Apple on late Friday evening added a "while supplies last" notice to its iMac Pro product page worldwide, and removed all upgrade options for the computer, leaving only the standard configuration available to order for now.
We've since confirmed with Apple that when supplies run out, the iMac Pro will no longer be available whatsoever. Apple says the latest 27-inch iMac introduced in August is the preferred choice for the vast majority of pro iMac users, and said customers who need even more performance and expandability can choose the Mac Pro.
The latest 27-inch iMac features a 5K display with True Tone and a nano-texture glass option, up to a 10-core 10th-generation Intel Core i9 processor, up to 128GB of RAM, up to 8TB of storage, up to AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT graphics, a 10 Gigabit Ethernet option, a higher-resolution 1080p camera, improved speakers and microphones, and more.
While the Intel-based 27-inch iMac is Apple's recommendation right now, rumors suggest that a redesigned iMac with a next-generation Apple silicon chip and a design inspired by Apple's high-end Pro Display XDR will be released later this year, so many customers may want to exercise patience. It's unclear if an Apple silicon version of the iMac Pro will ever be released, but it appears unlikely at this point.
Released in December 2017, the iMac Pro received no substantial hardware refreshes over its lifetime.
Article Link: Apple Confirms iMac Pro Will Be Discontinued When Supplies Run Out, Recommends 27-Inch iMac
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.
Apple Confirms iMac Pro Will Be Discontinued When Supplies Run Out, Recommends 27-Inch iMac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One very GOOD thing about the iMac Pro is its superior cooling system over the iMac 27".
The regular iMac would constantly overheat on CPU/GPU intensive tasks like rendering video, or enhancing hundreds of photos with Perfectly Clear, or using Twixtor on video, etc. Then it's CPU would automatically drop down to slower speed. But not the iMac Pro ... it stayed cool and powerful.
The regular iMac would constantly overheat on CPU/GPU intensive tasks like rendering video, or enhancing hundreds of photos with Perfectly Clear, or using Twixtor on video, etc. Then it's CPU would automatically drop down to slower speed. But not the iMac Pro ... it stayed cool and powerful.
I had an uncle that used WebTV, claim that there was 'no future' for the Mac. Well... Hmm...
He also had a Xerox computer (not the Star) and swore that they would 'Rule The Industry!'. (Didn't Olivetti build that for them?) Well... Hmm...
And Ken Olsen, Digital Computer, said 'there is no reason to have a computer in the home. There will only be a few thousand computers in the world'. Well... Hmm...
Such crazy talk...
NONE of it happened. So... Umm...
Not counting servers, I have over a dozen computers! And three servers.. Wow... Missed that one by a bit... With three systems running Windows. (Sounds like a ricochet on 'The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly', and that movie is FULL of ricochets)
Darth Tulhu
macrumors 68020
If you exclude Apple monitors and monitors that were made with Apple in mind… you get 1. Dell. That’s not plenty, is it?
Apple’s profits have very little… no very VERY little to do with the Mac Pro. The profits from all the Mac Pro’s and iMac Pro’s since they were released is likely within the realm of a rounding error when considering Apple’s profits. They’re growing market by leaps and bounds with the iPad (Dell, Lenovo, etc. WISH they sold as many laptops per quarter as Apple sells iPads). I’m still pretty sure that the Mac user base will constrict over time even as Apple ships more and more powerful Macs not because people don’t like them; because people won’t need them.
I liked it, but I never owned one.
Joking aside - the issue isn't that it is a bad machine, the problem is that the iMac Pro is a niche machine for people who want an all-in-one 27" 5k Xeon workstation with a non-removable display.
It's not about the iMac/iMac Pro - it's about the non-existence of a "headless" alternative with full-size GPUs, copious internal storage etc.
It's not about the 28 Core Mac Pro with quad GPU and 1.5TB RAM - it's about the lack/extreme price of anything a bit more mid-range.... and, at the other end, proper high-density, high-performance rackmounts and servers (you can get 56 core dual Xeon systems, you know...)
