It's an easy formula too:
BREAKING NEWS: Apple to feature holograms in iPhone 27
6 Months later
BREAKING NEWS: Apple cancels plans for holograms in iPhone 27
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Gurman: Apple Still Working on 'Pro' iMac With Larger Screen
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's an easy formula too:
BREAKING NEWS: Apple to feature holograms in iPhone 27
6 Months later
BREAKING NEWS: Apple cancels plans for holograms in iPhone 27
Hulu+ ( 2010 )
Disney+ ( 2019 )
[ ESPN+ (2018) ]
"nobody" is using the same thing for streaming. *cough* I mean, who every heard of Disney?
[ Apple TV+ was 2019. Which is 9 years after "Hulu Plus" appeared. And before Disney owned Hulu outright. The '+' is the additional content. ]
Last edited:
My guess is that, if they release a 7k XDR, they'll also ensure the upcoming M2 Pro/Max/Ultra devices will be able to drive it.
Where do you expect to see them? Have you been scouting the surrounding homes in your neighborhood?
We have one, so they sold at least one 😎
There’s an iMac owners thread here on MR as well with hundreds of posts.
It’s a mainstream computer, not an enthusiast one, so people who hang out on nerd forums like us are not the primary demo.
Same. I'm also rocking a late 2015 27" 5k and in addition to the smaller screen size the 24" iMac M1 GPU basically matches my current GPU in performance. Makes it feel like a downgrade on the whole.
THIS. I'm waiting for the "semi-professional" gap to be filled with an Mx Pro Chip in either the iMac or Mac Mini. Apple has yet to put the M1 Pro in any desktop, and there is definitely a segment of people that feel that M1 is too weak and M1 Max is overkill (and overpriced for their needs).
I'm unsure that Apple would put the M1 Max into a "larger" iMac (competes with Mac Studio?) but I could see them having M2 and M1/M2 Pro options. Pricing wise there is room in the $2,200-$3,200 range that I hope gets filled with a larger iMac. At the very least, would like to see Pro Chip options in the 24" iMac or the Mac Mini to help address this gap.
My thought process is... that Apple will eventually roll out a two-pronged iMac lineup. It's not because of the Mac Studio or the Studio Display or anything of that ilk. I don't see the larger model iMac as an iMac Pro anymore because I think the Mac Studio covers that market and provides the "Pro" market more flexibility in display options. Unlike consumers that tend to like all-in-one convenience, Pro level use IMHO warrants being able to swap displays out if they fail or move decent displays to more modern machines as you swap out your old desktops/upgrade. I consider it a different set of needs and wants.
What the larger iMac provides is... an option as a larger alternative to the 24" iMac. When the first of the LCD non-lamp-style iMac's was issued it provided a 21" and 24" option. Over time we saw the 21" and 27" options. The higher end iMac did have higher end performance specs... but it also wasn't treated as a much higher model of iMac. Just a better version of the same model. The iMac Pro was a Xeon-level workstation machine with built-in display and used display technology that was near the front of the pack (at the time; in fact... there's still not many 5K display options), at a company that also wasn't still selling separate displays at the time. As such, Apple adding a larger iMac doesn't mean that it's going back on what it said about "only" having one more Mac (model) to deliver. Again... iMac is already an existing product, offering it in a different size to me doesn't require it to be a completely different product in as much as a different spec of the same product. A larger monitor with perhaps a faster standard/optional CPU doesn't make it any less of a machine than what Apple sells currently.
So I don't see the need for an iMac "Pro" variant. The Mac Studio gives you the flexibility of a lower end 27" monitor or the 32" XDR on the higher end based on what you need/want with your machine (or again, numerous third party vendor's displays). It is the xMac that so many wanted for years (though it comes at a time when doing internal upgrades are no longer really a seeming thing with Apple, sadly -- even the inability to pop in an additional SSD to add drive capacity or add RAM has been nixed -- which doesn't sit with the xMac user's desired hopes). It's nice to finally see it, but... again, it is rather limited in what you can do with it beyond accepting that it's pretty much a higher spec, higher feature, taller Mac mini.
