Lately, Apple has been really pissing me off with their decisions about Macs. iMacs are now only targeted at average users, not the pros, but if you are a pro, the options are far more expensive than before. It's like they think we all earn hundreds of thousands.
Depends on what you think the "pro" options are/were. The Mac Studio + Studio Display is somewhat cheaper than the previous options of (a) a kludge involving a Mac Mini and eGPU, (b) a $5000+ iMac Pro or (c) a Mac Pro from $6000 (for a dismal spec, so more like $10k "on the road") , and about the same as a top-end iMac if you include Apple's 32GB upgrade (and, let's face it, the DIY RAM upgrade option was always going to go away with the next iMac update). Add to that
not everybody thinks that the Studio Display is the one and only option for a Mac Studio display - I'm using a matching pair of 4k+ 3:2 screens that cost less
together than a single Studio Display - and even then I had some older 4k and 1200p displays which would have worked fine if I'd wanted to spread the cost and/or wait for newer display tech to come along.
So, yeah, the options for low/mid range iMacs have dried up (but then a
lot of people will now be happier with a "dual use" laptop) but the Mac Studio (and, to an extent, the Mac Mini) is a
massive step forward for those people who always wanted a "separates" system but had only been offered an iMac.
If they change the bezels back to black, increase capacity and configuration options, then yes, it would stop being an abomination.
I'll have to concede that only the "silver" 24" iMac is remotely tolerable (even then some black duct tape might be required
) - but there are a lot of other issues with both the 24" iMac and a hypothetical Studio Display-like 27" iMac - like the external power brick with captive, proprietary connector (was anybody complaining about the built-in PSU
before the 24" came out?) vs. the captive mains cable on the Studio Display, Ethernet on the power brick, the minimal stand with no height adjustment (or $400 extra for what comes as standard on many far cheaper displays) and (why I really dislike iMacs, despite having had one since 2017) the inability to use the display with anything else (apart from limited streaming solutions). There was a
reason for dropping Target Display Mode when the 5k came out in 2014 - when no single cable display interface could do 5k - but that went away with TB3 and DP1.4, there's no excuse today, and no excuse for the Studio Display not having a second input (so, e.g. you could plug in a laptop or iPad without disconnecting it from a desktop).
I don't actually believe the speculation that the Studio Display was an aborted iMac - but it's still a glimpse into the sort of features that a new 27" iMac might have had & I don't like it that much - it's just the only game in town if you insist on having 5k. I'm really glad that it's now optional.
There is ALWAYS new tech right around the corner.
Which is exactly why it's a bad idea to "tie" two expensive bits of kit together so that they can't be updated separately - especially when the display tech involved is
already 5 years old (with the backlight cranked up a bit).
It's really the cause of the problem 5k iMac users are now facing - they have what is still an excellent display locked into an outdated computer - shiny new Apple Silicon computers are available but if they want one they have to pay for substantially the same display again - at a time when there
aren't so many shiny new display options.
If you take the long view, treat the iMac as sunk costs (after all, you got a 5k screen at a bargain price & had years of use out of it) - and switch to "separates" today, then the next time that
either your display or computer goes obsolete you'll be able to replace one without sinking the other.
I get it - some people like all-in-ones, others prefer separates and they're probably not going to agree. However, the Mac Studio has drastically improved the situation with regards to Mac "separates".
