What is the Perfect Monitor

TNA said:
No need to justify how you spend you money. But yeah I suppose if you are going to use it that long, I can see why you may be willing to pay for so much :)

I personally never keep a monitor more than 3 years, once warranty is gone I get rid of it and buy new tech. Plus I enjoy buying new tech and trying different things out. I think £500-600 is plenty of money for them to make a nice profit on a Freesync 2 4K monitor.
Click to expand...

Well ok I pulled the number 10 out of thin air, but the sentiment is I'd want it to last a long time. I generally feel that's the best way to approach most purchasing / investment decisions. Spending more on something of greater quality that will last a long time usually results in you spending less in the long run and having better products than spending less on lower-quality products that don't last as long. I'd rather buy a great £2k monitor once than buy 4 £700 monitors.
 
Sampsy said:
Well ok I pulled the number 10 out of thin air, but the sentiment is I'd want it to last a long time. I generally feel that's the best way to approach most purchasing / investment decisions. Spending more on something of greater quality that will last a long time usually results in you spending less in the long run and having better products than spending less on lower-quality products that don't last as long. I'd rather buy a great £2k monitor once than buy 4 £700 monitors.
Click to expand...
That depends on what you are buying. I agree with what you said and it works for most things none tech. Had I done what you said 4-5 years ago with a monitor, let alone 10, I would still be without a 4K monitor and most would not have a freesync or g-sync monitor. Each to their own though :)
 
TNA said:
Ay caramba!

With so many people willing to pay four figure sums for a monitor, I get the feeling the only feedback that will end up filtering through from this thread to LG HQ is... increase prices! :p
Click to expand...
Oh, I was mostly thinking the opposite. For me it seems like some people have quite unrealistic expectations on what features can be included on a certain price point, especially if they also ask for an improved quality control. And I'm not talking about the few clearly tongue-in-cheek messages, either.

I got the feeling that people are wanting top features with Eizo-level quality, for AOC/iiyama prices. Which quite simply isn't feasible. Eizo sacrifices price level for a higher quality, while AOC/iiyama sacrifice quality for a lower price level. I think this is what they call "differentiation".

You guys have to understand that there has been a race to the bottom prices, and corners have been cut. The reason for the race to the bottom is precisely because people only buy budget options, so there are bigger profits to be made there, and manufacturers naturally focus their efforts to that area.

To get out of that pit, we simply have to be willing to pay sensible prices for the monitors, or lower our expectations on feature lists. "Something's gotta give."

But I also understand that Joe-six-packs will skew the market dramatically, and the enthusiast market might have a hard time making a difference. Personally, I've just recently bought a good monitor, so I hopefully won't be in the market for another 5-10 years. So it will be interesting to see how the market will evolve in the next 5 years.

Ps. Actually, considering the price is an essential aspect to feature wishlists, it would be beneficial if more people added their price range. Currently less than half of the wishlist-presenters have chimed in with an actual price tag. Wishlist without a price is just a list of the person's favourite features. If the price that person is willing to pay is £100, then manufacturers naturally won't bother. But if the customer is willing to pay £1000, then manufacturers might start calculating whether there's a potential for bigger margins in that target group.
 
aatu said:
Oh, I was mostly thinking the opposite. For me it seems like some people have quite unrealistic expectations on what features can be included on a certain price point, especially if they also ask for an improved quality control. And I'm not talking about the few clearly tongue-in-cheek messages, either.

I got the feeling that people are wanting top features with Eizo-level quality, for AOC/iiyama prices. Which quite simply isn't feasible. Eizo sacrifices price level for a higher quality, while AOC/iiyama sacrifice quality for a lower price level. I think this is what they call "differentiation".

You guys have to understand that there has been a race to the bottom prices, and corners have been cut. The reason for the race to the bottom is precisely because people only buy budget options, so there are bigger profits to be made there, and manufacturers naturally focus their efforts to that area.

To get out of that pit, we simply have to be willing to pay sensible prices for the monitors, or lower our expectations on feature lists. "Something's gotta give."

But I also understand that Joe-six-packs will skew the market dramatically, and the enthusiast market might have a hard time making a difference. Personally, I've just recently bought a good monitor, so I hopefully won't be in the market for another 5-10 years. So it will be interesting to see how the market will evolve in the next 5 years.