My wager is that because of supply chain constraints and the premium costs for some of the components that go into the Studio Display (despite the panel not being bleeding edge there's a lot going on in that case), not to mention limited panel production options for Micro LED and Pro Motion (let alone combined) the Studio Display is sort of a half-assed product by Apple relying on available supply chain components and predicated based on the current market prices. I don't think it was the display Apple "wanted" to make. It was the display that, at the time, they "needed" to make to provide an end-to-end option for the product.
To me, I think they intended on it being much more than that but because of the pandemic it's impacted the practical means to do exactly what Apple intended. They filled the void but did so based on what they could stick in there that was available that was no lower than prior offerings (i.e. it matches the 27" iMac display in all manner except brightness where it improved). That's not a shocker as if you watch some of the YouTube channels that feature Apple prototypes, there's times when Apple has had two competing product plans in the pipeline and had to go for product A over B because as much as B was their desired end goal (which eventually would make it to market later as an evolved product) it was cost-constrained at the time into incapable of being made. I think the nature of the current market has kept the costs of Micro LED panels and OLED panels at significant cost premiums, as did the former tarriff's. IMHO, It feels like Apple slapped the display together to build a product that they needed to fill a need at a specific price-point, despite it likely drawing criticisms for a lot of what it is and does (I'd not be shocked if the next XDR display has the A-series chip like the Studio Display). That A-series chip inevitably would drive the price of the machine up, but so would a move to Micro LED and Pro Motion in the current market too. It would price itself outside of where I think Apple wants the display to be currently.
So with all of that said... I get that the argument could be, "Well, just buy a Mac mini + a Studio Display".
That's still more expensive than the old 27" iMac was in the Apple lineup.
Further, the current Mac mini with it's limited CPU options kind of leaves a significant void in the Apple lineup. You either buy essentially a base processor M1 or you upgrade to a Mac Studio with a M1 Max or Ultra. There's no Mac mini or larger iMac in that gap with a M1 Pro to cover that space; nor is there an M1 Pro Mac Studio at an even cheaper price. As such... you get bare bones performance with an add-on display (either a significantly expensive premium with the Studio Display or you buy a "other brand" monitor) with a Mac mini, or you pay $1,999 for a Mac Studio and $1,200 for a Studio Display. And for those that loved their All-in-ones... it doesn't really remedy that part of it. As a 27" iMac owner... I actually really prefer the idea of an Apple display + Mini or Mac Studio. I mean, I only bought the 27" iMac because there was no Mac Mini plus comparable display for the $ that could beat the 27" iMac on value. I was one that dreamed about xMac's for years on various forums (including this one). But when I look at the pricing and that big gap in the middle... I kind of miss the 27" iMac right now. I've yet to upgrade from my 2012 quad core i7 iMac as a result because I keep waiting to see if Apple fixes that price-point and to see what monitor options pop up (whether Apple or otherwise). Or to see if Apple makes an M2 Pro iMac from 27-32" in size. An M2 Pro 24" wouldn't do it for me.
My guess is... Garmin might be right on this. I don't think Micro LED's are going to come down in price to make a 27" high refresh rate display + the A-series chip & camera (which i consider to be a part of the next XDR lineup) come in at low enough to fill the void of the Studio display. I also am not sold that you pull a $1,300 display from the market... plug a 27-32" 5k iMac with M2 and M2 Pro on the market at that price point without being able to bring the costs down on the display options to make the Mac Studio and smaller XDR 27" monitor as a significant value.
Though, again... that's looking at them as overlapping products when in reality, I kind of feel like the Mac Studio and a larger iMac aren't going to overlap because of different market needs. I'm seriously wanting the Mac Studio and trying to crunch #'s on how to get either a massive amount of screen real estate at 4k resolutions (i.e. dual monitors) or a single larger (32" or a widescreen 34-38") 4-5k resolution display without going over the Apple display on costs. It's not as easy to do as some would have you believe to check all of those boxes. I can do it with 2 4K high refresh rate displays and a dual VESA mount for basically $900... but that's using 2 27" displays. It gets expensive when you move up to 32". I'd honestly rather not spend Apple money on a non-studio 4k/5k display because the industrial design of most every non-Apple monitor is "decent" at best. I mean, if Corsair offered a 32" version of the Xenon in 4k? That might be enough. Even a Viewsonic Elite 4k that wasn't Micro LED might be okay, though it's not on the same level as the Corsair in build.
