[chucker]

I'm fine with Apple doing a bunch of premium monitors. I think they may overestimate the market for a $2500 product there, and I think even a $700 monitor is quite premium, but you do you, Apple. And, to be fair, there's no lock-in: you don't technically have to buy that monitor, and third parties could do an equivalent monitor.

But they haven't.

And I'm worried Apple isn't noticing, or doesn't know what to do. We're almost twelve years into the iPhone with Retina Display, or ten for the Mac, and external displays that support it are basically not a thing, aside from a handful of products, all but one of them discontinued. And meanwhile, macOS has gotten worse about rendering text when not in Retina, by removing subpixel rendering altogether.

I worry that nobody at Apple looks into "how are Macs actually typically used", because "after buying a $3k MacBook Pro, I will add a $2.5k monitor to the basket" ain't it.

I don't need Apple to make a $300 Retina Display. That was never going to happen. What I need them to do is either figure out a strategy where other display vendors start competing for each other to make high-resolution displays (Microsoft has the same problem, although to a lesser extent; maybe talk to them?), or Apple needs to roll back some of their dogmatic decisions here. I get it: it's nice for developers to throw an entire complex legacy path of code away. But that legacy path of subpixel rendering is actually still relevant for almost anybody with an additional display. That's gotta be tens of millions of users. Do they not have metrics on that?