Ps. Actually, considering the price is an essential aspect to feature wishlists, it would be beneficial if more people added their price range. Currently less than half of the wishlist-presenters have chimed in with an actual price tag. Wishlist without a price is just a list of the person's favourite features. If the price that person is willing to pay is £100, then manufacturers naturally won't bother. But if the customer is willing to pay £1000, then manufacturers might start calculating whether there's a potential for bigger margins in that target group.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the only reason some of these expectations seem unrealistic is because people have accepted the current silly prices so automatically assume more features must equal more money. But that is not how it really works, otherwise monitors as new tech came in and resolution went up would have ended up cost 10k or 100k by now.

I do agree that quality control will bump up prices, but it cannot be so bad that a monitor needs to cost 2K! How is it that monitors had MUCH better quality control in the past and did not cost as much as they do these days?
 
What silly prices? I think the fact that nowadays you can even get a monitor for £100 is silly. I just recently paid 500€ for mine, and it's the cheapest monitor I've ever bought. The others have been 700€, 800€ and 800€.

Here are two old quotes that solidify my view on things:
aatu said:
Even bigger rant, adding more fuel to the cost saving discussion:
I think that most people don't even realize just how much monitor pricing has come down, relatively speaking. We are now getting bigger sizes, higher resolutions, higher refresh rates, faster response times, lower input lags, lower power consumption (and less heat), thinner bezels and chassis, lighter weight, ergonomic stands, flicker-free, ultra-wides, curved screens, touch screens, G-Sync/FreeSync, higher bit-depth, HDR -- heck, we even had 3D come and go in the middle, just to be re-awakened by VR --, yet we still demand even lower prices.

The technological advances were quite stale for a long time, which allowed the manufacturing to mature in peace, which in turn enabled prices to go down. But then the situation kind of blew up, and manufacturers started scrambling to different directions. A single advancement would have been tolerable in pricing, but if we're combining multiple (or all) advances to a single unit, then the costs will naturally rise, accordingly. But customers were already accustomed to the lower prices, and aren't willing to follow suit.

But like they say: "Something's gotta give."
And this time around, it's quality control.
Click to expand...

aatu said:
From what I've understood, most of the current cheap mass-marketed IPS screens were/are based on the eIPS or AH-IPS evolutions, which improved upon the response times and manufacturing costs, but sacrificed on other areas (light leakage, IPS glow?). But customers (especially gamers) showed that they'd indeed rather buy a faster £300 eIPS/AH-IPS than a slower £600 H-IPS/P-IPS (IIRC the types). Then there's AHVA, which isn't apparently a direct successor to any of the above, but is still regarded as IPS (even though it has -VA on its name). But pricing follows more closely the budget class eIPS and AH-IPS, with the same focus on improving response times, so I'm guessing the sacrifices might be on the same scale?
Click to expand...
 
aatu said:
What silly prices? I think the fact that nowadays you can even get a monitor for £100 is silly. I just recently paid 500€ for mine, and it's the cheapest monitor I've ever bought. The others have been 700€, 800€ and 800€.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you are trying to make my point for me or? :p

But I suppose it is all relative.
 
Not sure. From your initial post I got the impression that you think the current prices are too high. Nexus18 apparently got the same impression. But I highly disagree with that notion. I think 500€ (£430) was a VERY cheap price for the monitor I got. I expected a lot worse. Fingers crossed it won't suddenly break down. And I think £100 is so low that people should be lucky if it even shows the primary colors correctly.

I think 700€ (£600) is a fair price for a good monitor. By no means a top of the line model with the newest feature-set, but should be of satisfactory quality. Alternatively you should be able to get a VERY high quality monitor with lesser features, or lesser quality monitor with lots of new features.

Like so:
A) Features 7 - Quality 7 (sweet spot)
B) Features 4 - Quality 9
C) Features 9 - Quality 3

At least for now, I do consider my 500€ investment to be equal to a 800-900€ investment (F7, Q8). Relatively wide array of features, but still fairly top quality, too. I'm guessing I lucked out. Or maybe other people are just too fussy.
 
aatu said:
Not sure. From your initial post I got the impression that you think the current prices are too high. Nexus18 apparently got the same impression. But I highly disagree with that notion. I think 500€ (£430) was a VERY cheap price for the monitor I got. I expected a lot worse. Fingers crossed it won't suddenly break down. And I think £100 is so low that people should be lucky if it even shows the primary colors correctly.

