On the Studio Display and accessibility
Jason Snell posted his review of the refreshed Studio Display. His overall take on the “new” $1599 monitor is right there in the headline: It’s “the smallest of upgrades.”
Apple announced the second-generation Studio Display back on March 3.
What particularly caught my eye about Snell’s review is his mention of accessibility.
“Apple claims it’s a champion of accessibility,” Snell wrote this week. “But in my opinion, part of accessibility is ergonomics. Different people need displays at different heights, and we are all shaped differently. Apple’s continued insistence on shipping displays and iMacs that aren’t height-adjustable by default is frustrating. You spend all this money on a pricey Apple display and then, what, put it on an old dictionary? Meanwhile, even the cut-rate competition offers height adjustments.”
I’d argue Apple’s commitment to accessibility isn’t sheerly about offering practicality—sure, make your computers easier to use in absolute terms—but rather about offering dignity. It’s certainly laudable how Apple sells phones and laptops and earbuds and headsets that can be used by people with disabilities like myself, but it’s more laudable Apple has chosen to allocate significant resources in this way in the first place. The Americans with Disabilities Act regulates a lot, but it does not compel technology companies to make accessible products. The salient point is simply accessibility features aren’t soulless means to an end; they’re a direct reflection of a company’s value system and priorities. In Apple’s case, they’re recognizing those in the disability community as human beings who use technology like anyone else. That’s dignifying in a way, for all its warts operating as a for-profit, money-making machine, that’s absolutely non-trivial for people who already exist on the margin’s margin societally.
Philosophy aside, Snell’s critique about ergonomics is well taken. It’s true “different people need displays at different heights, and we are all shaped differently,” and as such, paying a premium for what ostensibly should be basic functionality feels needlessly punitive. Ask someone at Apple and they’d probably say the markup is due to component costs or something, but Snell is spot-on when he says height adjustability should be standard. For my usage with the discontinued Pro Display XDR, the ($5999) peripheral came with the tilt- and height-adjustable stand out of the box, and I use the feature literally every single day. In fact, I have the height at the lowest possible setting, while the display itself is ever-so-slightly tilted backwards. This setup makes the screen more accessible to me given my short-statured nature and visual tolerances. Granted, my Pro Display was an (extremely generous) Christmas gift, but even Snell’s “normal” Studio Display would be a financial stretch were I in the market and wanted the tilt-and-height customizability—and I would. Ergo, the monitor could be inaccessible both literally and practically; these are facts which, to Snell’s larger point here, sorta belie Apple’s oft-cited claim it makes its stuff accessible to everyone.
“The review unit Studio Display Apple sent me came with the height-adjustable display, and it’s glorious. That thing is a smooth, pivoting marvel of mechanical engineering, and Apple should be proud of how nice it feels to use. But it’s essentially a failure, because it adds $400 to the price of the already-expensive display. Apple should be working to engineer affordable ergonomic features on its displays and iMacs, not building luxury stands that make a $800 display cost $2000,” Snell said. “If Apple wants to charge users more for a smooth, luxury display stand, who am I to stop them? But basic height adjustment should be built in, period.”
Snell’s piece, as usual, is well worth a read in its entirety.
