Fair enough, but remember that most color accurate monitors aren't about peak brightness. THey are designed to be used in near pitch black rooms where you don't need anything brighter. It also uses an older panel from some significantly higher priced OLED monitors. New QD-OLED panels will be much brighter.
That said, the screen on my Macbook Pro has spoiled me... I won't even consider OLED because in the real world with ambient light, brightness is more important to me than perfect blacks.
250 nits in SDR. 540 nits in HDR.
"Philips says that while SDR peak brightness caps at 250 nits, the screen can get as bright as 540 nits peak brightness for HDR content."
Increasing LCD nits, on the other hand, just exacerbates greyish blacks and worsens blooming and reason why Samsung is exiting the low end LCD market.
Thing is, 99% of people don't need high end, very expensive and very color accurate monitors. Myself included.
And those that do, they use way better and way more expensive monitors than this one.
I'm a developer. Don't need HDR, I won't read and write my code in HDR mode.
Most of people (myself obviously included) use our monitors at office, or at home. 250 nits is a joke for people like me. For example, I have Thinkpad P1 Gen4 and MBP 16 (M1). P1 uses 4K screen with really high brightness. It's great. MBP has even better and more brighter screen.
Eve 4K glossy is really great as well. And really bright.
In my office setting, I really have to use a bright screen. Not everyone is a movie editor for a big movie company.
But only time will tell if this monitor will be a success. If we see a successor, then it was good. But I wouldn't put my money on it.