I think 700€ (£600) is a fair price for a good monitor. By no means a top of the line model with the newest feature-set, but should be of satisfactory quality. Alternatively you should be able to get a VERY high quality monitor with lesser features, or lesser quality monitor with lots of new features.

Like so:
A) Features 7 - Quality 7 (sweet spot)
B) Features 4 - Quality 9
C) Features 9 - Quality 3

At least for now, I do consider my 500€ investment to be equal to a 800-900€ investment (F7, Q8). Relatively wide array of features, but still fairly top quality, too. I'm guessing I lucked out. Or maybe other people are just too fussy.
Click to expand...

I do think the past couple of years monitor prices have been creeping up. Now you have Asus bringing out a 4K 144hz IPS monitor that is rumoured to cost £1500 or more...

What's next, an 4K 144HZ OLED monitor for £2000?

After Daniel passes on all the feedback he gets from this thread to HQ, I won't be surprised if that happens in 2018! :p:(
 
Wait, are you talking about the Asus ROG PG27UQ ?
http://edgeup.asus.com/2017/01/04/rog-pg27uq-intro/

- 27"
- 4K
- 144Hz
- IPS
- Quantum Dot
- HDR
- G-Sync
- 384-zone backlight
- ergonomic stand
- $1200 (£960+tax)

... That's like EVERY possible feature we currently have available? Well, there's still curvedness, OLED, Ultra-wide, and more diagonal size, I guess.

So, they're cramming all that into ONE monitor, for the first time ever? Most of those features are so new that they haven't even yet had the time to properly mature in the market. The G-Sync alone probably costs £300 in there. Actually, I find it quite surprising they're not setting the price higher. But maybe the quality control isn't that high either, then.
 
I'm still not sure why some people are surprised others are listing "unrealistic" specs that would result in a very expensive monitor. We were after all asked to describe our perfect monitor, not simply one we think is ok or good.

I also wouldn't be super happy about a price tag of £2k - that's simply the maximum I would be willing to pay. I.e. it's the approximate price above which my consumer surplus is negative. I'd be much happier buying it for £1.5k or £1.2k obviously.
 
Last edited:
aatu said:
Wait, are you talking about the Asus ROG PG27UQ ?
http://edgeup.asus.com/2017/01/04/rog-pg27uq-intro/

- 27"
- 4K
- 144Hz
- IPS
- Quantum Dot
- HDR
- G-Sync
- 384-zone backlight
- ergonomic stand
- $1200 (£960+tax)

... That's like EVERY possible feature we currently have available? Well, there's still curvedness, OLED, Ultra-wide, and more diagonal size, I guess.

So, they're cramming all that into ONE monitor, for the first time ever? Most of those features are so new that they haven't even yet had the time to properly mature in the market. The G-Sync alone probably costs £300 in there. Actually, I find it quite surprising they're not setting the price higher. But maybe the quality control isn't that high either, then.
Click to expand...
I can guarantee that monitor will come in at £1200+ in the UK.
 
aatu said:
Wait, are you talking about the Asus ROG PG27UQ ?
http://edgeup.asus.com/2017/01/04/rog-pg27uq-intro/

- 27"
- 4K
- 144Hz
- IPS
- Quantum Dot
- HDR
- G-Sync
- 384-zone backlight
- ergonomic stand
- $1200 (£960+tax)

... That's like EVERY possible feature we currently have available? Well, there's still curvedness, OLED, Ultra-wide, and more diagonal size, I guess.

So, they're cramming all that into ONE monitor, for the first time ever? Most of those features are so new that they haven't even yet had the time to properly mature in the market. The G-Sync alone probably costs £300 in there. Actually, I find it quite surprising they're not setting the price higher. But maybe the quality control isn't that high either, then.
Click to expand...

Yeah that one. I recall reading it will be between $1500-$2000.

You don't need to be surprised, they will be setting it higher :p:(
 
Sampsy said:
I'm still not sure why some people are surprised others are listing "unrealistic" specs that would result in a very expensive monitor. We were after all asked to describe our perfect monitor, not simply one we think is ok or good.
Click to expand...