Now... I can see Apple going with the rumored M2 and M2 Pro for the upcoming mini. That could solve that problem with the price gap some. But IMHO it also means the current Mac Studio Display stays essentially as-is to maintain that price point (and in the end, at $1,200 I'm still considering other options myself despite knowing that nobody builds a monitor remotely like Apple does -- granted Apple could opt to drop the price on it as it'll be even older tech by then; if it got closer to $850-950 it might lure some in). Many already review it and say that it's not a great value for the money (I'd argue that in terms of those that like good industrial design - it's worth a slight premium over the more cheaply made LG that's literally the only comparable display in it's class) and clamor for higher end display technology, despite the fact that the market is very limited on 5k monitors let alone higher end 4k monitors. Viewsonic just released a high refresh rate (Pro Motion) 4k display for gaming with great color correction for Design/Content Creation work and Micro LED technology and...
It's $2,499.
www.viewsonic.com
Not exactly in the same pricepoint that the current Studio Display 27" is selling at. Sure it blows the doors off of it in panel quality despite "only" being a 4k display. I mean, in the Studio Display market pricepoint the best option is either the cheaply built LG 5k display, a bunch of similarly low refresh rate 4k displays with again cheap enclosures, or monitors like Corsair's Xenon 32" which is a beautiful display with higher refresh rate... but it's a 1440p display (2k). It comes with a much nicer build quality but... it's a lower resolution display. And it's not exactly Apple-like in design even with it's pretty elegant industrial design. There's also the 32" Viewsonic Elite... but it's also not a 4k display unless you get the aforementioned Micro LED display at 2x's the price. Contrast, there's also the Alienware 34" QD-OLED. Build is... ehhh... like a lot of Dell's and Alienware's more recent stuff, design is kind of homely IMHO, and... despite an absolutely superior display on color, it's also a 1440p display (though it's widescreen, so it's actually slightly bigger than 2k). It costs roughly the same as the 5k Apple Studio Display.
So my thought process... you ditch the current pricey low-spec studio, create a higher end Studio Display XDR family with a 27" and 32" model available (if not maybe add a 36-40" panel as well as a 3rd larger option that all add-in the A-series chip and the center-stage camera functionality), and then...
Make a 27-32" iMac with a more standard-fare display (obviously 5k, accurate color to Adobe RGB and other design-level standards; maybe upgrade to a higher refresh rate [120 hz. maybe?] but avoid premium costing parts like super high refresh rates [240-ish] and Micro LED's). Ditch the secondary A-series chip and instead just rely on the machine selling with the M2 and M2 Pro (or M3, M3 Pro) and make it a model upgrade to the 24". Now you have 2 consumer-level all in one machines to fill that void, and you keep the Mac Mini and Mac Studio for those that want more flexibility in display options or that want to pair one with a premium Apple monitor (i.e. the Display XDR's in 27" and 32" and possibly 36-40")
That said... to me Apple making that move is crucially reliant on supply chains and production capacity covering the supply/demand of vendors to Apple at a point where things can be done for reasonable prices. That's the story of computing in general. As time goes on, technology improves but costs a premium... then supply chain growth helps economies of scale making the product come down in price. It's not like that's a Nostradamus-level prediction on my part, it's just common sense.
Apple stuffing an A-series chip into an already expensive 32" "upgraded" XDR display to make it even more insanely expensive is sure to cause problems in the current market. The hope is that the Micro LED Pro Motion display technology at some point will come down in costs enough to pair it with that A-series chip and the better camera technologies at a lower price point (but when it does, we'll probably be up to 8K displays with ever-smaller pixel and/or LED pitches... or be on to some new form of OLED by then) IMHO.