It's not about the XDR display - it's about the lack of a 5k Thunderbolt display to go with your Mini or alongside your iMac or MBP.
It's not about the 15"/16" MBP - its about the lack of a real portable workstation for people for whom weight/battery life isn't everything at one end, or a lower-spec 15" machine for people who just want a big screen for spreadsheets, DTP/web design, coding etc.
It's not about the butterfly keyboard (...if you give Apple the benefit of the doubt that the 3rd gen version fixed the reliability) it's about Apple choosing such an extremely love-it-or-hate-it style of keyboard as the only option across their laptop range.
It's not just about any iMac Pro/Mac Pro, its about the way that every Pro desktop since 2010 has ended up going for several years without a real update before suddenly being replaces with a radically different concept (with the current Mac Pro looking like it might be on the same path...)
The snag with Apple is that they make a range of niche machines, and rely on MacOS loyalty/lock-in to hang on to customers who don't fit those niches. They act like a Mom & Pop "boutique" PC maker... but they're freaking Apple.
Back in April 2017, they could have phoned Foxconn and had a shipload of nice-looking PCIe tower "xMacs" in the stores 6 months later, at minimal R&D cost, sold them at a hefty premium over comparable PCs "because MacOS" and a huge proportion of their "pro" customers, enthusiasts and power users would have been delighted. Maybe, in 1998, when a PCIe mini-tower was the go-to form factor for consumers - that would have killed sales of more profitable iMacs and MacBooks. But this was 2017, by which time most regular consumers wanted laptops.
Read what I posted several are listed therein or close and there is probably more.
Have you searched ALL manufacturers, models?
Well, first, Apple don't release this info, so it is all guesswork. Inside Apple I'm sure that they are very interested about the individual profitability of each and every model - and if anything is not profitable they're gonna want a very strong story about "indirect benefits" from having that product in their inventory. Apple don't make stuff for fun.
I would neither over-estimate the R&D costs of the Mac Pro or under-estimate Apple's profit margin on them. At the end of the day it's just a Xeon-W motherboard in a somewhat over-engineered aluminium box, with AMD GPUs on slightly re-designed PCIe cards. It can have all those 8-lane PCIe slots and huge RAM expandability because those are features that Intel added to the new Xeon-W range - not something clever that Apple did. Routing thunderbolt, power etc. to a second edge connector to make PCIe slots into MPX slots is neat, but not rocket surgery. Don't get me wrong - it didn't design itself for free - but I'm sure it took a fraction of the cost & effort of the annual iPhone update. As for the profit margin - look at the SSD and (especially) RAM upgrade prices c.f. the retail prices of equivalent parts. Then tell me that those $400-$700 wheels cost more than $10 to make. OK, that's partly just extra gouging on optional extras, but I somehow doubt that Apple are cuttin' their own throats on the rest of the MP.
Well, this makes sense, though. Anyone still using the Mac now MUST be using it because they like the OS and the environment they’re working in far more than any performance improvement they might get from switching to a PC. So, the fact that a Mac can run Premier at least as well as a Windows system is a comparison that’s not useful for most potential buyers. However, most everyone still using those macOS apps are very interested in how much faster these new systems would be than their old one.
Daring Fireball: The Mac Pro Lives
daringfireball.net
- Apple’s research shows that 15 percent of all Mac users use at least one “pro” app frequently. These are apps for things like music creation, video editing, graphic design, and software development. Basically, apps that are performance intensive. An additional 15 percent of Mac users use pro apps less frequently but at least a few times per month. That 30 percent of the overall Mac user base is what Apple considers the “pro” market.
- Overall, the split between notebooks and desktops in Mac sales is roughly 80/20. (Personally, I’m a little surprised desktops account for even 20 percent of sales. I would have guessed 85/15, and wouldn’t have been surprised to hear 90/10.)
- Even among pro users, notebooks are by far the most popular Macs. In second place are iMacs. The Mac Pro is third. Apple declined to describe the Mac Pro’s share of all Mac sales any more specifically than “a single-digit percent”, but my gut feeling is that the single digit is a lot closer to 1 than it is to 9.
