Apple Not Planning to Launch Larger-Screened iMac

[HobeSoundDarryl]

The problem is that all of those other monitors top out at 4K resolution. It’s not terrible at smaller screen sizes but the larger you go the worse it gets. But at least they are cheap, right?

Nope, 5K is not exclusive to Apple. Do a search for 5K monitors. You’ll find lists of them. Click into the lists and explore.

My new one is 5K2K UltraWide… basically my dying iMacs 27” screen times 2, side by side, with no break or bezel down the middle. I’m doubting Apple will get around to an ultra-wide themselves for many years.

There’s other 5Ks out there. Look and ye shall find.

Bonus if it’s about >4K resolution: the 8K monitors have arrived too… with more of them expected this year.

 

[RandomTox]

Guess apple thinks Studio covers all those bases.

I agree with them.

No critical thinking of your own, huh?

 

[Quackington]

I can believe that maybe its not possible for them to fit in a cooling solution that's satisfactory in a thin iMac enclosure for the M1 Max or M1 Ultra. Especially as these chips will only get more and more powerful as the years go by.

That being said, they NEED to have an M1 Pro desktop solution. Whether that be in the Mac mini or 24" iMac. Because right now you have "consumer" devices and industry-grade "pro" devices with a $1000+ price gap. You could just say "get the Mac Studio" but there's a lot of industries where that power is probably overkill and its hard to justify paying extra for power you wont use. M1 Pro is definitely the sweet spot.

Is anyone totally against a thicker iMac? Since it’s stationary anyway, I don’t think it should matter. I wouldn’t be fussed at all if it was as thick as the iMacs with disc drives. This obsession with making things thinner just for aesthetics doesn’t sit well with me.

 

[RandomTox]

they kinda ruined it with the 24inch design thinness obsession over function. studio is good, let the box fan make it fly up!

studio is not as compact as all in one pc. less is more.

 

[tobybrut]

Makes a lot of sense to just have one iMac line. Maybe give it a M1 pro build to order option but otherwise it really fits the market. The 27 inch never appealed to me as it didn’t make sense compared to the Mac Pro. The studio is a much better option and I can order those in the hundreds for my developers which I couldn’t do for iMacs.

I agree that Apple is leaving a hole in their product line. The 24" M1 iMac line has a big gap between it and the M1 Max Mac Studio. What Apple could have done to fill that gap would have been to release an M1 Pro Mac Studio starting at $1499. Looking at the MBP's the price difference between the base M1 Pro and base M1 Max is $500. A lot of people would have bought an M1 Pro Mac Studio for $1499 and perhaps some other monitor if the new display is too expensive.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

The Mac mini already got the M1. It was the first one to get it along with the 13" MacBook Pro and MacBook Air. What Apple might do is release the option to configure the Mini with either the M1 base or M1 pro.

Yes I expect a PRO option Mac Mini at some point, prob starting at about $1500. For those who can wait, that should be a fantastic compromise for added power over the base M1 or M2, without having to rob Ft. Knox to pay for it.

 

[richest]

Nah the Mac mini as it stands is very strong for developers and many other professionals. Even for editing 45 MP RAW photos and 4k video. It is a much stronger option with the studio display than the entry level iMac 27inch. If you need more power you just go up to the Mac Studio. At least now you can start with a mini and work your way up as you need more power.

Lol same old argument from earlier

And end up paying 3.5k for what used to cost around 2k include keyboard. 2k. Apple corp must love your view.

 

[Bug-Creator]

Looking at the MBP's the price difference between the base M1 Pro and base M1 Max is $500.

In reality it is $900 as you are forced to also upgrade to 32GB. So IF Apple had done a M1Pro-Mini/Studio it would have been at least $1499 pushing the base M1Max to $2399. Cos thats what Apple does.....

 

[ZipZilla]

20 anything is too small for an all in one. Needs to be 32”. But the product is gone because anything above the M1 runs hot. M2 is going to be a space heater

 

[Coconut Bean]

Nah the Mac mini as it stands is very strong for developers and many other professionals. Even for editing 45 MP RAW photos and 4k video. It is a much stronger option with the studio display than the entry level iMac 27inch. If you need more power you just go up to the Mac Studio. At least now you can start with a mini and work your way up as you need more power.