Until you can do that without driving the price tag massively up (i.e. no more than say $200-300 on the retail price; and without altering profit margins per unit which is also key)... I think the current Studio lives as it does and the XDR lineup is a single monitor following the current internal specs but possibly upgrading in some minor areas to retain/gain selling points (i.e. brightness, gamut, etc.). That might preclude the larger iMac from existing, but I do believe it highlights a glaring need for the M2 Pro Mac Mini that's noted in rumors... and it leaves a big opening for 3rd parties to build some nicer monitors at decent price points to eat Apple's lunch on the 27" Studio Display. Or at least, force Apple to drop the price. Which as the older A-series chip in question continues to become cheaper because of supply chain evolution, and the aging 27" 5k panel becomes cheaper, and as Apple considers slashing profit margins a smidge... that to me is inevitable too. If the product can't drastically change to go upward in spec, it needs to come down in costs as time goes on.
What the larger iMac provides is... an option as a larger alternative to the 24" iMac. When the first of the LCD non-lamp-style iMac's was issued it provided a 21" and 24" option. Over time we saw the 21" and 27" options. The higher end iMac did have higher end performance specs... but it also wasn't treated as a much higher model of iMac. Just a better version of the same model. The iMac Pro was a Xeon-level workstation machine with built-in display and used display technology that was near the front of the pack (at the time; in fact... there's still not many 5K display options), at a company that also wasn't still selling separate displays at the time. As such, Apple adding a larger iMac doesn't mean that it's going back on what it said about "only" having one more Mac (model) to deliver. Again... iMac is already an existing product, offering it in a different size to me doesn't require it to be a completely different product in as much as a different spec of the same product. A larger monitor with perhaps a faster standard/optional CPU doesn't make it any less of a machine than what Apple sells currently.
So I don't see the need for an iMac "Pro" variant. The Mac Studio gives you the flexibility of a lower end 27" monitor or the 32" XDR on the higher end based on what you need/want with your machine (or again, numerous third party vendor's displays). It is the xMac that so many wanted for years (though it comes at a time when doing internal upgrades are no longer really a seeming thing with Apple, sadly -- even the inability to pop in an additional SSD to add drive capacity or add RAM has been nixed -- which doesn't sit with the xMac user's desired hopes). It's nice to finally see it, but... again, it is rather limited in what you can do with it beyond accepting that it's pretty much a higher spec, higher feature, taller Mac mini.
My wager is that because of supply chain constraints and the premium costs for some of the components that go into the Studio Display (despite the panel not being bleeding edge there's a lot going on in that case), not to mention limited panel production options for Micro LED and Pro Motion (let alone combined) the Studio Display is sort of a half-assed product by Apple relying on available supply chain components and predicated based on the current market prices. I don't think it was the display Apple "wanted" to make. It was the display that, at the time, they "needed" to make to provide an end-to-end option for the product.
To me, I think they intended on it being much more than that but because of the pandemic it's impacted the practical means to do exactly what Apple intended. They filled the void but did so based on what they could stick in there that was available that was no lower than prior offerings (i.e. it matches the 27" iMac display in all manner except brightness where it improved). That's not a shocker as if you watch some of the YouTube channels that feature Apple prototypes, there's times when Apple has had two competing product plans in the pipeline and had to go for product A over B because as much as B was their desired end goal (which eventually would make it to market later as an evolved product) it was cost-constrained at the time into incapable of being made. I think the nature of the current market has kept the costs of Micro LED panels and OLED panels at significant cost premiums, as did the former tarriff's. IMHO, It feels like Apple slapped the display together to build a product that they needed to fill a need at a specific price-point, despite it likely drawing criticisms for a lot of what it is and does (I'd not be shocked if the next XDR display has the A-series chip like the Studio Display). That A-series chip inevitably would drive the price of the machine up, but so would a move to Micro LED and Pro Motion in the current market too. It would price itself outside of where I think Apple wants the display to be currently.
So with all of that said... I get that the argument could be, "Well, just buy a Mac mini + a Studio Display".
That's still more expensive than the old 27" iMac was in the Apple lineup.
Further, the current Mac mini with it's limited CPU options kind of leaves a significant void in the Apple lineup. You either buy essentially a base processor M1 or you upgrade to a Mac Studio with a M1 Max or Ultra. There's no Mac mini or larger iMac in that gap with a M1 Pro to cover that space; nor is there an M1 Pro Mac Studio at an even cheaper price. As such... you get bare bones performance with an add-on display (either a significantly expensive premium with the Studio Display or you buy a "other brand" monitor) with a Mac mini, or you pay $1,999 for a Mac Studio and $1,200 for a Studio Display. And for those that loved their All-in-ones... it doesn't really remedy that part of it. As a 27" iMac owner... I actually really prefer the idea of an Apple display + Mini or Mac Studio. I mean, I only bought the 27" iMac because there was no Mac Mini plus comparable display for the $ that could beat the 27" iMac on value. I was one that dreamed about xMac's for years on various forums (including this one). But when I look at the pricing and that big gap in the middle... I kind of miss the 27" iMac right now. I've yet to upgrade from my 2012 quad core i7 iMac as a result because I keep waiting to see if Apple fixes that price-point and to see what monitor options pop up (whether Apple or otherwise). Or to see if Apple makes an M2 Pro iMac from 27-32" in size. An M2 Pro 24" wouldn't do it for me.
My guess is... Garmin might be right on this. I don't think Micro LED's are going to come down in price to make a 27" high refresh rate display + the A-series chip & camera (which i consider to be a part of the next XDR lineup) come in at low enough to fill the void of the Studio display. I also am not sold that you pull a $1,300 display from the market... plug a 27-32" 5k iMac with M2 and M2 Pro on the market at that price point without being able to bring the costs down on the display options to make the Mac Studio and smaller XDR 27" monitor as a significant value.
Though, again... that's looking at them as overlapping products when in reality, I kind of feel like the Mac Studio and a larger iMac aren't going to overlap because of different market needs. I'm seriously wanting the Mac Studio and trying to crunch #'s on how to get either a massive amount of screen real estate at 4k resolutions (i.e. dual monitors) or a single larger (32" or a widescreen 34-38") 4-5k resolution display without going over the Apple display on costs. It's not as easy to do as some would have you believe to check all of those boxes. I can do it with 2 4K high refresh rate displays and a dual VESA mount for basically $900... but that's using 2 27" displays. It gets expensive when you move up to 32". I'd honestly rather not spend Apple money on a non-studio 4k/5k display because the industrial design of most every non-Apple monitor is "decent" at best. I mean, if Corsair offered a 32" version of the Xenon in 4k? That might be enough. Even a Viewsonic Elite 4k that wasn't Micro LED might be okay, though it's not on the same level as the Corsair in build.
Now... I can see Apple going with the rumored M2 and M2 Pro for the upcoming mini. That could solve that problem with the price gap some. But IMHO it also means the current Mac Studio Display stays essentially as-is to maintain that price point (and in the end, at $1,200 I'm still considering other options myself despite knowing that nobody builds a monitor remotely like Apple does -- granted Apple could opt to drop the price on it as it'll be even older tech by then; if it got closer to $850-950 it might lure some in). Many already review it and say that it's not a great value for the money (I'd argue that in terms of those that like good industrial design - it's worth a slight premium over the more cheaply made LG that's literally the only comparable display in it's class) and clamor for higher end display technology, despite the fact that the market is very limited on 5k monitors let alone higher end 4k monitors. Viewsonic just released a high refresh rate (Pro Motion) 4k display for gaming with great color correction for Design/Content Creation work and Micro LED technology and...
It's $2,499.
ViewSonic Launches its Flagship 32-inch ELITE XG321UG 4K Mini-LED Gaming Monitor / ViewSonic
ViewSonic Corporation, headquartered in Brea, California, is a leading global provider of computing, consumer electronics, and communications solutions.
Not exactly in the same pricepoint that the current Studio Display 27" is selling at. Sure it blows the doors off of it in panel quality despite "only" being a 4k display. I mean, in the Studio Display market pricepoint the best option is either the cheaply built LG 5k display, a bunch of similarly low refresh rate 4k displays with again cheap enclosures, or monitors like Corsair's Xenon 32" which is a beautiful display with higher refresh rate... but it's a 1440p display (2k). It comes with a much nicer build quality but... it's a lower resolution display. And it's not exactly Apple-like in design even with it's pretty elegant industrial design. There's also the 32" Viewsonic Elite... but it's also not a 4k display unless you get the aforementioned Micro LED display at 2x's the price. Contrast, there's also the Alienware 34" QD-OLED. Build is... ehhh... like a lot of Dell's and Alienware's more recent stuff, design is kind of homely IMHO, and... despite an absolutely superior display on color, it's also a 1440p display (though it's widescreen, so it's actually slightly bigger than 2k). It costs roughly the same as the 5k Apple Studio Display.
Alienware 34 Inch Curved QD-OLED Gaming Monitor - AW3423DW | Dell USA
Shop Dell Alienware 34 Inch Curved QD-OLED Gaming Monitor with infinite contrast ratio & VESA Display HDR (AW3423DW) or view all gaming monitors at Dell.com.
www.dell.com
So my thought process... you ditch the current pricey low-spec studio, create a higher end Studio Display XDR family with a 27" and 32" model available (if not maybe add a 36-40" panel as well as a 3rd larger option that all add-in the A-series chip and the center-stage camera functionality), and then...
Make a 27-32" iMac with a more standard-fare display (obviously 5k, accurate color to Adobe RGB and other design-level standards; maybe upgrade to a higher refresh rate [120 hz. maybe?] but avoid premium costing parts like super high refresh rates [240-ish] and Micro LED's). Ditch the secondary A-series chip and instead just rely on the machine selling with the M2 and M2 Pro (or M3, M3 Pro) and make it a model upgrade to the 24". Now you have 2 consumer-level all in one machines to fill that void, and you keep the Mac Mini and Mac Studio for those that want more flexibility in display options or that want to pair one with a premium Apple monitor (i.e. the Display XDR's in 27" and 32" and possibly 36-40")
That said... to me Apple making that move is crucially reliant on supply chains and production capacity covering the supply/demand of vendors to Apple at a point where things can be done for reasonable prices. That's the story of computing in general. As time goes on, technology improves but costs a premium... then supply chain growth helps economies of scale making the product come down in price. It's not like that's a Nostradamus-level prediction on my part, it's just common sense.
Apple stuffing an A-series chip into an already expensive 32" "upgraded" XDR display to make it even more insanely expensive is sure to cause problems in the current market. The hope is that the Micro LED Pro Motion display technology at some point will come down in costs enough to pair it with that A-series chip and the better camera technologies at a lower price point (but when it does, we'll probably be up to 8K displays with ever-smaller pixel and/or LED pitches... or be on to some new form of OLED by then) IMHO.
Until you can do that without driving the price tag massively up (i.e. no more than say $200-300 on the retail price; and without altering profit margins per unit which is also key)... I think the current Studio lives as it does and the XDR lineup is a single monitor following the current internal specs but possibly upgrading in some minor areas to retain/gain selling points (i.e. brightness, gamut, etc.). That might preclude the larger iMac from existing, but I do believe it highlights a glaring need for the M2 Pro Mac Mini that's noted in rumors... and it leaves a big opening for 3rd parties to build some nicer monitors at decent price points to eat Apple's lunch on the 27" Studio Display. Or at least, force Apple to drop the price. Which as the older A-series chip in question continues to become cheaper because of supply chain evolution, and the aging 27" 5k panel becomes cheaper, and as Apple considers slashing profit margins a smidge... that to me is inevitable too. If the product can't drastically change to go upward in spec, it needs to come down in costs as time goes on.
Last edited:
iMac 27 M3 will be about 2300 dollars which is more than your exception (1800 dollars)
iMac Pro 27' M3 Max with Promotion will be 4000 dollars.
These are not a big market I guess.
iMac Pro 27' M3 Max with Promotion will be 4000 dollars.
These are not a big market I guess.
You suspect the 27" M3 would be $2,300 or this leaked in some article somewhere?