The Mac Pro and everything related to it is priced understanding that VERY few people will buy them. In it’s lifetime, they WILL make a profit on each and every Mac Pro sold. They’ll make a profit on the few wheels they ship (I’d be surprised if they’re mass produced. For the number that sell, they could have them made by hand only once they’re ordered!
, they’ll make a profit on every monitor they sell. BUT, that profit will still be a sliver of the massive profits that Apple makes in a quarter.The image, that’s from the story linked to, lists a LOT of monitors. However, according to the chart, only 5 of those are good for Retina (the ones that reach over to the green bar on the right).
And the Dell 5K is discontinued. Plenty of 180+ ppi 4K monitors available though.
There is a thread right here:
Picking monitor size/resolution (scaling, resolution)
Hello I've been trying to decide on an external monitor for the office that will be used both on a 2017 Macbook Pro as well as on a HP Spectre notebook. (no gaming, mainly coding and light photo/vide editing). Currently I'm testing a LG 27UL850-W, 27" 4K display. On the good side: has USB-C...forums.macrumors.com
Link to plenty of monitors close to 220 PPI good for retina
Mac external displays for designers and developers
If you’re considering an external display for your Mac, there’s a few important decisions to make. Apple doesn’t sell external displays any more, so you can’t just default to their wisdom. That’s an issue, because not all displays are well suited for Macs.bjango.com
And I'm sure there are more.
Firstly: that article literally shows just three external displays (plus two iMac sizes) that are > 200 PPI. If we want to be generous, it also lists the Surface Studio which is 193 PPI, but it's also an all-in-one PC, not a display.
Secondly: that article is from 2016. The 4K LG display was discontinued a long time ago. The Dell 5K was discontinued a long time ago. The 5K LG was removed from the Apple Online Store about 2 weeks ago, indicating it too is/will be discontinued.
Edit to Add: apparently the LG Ultrafine disappearing from Apple Stores was related to regulatory changes, and it is/will be back again.
Even if you say "well close is better than nothing":
The Dell P2415Q: discontinued. No replacement model.
The EIZO CG248: discontinued. No real replacement model.
Between when this chart was created and now, there was also the EIZO Foris Nova: 21.6", 4K. Perfect. They only ever made 500 as far as I can tell, and it was a "call us if you want one" affair. I saw prices from 1300 Euro to 2700 GBP for the sites that actually had them listed (but all say "unavailable" now).
What are still available, is a metric **** ton of 27", 4K displays. They have a PPI of ~163. For some people that's fine, but it's either going to make everything on screen look very big, or it's going to work your GPU a lot harder, and give you less clarity in the picture.
180 PPI at 4K, is a ~24" display. There are possibly two (both from LG) for sale if you're somewhere that they still have stock.
I think you're thinking of all the aforementioned 160PPI 27" displays.
Last edited:
No I was thinking 23“-24”. I bought a 24” LG 4K last year and assumed that they were still available. At the time there seemed to be several for sale. I‘m not surprised if they are all out of stock/discontinued though. The external monitor market is dominated by PC gamer requirements and high pixel density is not one of those requirements.
Edit: According to the Apple Store app, both the LG Ultrafine 4K and 5K are available for both mail order and local delivery on Wednesday. So not quite that dire yet but mostly I agree with you, there are very few external Retina quality displays available.
Last edited:
AFAIK LG makes / made two 4K 24" models: the Ultrafine Apple sells, and a cheaper model with DP/HDMI rather than USB-C: the 24UD58-B. However, I've not seen it available in many online stores.
Apparently the Ultrafines (4k and 5k) disappearing from the Apple stores was related to some Euro regulation thing (see the update on https://www.macrumors.com/2021/02/22/lg-ultrafine-5k-display-listing-gone-europe/).
Yep, and unfortunately if you're on e.g. a last-generation Intel mini, and wanted to use an eGPU with it, you've got even less choices because the vast majority of eGPU options don't include a USB-C or TB3 display output.
Yes, the 24UD58-B is what I bought. It was relatively inexpensive. It seems to work reasonably well with my M1 MBA.
I think it's fairer to say that high-PPI displays are a niche product. If people really wanted them, manufacturers would be selling them. If people have extra money they want to spend on a better monitor, they usually choose a bigger display instead of a higher pixel density.
From what I see, the standard cheap office monitor today is 27" at 1080p or 1440p. The most popular higher-end option seems to be a 34" 1440p monitor with 21:9 aspect ratio.
When I got my first 27" iMac, the display seemed huge. These days it feels cramped and I'm often annoyed that it can't even fit two normal-sized browser windows side-by-side. One day soon, Apple will have to release a redesigned iMac, because a 27" display is no longer sufficient for a high-end desktop.
Sure, high-PPI monitors are clearly niche. The niche being Mac users who use a high-end external monitor with a MacBook or Mac mini users. Less than 5% of the market probably.
I still remember being in BestBuy or ComputerCity when Apple introduced the 30" Cinema Display (2560x1600) and being in awe of its size.
Looking at Amazon, I count
I was replying to someone's comment that pros don't want modularity (as in the std. definition of upgradable components) for their non-mobile devices. Yet, for non-mobile devices, Apple's definition of modularity is indeed the standard one, as evidenced by the latest Mac Pro. As Apple says at https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/design/ :The Techcrunch article on this also seemed to suggest that Apple had a very different interpretation of "modularity" than simply letting people upgrade their own ram and storage.
Apple's 2019 Mac Pro will be shaped by workflows | TechCrunch
A year ago, I visited the Apple campus in Cupertino to figure out where the hell the new Mac Pro was. I joined a round-table discussion with Apple SVPstechcrunch.com
Apple's definition of modularity seems to involve plugging in additional accessories and peripherals to add extra functionality to an existing product, not so much modifying the base product itself.
"A whole new take on the tower. Building a workstation that delivers immense performance and modularity meant considering it as an integrated system. Through and through, Mac Pro is built to change with your needs." [emphasis mine]
[Also, let's not minimize upgradeability by just calling it "ram and storage". A particular sore point with pros about the Trashcan was that GPU tech advances rapidly, and the Trashcan's design didn't allow upgradeability to new GPUs; the Mac Pro fixes that (at least for AMD!). And, as an aside, iFixit said the CPU chips in the Mac Pro are socketed and thus should be replaceable as well.]
By contrast, the part of the article to which you're referring is Apple saying that, for mobile devices (where Apple knows its products won't be modular), they can still claim modularity by extending that definition to include upgradeable external devices. IMO that's mostly marketing—they're trying to reframe the standard definition of modularity so they can use connectivity to claim modularity for devices that aren't upgradeable (and thus woudn't normally be considered modular). Further, since that article, while Apple has gone all-in on the standard defintion of modularity for its non-mobile pro device (the Mac Pro), they've actually backed away, with their new M1 Macs, from the non-standard definition of modularity you cite (e.g., they lose eGPU support) (see https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/10/macs-with-the-m1-chip-do-not-support-egpus/).
Last edited:
Not everyone lives in America.
To clarify this: for example, the venerable Dell P2415Q (which I have two of already) is available still on Amazon for $649.. plus $418 shipping to get to me.
If anything this highlights why a first party display from Apple is sought after: they will sell it everywhere they sell Macs.
The proof is in the pudding. Apple has clearly said that the Pro Workflow Team would influence the design of the Mac Pro (https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/05/apples-2019-imac-pro-will-be-shaped-by-workflows/), and the result of this collaboration was indeed a Mac Pro that is highly modular, by Apple's own description (https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/design/):
"A whole new take on the tower. Building a workstation that delivers immense performance and modularity meant considering it as an integrated system. Through and through, Mac Pro is built to change with your needs." [emphasis mine]"
Yes, it's possible the Pro Workflow Team told them they didn't want modularity, and Apple put it in anyways in spite of them, but that's so implausible as to be silly.
Last edited:
