Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Who the heck thought Apple would launch Mac mini Pro or iMac Pro in March? One is a developer system while the other is a workhorse. WWDC is most likely. Neither product fits the Spring event agenda.

It's unlikely we'll be getting any MacBooks in March. But if there is, in all likelihood, it'll be the entry-level MacBook Pro based on M1 Pro.
 
Last edited:
iPad Pro has 10,000 mini LEDs and 2500 zones.

I am guessing there are physical or pricing limitations as panel size scales. Most 65" MiniLED TVs have less than 1000 zones and far less than 10,000 Mini-LEDs (the exception being the TCL 8-series).

The MacBook Pros are 2000/2500 zones with 8000/10000 Mini-LEDs and they seem to be less susceptible to blooming compared to the iPad Pro so 1000/4000 might not be a bad thing on a 27" display.


The elephant in the room is, at what price? Can entry level iMac Pro with M1 Pro and 27-inch mini LED hit $4,999 price point?

I fully expect the entry level machine will be around $2499 or less with an 8/14 M1 Pro, 16GB of RAM and 512GB of SSD. You can then add up to $4000 in options (M1 MAX 10/32, 64GB of RAM, 8TB SSD, NanoTexture Glass, 10GB Ethernet). If Apple also offers an "M1 MAX Duo", throw in another couple grand for that and 128GB of RAM.
 
I feel like it has to be WWDC. September event is too busy with iPhone and redesigned Apple Watch. October seems late.
 
OK. So recapping most recent expectations...
iPhone SE, MacBook Air (M2) and Mac mini (M1) in March?
iMac Pro (M2) in June?

We should not expect M2 before the Fall.

One of new machines is a portable, so maybe the M2 MacBook Air launches (assuming the 13.3" MacBook Pro will not be getting an upgrade), but the two desktops will almost certainly be on M1 Pro or M1 Max.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lazyrighteye
Wouldn’t there also be a more consumer level 27” iMac like there used to be. One without mini LED but with the more powerful chipset starting at around 2.000 USD
My fear is that with 24-inch (23.5-inch screen size) having more than 75% of the screen real estate of 27-inch iMac, Apple may designate 27-inch only to Pro configurations.

I sure hope not, as the price difference between $1,299 entry level iMac and supposed $4,999 iMac Pro is so vast.

What I personally hope to see is Apple increasing 27-inch iMac to 32" (31.5-inch screen size), and offer it without mini-LED for consumer grade versions (M1/M2) at $1,999 to 2,499 starting price, and with mini-LED for pro versions (M1 Pro/Max) at $6,999 starting price (hopefully lower).
 
  • Like
Reactions: iLondoner
I'd love an iMac. What I'd not love is downgrading to 27" in 2022. That's not a high-end screen size. My current external screen is 33" and I am considering upgrading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iLondoner
Apple still announces "professional" hardware at WWDC and the iMac Pro, Mac mini Pro and Mac Pro are all "professional" hardware.

Mac Pro was announced in 2019 but there were no hardware product announcements in 2020 or 2021 if I remember correctly.
 
Knowing full well that a 2022 iMac 27" (Pro etc.) with M-series chip was around the corner, I decided to get a fully loaded 2021 intel iMac 27". That, along with a LG 5K UltraFine display, has been an absolute dream combination. I still use plenty of Intel/legacy apps, so by doing this, I hope to get through the "early days" of the M chips this way.
 
I am guessing there are physical or pricing limitations as panel size scales. Most 65" MiniLED TVs have less than 1000 zones and far less than 10,000 Mini-LEDs (the exception being the TCL 8-series).

The MacBook Pros are 2000/2500 zones with 8000/10000 Mini-LEDs and they seem to be less susceptible to blooming compared to the iPad Pro so 1000/4000 might not be a bad thing on a 27" display.
You're probably right that there is a pricing related issue, but I'm not sure why the total number would need to be significantly lower than the iPad Pro in order to control price.

As for blooming, it's a non-issue on iPad Pro unless you intentionally crank up the brightness and turn off all the lights. Ruining the calibration balance between available light and brightness settings isn't really a fault of the display.
 
If I can get around $1,500 for my 2019 27”, that would be great. I’d be willing to spend at most ~$2,500 for this new beast.

Can’t wait to see it!
 
Apple's upcoming iMac Pro with a mini-LED display could launch in June, analyst Ross Young said today. Apple has been working on a larger-screened version of the iMac for months now, and if the June timeline is accurate, it could see a debut at the Worldwide Developers Conference.
May - June is about the time we been predicting the 27” iMac redesign. Hope nothing really delays it.
 
Knowing full well that a 2022 iMac 27" (Pro etc.) with M-series chip was around the corner, I decided to get a fully loaded 2021 intel iMac 27". That, along with a LG 5K UltraFine display, has been an absolute dream combination. I still use plenty of Intel/legacy apps, so by doing this, I hope to get through the "early days" of the M chips this way.
if the current iMac is the last intel iMac there will ever be, then this machine might retain it's value for a while. it might be smart for you to get the 5700XT and maybe self upgrade to a used 10900k from ebay.
 
  • Love
Reactions: tothemoonsands
2012-2022: 5K display you mostly couldn’t get anywhere else (at a decent price) if you wanted to build a comparable PC

2022-20xx : 5K miniLED display you mostly can’t get anywhere else at a reasonable price

27” iMac = a unique value proposition for 10 years and counting

Meanwhile some PC users are still debating 1080p vs 1440p vs 4K.