That seems high if essentially just mutating the Studio Display (SD) a bit. The SD is $1,599. So the gap there is is $700. While the SD's A13, RAM , and Flash isn't at minimal levels an iMac 27" would ship at, some kind of small 'credit' would be due if inserting a M3 into the bill of materials. ( $100-150 of "apple SOC/storage stuff in the SD inflates the price anyway).
The M2 binned version is only $100 less than the full M2. So the notion that the M3 is 'worth' anywhere near $400-500 is a huge stretch.
If Apple as doing an 'affordable' iMac 27" they'd likely slap the same 256GB starting point on the SSD capacity. That isn't something that would push the pricie $300-400 over a Studio Display. $200 maybe.
If Apple slapped the tilt-adjustable stand increase on bill of materials costs on the iMac 27" that is another $400. But is Apple going to release a ergonomically effective iMac? Haven't for the last decade not sure why they would start now.
$700 looks like it is generated by taking a entry Mac Mini and adding it to the Studio display's $1,599. If Apple was trying NOT to sell iMacs that would be the price. There is no good rational reason for Apple to price it that way to "protect" the Mini and Studio Display sales. First, as pointed out above you are REDUNDANTLY paying for two Apple SoCs with the Mini-SD purchase. If you only by one Apple SoC and toss the redundancy ... that should probably lead to a discount. Ditto for not paying for two separate power supplies, multiple cords , multiple boxes , higher shipping charges. That should also result in a cost adjustment.
If folks put value on the molecularity of the Mini+SD combo then they should be paying for it. It actually costs more to deliver.
1,999 ... it still just a M3. So likely still kneecapped with just two Thunderbolt ports, limited Video out and a not so high max RAM capacity. It is still an iPad Pro SoC.
That might be low. If Apple does an discrete "Studio Display Pro" with mini-LED and Promotion ... that would not be surprising to roll out at around $2,599+ ( $1000 over plain SD). ViewSonic has a high end 4K display at $2,499. Apple isn't likely to deliver 5K display panel at a lower price. Could also just minimally use the tilt-adjust $400 to push the entry price up also. [ recent rumor that it too will have a A-series chip inserted which will also serve to inflate the price more. ]
But is Apple even going to let an iMac enclosure being thick enough to hold a Max/Ulra. ( they could if just used the current iMac Pro chassis. But are they going to paint themselves into a corner and block it? )
An plain Mx SoC at $2,300 ? No.
At $1,999 they could generate sales that were a healthy fraction of what the iMac 27" sales volume was. There is more fratricide with better Mini ( like plain and Mx Pro) and with Mac Studio's. So they won't hit the heyday numbers where Apple blocked as much intramural competition as possible. But would be competitive for folks looking for an All-in-One with a large screen.
iMac Pro was a top ten iMac 27" configuration when it was around. Again there would be a drop in attractiveness all-in-one , but probably doesn't drop too low for a product ( if Apple wants to put any effort in).
In both cases selling more Apple customer 27" panels helps both the discrete and iMac products get to better economies of scale. [ nobody else is likely going to buy these panels. ] Probably won't get to the 'very affordable' price point. But should do more to make the production line 'interesting enough' for the component contract manufacturer. Selling as few as custom panels as possible doesn't really help Apple.
27 iMac M3 will not just a Macnimi M1+ASD, M3 chip will be much expensive than M1+A13, A13 is kind free or low value in 2022.
If we assume the price of M chip would not go up.
ASD 1599+ M1 Macmini 699 will be less powerful than M3 27'iMac. 2300 iMac 27 M3 sounds a reasonable choice for the user who is using M1 Macmini+ASD. As the result, around 2300 sounds crazy but reasonable at some points.
Current iMac 24 M1 is 1299/1499, if they are making the bigger version, it would be +500 for 27 model (if you make reference of apple verified LG monitors). Then, it will be 1799/1999. But you need to notice, the M3 iMac will be add value by better speaker, camera, center stage, it will+200 to 1999/2199. Finally, dont forget the M3 chip, if it is+ 100. It will be 2099/2299. If the apple cut the base chip model for 27'iMac, it will be 2299.
1999 iMac would be good value for us but I believe Apple would not make it happends.