire (remaining) Apple Pro community buys his alternative just to send Apple a message.

Brian Pernicone's picture

I mean, "coastal photography" isn't as glamorous as "pet portraits," but I don't see the need to throw quotes around it as if it's a pejorative.

It's funny that while you opine about my "faux outrage," you actually agree with me that the stand should have simply come with the monitor. So who, exactly, is faux outraged here?

And, no, the stand is not an "amazing piece of tech." (I like this "quotes" thing.) ;)

luxludus's picture

The monitor is the amazing piece of tech; with or without the stand. My point was merely to say that if they had announced the monitor (WITH the stand) even at $7,500 it would still have been a bargain. If anybody thinks the stand is overpriced, then don’t buy it. Simple solution. Definitely overkill for me, but I do appreciate great tech when I see it.

Jon Winkleman's picture

Brian: Do you think kit lenses should be included with all camera bodies which increases their cost? No difference. If buying a bundle of a body and kit lens makes sense for you, WONDERFUL! However if you already have good lenses or the kit lens does not meet your needs shouldn’t Nikon and Canon offer just the body so you can use your current lenses or buy the lens that best suits your needs? Coastal photography is not a pejorative but professionally you do not need a $5K monitor system with such color precision. Coca Cola employs R&D color professionals that constantly strategize and tweak the exact pantone number of the red they use for bottles and cans. When Coke hires photographers or graphic designers they pay handsomely but also demand color precision to match what they invest in the precise color of their products. Their photographers are also shooting with $100,000 digital medium format systems that reproduce color far better than DSLRs.

It is faux outrage on your part as coastal photographers and the majority of pet photographers have no need for and whose businesses would not justify the investment in such a monitor except out of vanity. no different than the false outrage over the cost of Profoto strobes and a $9.8K parabolic reflector. Great investment that pays for itself by certain professionals. For others it is overkill and a waste.

As Rolls Royce used to say, if you have to ask about gas milage, you are not someone who would buy our cars.

Brian Pernicone's picture

Again, I made no argument against the cost of the monitor. Charging $1,000 for a stand is Apple's way of saying, "Hell, they'll buy it because we say they should." This is not some feat of engineering, nor even of aesthetic. It's a slim piece of metal that holds up your monitor. That's it. That's all it does.

Christian Durand's picture

I was not aware that Apple forced you to buy anything. !

They kinda do since their vesa adapter by itself is $200...

Exactly. Don't like the price? Then don't buy it. Same as when people buy (or don't buy) your photography.

Kang Lee's picture

Well this is just an oppurtuniy for a third party to release an exact replica for $200

Of course it is. The problem will be solved.

Deleted Account's picture

Don't buy it. Problem solved.

You're right, of course. They don't force anyone to buy it. So it's an easy problem to solve.

Errick Jackson's picture

Dude chill. The people this monitor is for aren't concerned over the cost of a stand. A lot of these production studios are buying the monitor standalone anyway. And otherwise, just use a third party vesa mount stand. $200 for the adapter isn't all that painful if you're already spending $5K on the monitor anyway.

Campbell Sinclair's picture

Nail on the head mate - "production studio'. This is aimed at companies not individuals.

Truthfully, it shows that this monitor was not really marketed to you so get over it. The intended market will place it on a VESA stand with all their other monitors. There is nothing wrong that this monitor was never meant for you. And in reality, look at the stand, it is simple and elegant and took a lot of engineering to come up with the innards to be able to do what it does. I think it is more arrogant that you follow the herd and not do research on a article before you write.

Brian Pernicone's picture

There was no complaint about the monitor in the article. A "simple and elegant" $1,000 hunk of metal to hold it up? Who's following the herd?

"and took a lot of engineering to come up with the innards to be able to do what it does"

Mechanical engineer here. No it didn't.

> Mechanical engineer here. No it didn't.

ME here too ... and even if the stand did contain some 'clever' work, that part of the Engineering was Prior Art which Apple had paid for 17 years ago and just dusted off:

Considering photographers easily spend $1000+ on tripod legs (Head not included). I don't think we should be getting our panties in a knot over this.

Rayann Elzein's picture

You really can't see the difference between a tripod, that's supposed to keep your camera stable enough to take a sharp picture, and a monitor stand that has no function at all?

So you're saying $1000 (Not including the head) tripod legs will make your photos 1000 times sharper than a $250 tripod? The argument being made is all the stand is doing is holding the monitor in place. Which for 95% of photographers a tripod is doing. Which is why a massive portion of photographers will buy a tripod under $250. And the ones who are more serious or professional will spend $1000 and up.

And no function at all? Have you or anyone else even used it yet? For all you know, people will be able to precisely setup their professional grade monitor with it using a single pinky and have it scratch their back for them. The point is, I'll wait for people who actually buy the monitor to speak on the stand, instead of a bunch of ding dongs on the net who would never (ever) even buy the monitor chiming in with their unneeded opinions.

michaeljin's picture

$1000 tripods tend to extend longer, have greater stability, and be lighter than $250 tripods—all of which do actually matter quite a bit to a photographer who carries around and uses a tripod. Not exactly an "apples to apples" comparison to monitor stands there.

Francisco B's picture

Lol, bad analogy. There is all types of engineering that goes into reducing camera vibration in a tripod, as well as designing it so its easily placed on almost any type of surface. A stand on the other hand serves no purpose other than holding something. There is no reason a stand for a 30 inch monitor should be more than a couple hundred bucks. There are wall mounts for 70 inch tv's that are 50 bucks lol.

What apple should have done is just sold the stand with the monitor instead of obnoxiously selling a stand separately.

Campbell Sinclair's picture

A 400 dollar tripod will work the same as a 1000 dollar tripod.

Only Apply????? Have you scene what RED or ARRI charges for their accessories?

More comments