Lol, wut? Pretty much any "debate" about 1080p vs 1440p vs 4k is based around gaming performance, which is not a debate that Mac users have much to contribute to. The performance trade-off between 1440p and 4k is significant, and only the most deep-pocketed gamers are going to go the full 4k route.

There's also the not-insignificant factor of refresh rates. My wife's Razer has a fairly insane 300hz 1080p screen that is legitimately impressive. That's not something you can realistically do on a 4k screen yet.

Please put down the Kool-Aid - not every bit of news on Apple needs to turn into out-of-touch PC bashing.
 
I don't see this rumor as anything more than wishful thinking.

Those screens at that size is something Apple would charge no less than $3,000 on top of whatever computer is attached to it. So basically a screen that big and expensive with the equivalent of something no slower than a Macbook pro connected to it. So subtract the price of the macbook pro screen and you have the base configuration of the iMac with that screen. What is that? $4,000 minimum? Thats a pretty big jump from a line that will start at around $2,000.

The new iMacs will probably range from $2,000 all the way up to $3,000 and not have the best screens, just better ones than the current iMac and almost as good as the current Macbook Pro's, probably the same kinds of screens the M2 macs will come with standard.

The real iMac Pro with true XDR screen will probably come after the Mac Pro introduction.

I think after Apple comes out with its Mac Pro chips, you will someday be able to configure iMacs that cost $6,000 - $10,000 because you are putting in top of the line Mac Pro chips in them and it will come with a true XDR display with a matte glass finish. Things that are very pricy today but do not cost Apple a lot to produce so when they seeminly lower the price down to fit in an iMac. It would look on the surface as a cost savings to the customer but really a way to let Apple raise the price of an iMac to a level people would not have tolerated before because now you get nano texture glass, XDR display and Mac Pro speed chips thrown in for less than getting all that in last years intel Mac Pro. Great savings for the movie studios and future VR content producers that will be able to fully utilize them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: newyorksole
I don't see this rumor as anything more than wishful thinking.

Those screens at that size is something Apple would charge no less than $3,000 on top of whatever computer is attached to it. So basically a screen that big and expensive with the equivalent of something no slower than a Macbook pro connected to it. So subtract the price of the macbook pro screen and you have the base configuration of the iMac with that screen. What is that? $4,000 minimum? Thats a pretty big jump from a line that will start at around $2,000.

The new iMacs will probably range from $2,000 all the way up to $3,000 and not have the best screens, just better ones than the current iMac and almost as good as the current Macbook Pro's, probably the same kinds of screens the M2 macs will come with standard.

The real iMac Pro with true XDR screen will probably come after the Mac Pro introduction.

I think after Apple comes out with its Mac Pro chips, you will someday be able to configure iMacs that cost $6,000 - $10,000 because you are putting in top of the line Mac Pro chips in them and it will come with a true XDR display with a matte glass finish. Things that are very pricy today but do not cost Apple a lot to produce so when they seeminly lower the price down to fit in an iMac. It would look on the surface as a cost savings to the customer but really a way to let Apple raise the price of an iMac to a level people would not have tolerated before because now you get nano texture glass, XDR display and Mac Pro speed chips thrown in for less than getting all that in last years intel Mac Pro. Great savings for the movie studios and future VR content producers that will be able to fully utilize them.

The 27-inch display is expected to have only 40% of the mini LEDs and dimming zones compared to iPad Pro and MacBook Pro. It's not going to be a very high tech or expensive display. I doubt it'll start much higher than $2,499.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Juuro
Are you going to give me the $$$ for it? That is hardly a reasonable price for a consumer monitor. The iMac is a consumer computer. Making a 27" monitor doesn't make it a PRO computer. There are a lot of people who just want a reasonably priced iMac with a larger monitor. 3" makes a difference — any man will confirm this. ;)
If you would have said “affordable” - I am in total agreement with that.
I hope that pricing on the new 27 (I am still hoping for 30) will continue to be reasonable, I’m not really convinced though
 
Eh, I get why they'd want to merge the 27 iMac and the iMac Pro, but the price/specs are a big unknown. I'd pick Face ID, more ports, WiFi 6E & upgradeable RAM.. (idk if they can have RAM on the chip and off..)
 
Brilliant, more opertunities for Prosser to be totally wrong and then claim afterwards that it was from sources inside apple.. and that they cancelled it last minute….. no.. you were wrong. Get over it. rumour video’s are awful and so are website predictions. Just WAIT and stop speculating about things of which you have ZERO information.
 
If you would have said “affordable” - I am in total agreement with that.
I hope that pricing on the new 27 (I am still hoping for 30) will continue to be reasonable, I’m not really convinced though
can they get to 30 and keep the same footprint? eyeballing the width right now it looks more like they could get to 29 and shrink the chin.. maybe cut the bezel on top. but i'm not a shape rotator
 
can they get to 30 and keep the same footprint? eyeballing the width right now it looks more like they could get to 29 and shrink the chin.. maybe cut the bezel on top. but i'm not a shape rotator
Whatever screen size fits within the current frame, could be 29.5 and I would be pulling my wallet out for that…
If it remains at 27 I will be seriously looking at a beefed up mini with nice monitor when it comes to replace my iMac
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.