Agreed - but then, if there WAS an option of the perfect monitor for a terrifying price... I'd probably buy it. So, LG, deliver unto me my 32" 100Hz QHD with both g-sync + freesync, 100% Adobe RGB gamut, zero-BLB guarantee, zero-dead-pixels guarantee, and a 5 year warranty and take my £2k, tbqh :)

The frustrating part about the current monitor market IMHO, is that there isn't an actual premium option. You can have a wide colour gamut with good accuracy, but poor response and refresh. You can have great response and refresh, with poor accuracy. You can have good colours and middling response and refresh, but you have to suffer BLB that's considered "a normal part of the technology". Where is my option to spend more for a monitor that has NO weak points? I feel like I need two monitors; one for gaming and one for working...
 
£1500-2000 for a LCD based 27-40" monitor.....

I will take a lovely 55" OLED 4K true HDR for £1600 any day of the week :D OLED alone will more than make up for the lack of free/g sync and higher input lag, at least for myself who cares mostly about IQ/colours and quality :p

Even this puts monitor pricing to shame imo:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-samsung-ku6400-4k-tv-review

Whilst what is said about there being so many advancements etc. now and that the price goes up with all these new things, don't forget 10 years ago, what we now consider a very basic 23" 1920x1080 IPS 60HZ monitor now could be had <£400 and back then that would have been considered a "top line" product, nowadays, those monitors are extremely cheap to make, it is the same for the stuff you mentioned, it is still rather basic in terms of the panel itself and a lot of those things have been around for ages now so the manufacturing costs should be cheaper today than they were when first released.

It is like my 29um65, I got it 4 years ago and yet the price for the newer version that came out 2/3 years ago is still the exact same price as it was back then...

Also, the fact that gibbo could drop the likes of the acer x34 freesync from £800+ to £560 (before brexit) shows just how much gouging is going on :o

Like I said earlier though, brexit has played a big part in increased pricing and sadly, things will only get worse :(
 
Aside from showcasing specs that people want, the other point to the thread from my side was to be able to showcase that if a monitor can be produced by any manufacturer that covers off all the specs, along with great build quality, no issues and a good warranty then money almost becomes irrelevant (to an extent, nobody would pay £5k for it, but if a 144Hz 1ms OLED ultrawide with all the bells and whistles came along for £2500 meaning people could be confident in their monitor purchase lasting the technology growth for 4-5 years then it would be bought)

my personal opinion is that every manufacturer has the ability to make the most amazing screen - the issue is actually taking the plunge as the price may seem inhibitive as to how many would be sold - if you sell 5 a month its not financially viable.

Monitor prices are crazy, the fact that you can pick up a 24" 2ms VGA DVI HDMI for under £90 inc vat delivered is astonishing, then you look at the other end of the spectrum and the spec of the £1k+ screens offers good value for money when all taken into consideration (assuming its not a bad panel QC of course).

sadly the markets requirement on volume cheap monitors means that manufacturers lean this way eg; we are launching 32MP58HQ - 32" 1920x1080 IPS HDMI - rough MSRP £219.99 INC - this is because there is a growing market for people who want a large monitor but don't want to have to pay £4-500 for it. I don't think this would appeal to anyone here, but there are a lot of people who would part with £220 of their hard earned money to get a 32" at this price.
 
Like I said earlier though, brexit has played a big part in increased pricing and sadly, things will only get worse :([/QUOTE]


so true - dollar devalued 20%, and seeing as everything is manufactured in USD you would expect the price increase to reciprocate this 20% - albeit this hasn't been the case, many worked tirelessly to re-negotiate supply to decrease this to 10-15%
 
Daniel - LG said:
Like I said earlier though, brexit has played a big part in increased pricing and sadly, things will only get worse :(

so true - dollar devalued 20%, and seeing as everything is manufactured in USD you would expect the price increase to reciprocate this 20% - albeit this hasn't been the case, many worked tirelessly to re-negotiate supply to decrease this to 10-15%
Click to expand...

I would be careful bringing up the word "brexit" on this forum, every time I have mentioned it someone comes along saying something along the lines of "so our freedom is not worth it?" or some crap like that totally missing the point :p

But I completely agree, brexit did not help price of monitors.

All I can say is, try and get them to make a 4K Freesync 2 monitor and try and keep price under £600. 60Hz is fine, but maybe 75Hz if possible and most importantly if LG ever want me to buy one, do not go for an aggressive matte coating. Totally ruins the image quality quality. 27" is okay, but 32" is more ideal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom