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.
Any idea how long a wait for a 27 or larger iMac
- Thread starter mattg3
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think it's ever coming back
They seem to have decided that anything above the 24" iMac is now served by a Mini/Studio/MacPro/Laptop + external display
It's real bummer for those who've loved the 27" iMacs forever
I think the first 27" screens were way back in 2009
They seem to have decided that anything above the 24" iMac is now served by a Mini/Studio/MacPro/Laptop + external display
It's real bummer for those who've loved the 27" iMacs forever
I think the first 27" screens were way back in 2009
I'm someone who was in the same boat with a 2017 and I gave up waiting. It seems like it would have already happened by now if it was going to.
I got an Apple Studio Display, which is 27".
I got an Apple Studio Display, which is 27".
Completely delusional. A pure clickbait video. The 27” iMac is dead. It is not coming back.
Apple officially said no. I'm not their best friend or family member so I have no insight if they will change their mind. So with that in mind, the 27 iMac is dead.
For the moment, it's dead - Apple pretty clearly said that the Mac Pro "completed the transition to Apple Silicon" when that was released.
The cost of a Mac Studio Max plus Studio Display is similar to a high-end 27" i9 iMac by the time you've included the cost of adding 32GB of RAM to the iMac - in the good old days you could get a cheap 3rd Party RAM upgrade, but that option went away with Apple Silicon, and the $200-per-8GB cost is baked into Apples price structures.
The lower-end < $2000 27" iMacs were a "bargain" (by Apple stahdards) which we won't see again - they're now charging $1600 for just the Studio Display, although a Studio Display + base Mini wouldn't be a bad system. One problem is that 5k simply hasn't taken off in the PC world so the market for the 5k panels is small => they have stayed expensive.
Thing is, desktops have been getting less popular than laptops for some time, and with Apple Silicon everything short of the M2 Ultra is running the exact same processors - so there's no longer a huge performance advantage to having a desktop. Many people who, in the past, had a desktop for performance and a MacBook for mobility are now going to be happy with just a MacBook Pro, with maybe something like the Studio Display (or a cheaper alternative) for "docking" - so the desktop Mac market is likely shrinking even further. Then, nobody here can decide whether they want a new 27" Mac or a 32" "Pro XDR" Mac (which woule be nice, but eye-wateringly expensive) - It makes more sense for Apple to sell headless computers and a choice of separate displays which can also be sold to MacBook Users.
Bear in mind that if, in 2007, Apple had offered a decent headless option and the 5k Cinema Display that they never got round to producing, then today you could have just bought a Mac Mini and used your existing display. Hopefully, going forward, those of us who have bought decent displays for our Minis and Studios will be able to just upgrade the computer in a few years time.
The rumour of upcoming OLED products shows a 27" and 32" iMac in 2028, and a 42" late 2028... so still a long wait, assuming there's any validity to it (it was correct for the iPads mid this year), and assuming plans don't change.
Rumors about 4 years from now might as well be about the year 3000.
Don't hold your breath. Apple's official answer to this is "get either a Mac Studio or Mac mini, and then buy a Studio Display". And, honestly, speaking purely in terms of practicality, it's not that bad of an answer.
The Studios and Minis are good, but the Studio display is ridiculously overpriced. It is as much as the old iMacs with the same monitor used to cost.
Probably also customer-facing offices because of the all-in-one clean presentation, and maybe the elderly and technically-impaired who need the simplest possible desktop setup—probably same reason edu use them—all of which probably don’t need anything larger than 24”.
Apple tends to be very specific indeed with its use of language. They stated that the 27” iMac is dead. They said nothing at all about larger displays. As I’m in the market for a 32” 6K model (or larger but that becomes unwieldy in an All-in-One) and am in no rush to purchase - my M1Max still exceeds my needs, I shall just sit here holding my breath a while…
It's not a great deal when you compare it to...say...a base model 27-inch iMac. If you configure a base model Mac Studio (so, figure Max SoC with base GPU, 32GB RAM, 512GB SSD) and then add the display, the price point is identical to that of what Apple charged for a 2020 27-inch iMac with 32GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD.
The problem is that, any lower and it's not that great of a deal. However, the same was true of lower-end 27-inch iMacs.
Most of the folks not satisfied with the Studio Display + Mac mini/Studio combo as a replacement are either:
(a) Customers who only bought the 27-inch iMacs for the screen real estate (and didn't otherwise spec up the machine)
(b) Customers who are insistent on the all-in-one form factor (rather than it being a small box with a display)
(c) Customers who would've gotten RAM upgrades from somewhere other than Apple
(d) Any combination of the above three categories
Certainly, (c) is a bummer, considering that even the 2020 27-inch iMac had user-replaceable RAM and that Apple charges an obscene amount for RAM upgrades.
And yes, if you're trying to shoehorn a standard M1 or M2 Mac mini, the cost IS more. However, I think many would rather a display that could be re-used once the hardware becomes obsolete or dies than a display that you are only purchasing for that machine. Doesn't justify the high cost for low-end configurations. But overall, one could make an argument that there is added value.
I still wouldn't hold my breath here. The high-end professionals were the most vocal about wanting a modular display. A 32-inch iMac doesn't serve anyone that wouldn't be better served by a Mac Studio/Pro paired with the ProDisplay XDR.
Needing an All-in-One isn't a must-have pro feature. Casual users have the 24-inch iMac and the Studio Display. Consider the target market audience for a would-be 32-inch iMac.
Only Apple knows for sure, of course, but as stated I have a few years to wait. If they release a large iMac, great! If they don’t, I have suitable (if less desirable) options. Regardless, the 27” size is dead to me… and I have a Studio display…
You misunderstand: The cost of the Studio monitor alone is more than what you could get a new 27" iMac for when that monitor came out. I'm not even including the cost of a Mac.
Let's put a shelf life on hardware with an even smaller addressable market ... right.
You mean because of the price savings? Of course, it’s very understandable why people want that, but if that’s the only reason for Apple to make it, to save customers money, then it doesn’t make much sense from a business perspective. It might make sense if the market for it was huge, because then lower profits per unit could be recouped with volume, but I don’t think that is the case.
I’ve actually never been clear on how/why Apple sold the 27” iMac for so cheap, looking at the high prices of the individual components. It was always a weird anomaly to me.
Most likely something about them and LG being the only consumers of the 5k panels they were using and the need to subsidize the production thereof. (Someone upgrading to 27'' WANTS the real estate, if apple cannot give it, the alternative would be a mini with a third party monitor at a minimum ... the Maths most likely have been done to justifiy the line for this long as a way to maximise profit from that specific market.)
I agree about the iMacs being surprisingly cheap. Everyone waiting for the exception that reverted to the norm to materialize again is a fool.
Not saying that you should bend over and take it, quite the contrary.
But we see the same type of thinking all around MR with people wishfully thinking that their wants and sometimes needs can and will be addressed by apple even when they very obviously contradict business sense.
I'm looking at the iPhone mini / iPad as a laptop / user upgradeable specs / Open standards and data portability crowds. That being said, I'm quite sure that a large fraction of the engagement of the forums could be avoided was this one fallacy completely addressed, not to talk about the people starting up threads with the 100th generic youtube video of a room-temp take beating the same dead horse.
People should really wise up after three decades of anti-trust and anti-consumer behaviour from all the AAA hitters.
But then again, it might just be realism setting in on my end.
Last edited:
My theory is that because an iMac can't be used as a TV or monitor for anything else, Samsung figures that iMac buyers are more likely to buy another monitor or TV as well. Thus giving Apple a cheap price is justified in the long term. It's a complicated, but it is honestly the only way to explain the limits Apple puts on iMacs.