There is no option between the $700 Mac Mini and $2000 Mac Studio, I don't count the 16GB Mac mini as that different. Even though it is price point where a lot of people would be interested in something.

But they'll launch some minis with M2 pros at like $1500.

 

[ruka.snow]

Lol same old argument from earlier

And end up paying 3.5k for what used to cost around include keyboard. 2k. Apple corp must love your view.

I was never going to spend just 2k on a iMac. Pointless configuration.

 

[JosephAW]

Apple doesn’t want to make any more mini devices, and they probably don’t want to make any extra large devices.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Is anyone totally against a thicker iMac? Since it’s stationary anyway, I don’t think it should matter. I wouldn’t be fussed at all if it was as thick as the iMacs with disc drives. This obsession with making things thinner just for aesthetics doesn’t sit well with me.

Not me. If I would EVER be interested in iMac again, and I could make it as I want it, I’d want these 4 features:

1. Return of a Target Display Mode or external input to use it as a monitor for other computing guts, especially when the Mac guts themselves conk or are made “long in tooth” by macOS upgrades. Among other things, this would facilitate a bootcamp replacement by adding a little Mac Mini-like PC that could also use the same monitor. Working Mac people can NEED some access to Windows too.
2. The ability to swap those tech guts for updated guts when they get too old… basically make the computer part modular with a simple plug to connect the updated guts to the monitor. Take that iMac into an Apple store for the transplant, walk out with a functionally new iMac and don’t waste a screen with every hardware update anymore.
3. Use a lane or two of Thunderbolt INSIDE to offer some standard M.2 bays for easy storage expansion. I’d like about 4 such bays to internally RAID. Empty base model could hit Apples “starting at” price but those needing more storage could then add their own whenever they like. Yes, I know this would be slower stiorage than Apples “unified” but I would rather have the flexibility to grow (inside) then paying up so much up front trying to guess how much I might ever need.
4. Standard VESA mount on default stand so that the decision of what kind of stand doesn’t have to be made up front, nor cost the Apple premium for common stand options from pretty much all other competitors, nor be the one & only option “locked down” for the life of the device. In short, don’t gouge me on the stand, nor build a monitor that only works with stand options from a single source. VESA is universal.

I could envision this as maybe a wedge shape case, fatter at the bottom and thinning at the top… or a return to great iMac designs like those that included a SuperDrive: an inch+ “thin” with plenty of room inside for power and thermal management. Maybe cheese grater holes all over the backside case to release the heat.

Lastly, now that I’ve sampled ultra-wide first hand, the ideal iMac for me would have that too… basically two 27” or larger traditional iMac screens in ONE frame with no break down the middle.

I project 0.001% chance of ever seeing this come from Apple but my interest in owning another iMac would roar back if that Hell froze over under those flying pigs.?

 

[IllinoisCorn]

Same panel

Same panel. I don't believe it's the same calibration process, however.

 

[dfine1966]

You better check your sources. Macworld is saying the opposite The 27 inch iMac is not being cancelled. It will be out in 2023.

Here is a link to an article from Macworld. Stop worrying.

32-inch iMac Pro: What you need to know about the rumors

Apple no longer makes an iMac with a larger screen, but could Apple be planning to revive the larger model? Here's what we've heard.

www.macworld.com

 

[shinkansenwarrior]

I have been waiting for the same but that time is over. Apple came with much better deal in long term.
They have the data and they know what was the popular choice and if I take the price of 27" iMac, bump the SSD and GPU I arrive to close similar price as if I pick Mac Studio + Studio display. The difference here is that next time I'm upgrading, the display stays and only Studio is updated = already saving money there.
Sure, 27" iMac used to be good deal as you got amazing screen with a good computer but that is no longer the case.
If Apple released both then I think a lot of people would still lean towards studio + screen combo. iMac would not have ram upgradable/accessible so the price of it would be almost the same and hence why it would not make sense.

Sure, there are people who love AiO and I was one of them until this combo. I can hide the box under my desk and just have the screen if I really want to have super minimalistic look.

We have been craving for a bridge between Mac Mini and Mac Pro for ages and now that its here people are again craving for something else.

Apple now has much better portfolio than before and it caters more people. This studio combo is really good deal once you crunch the numbers.

So, lets adapt and move on

Yeah I remember back in 2010 my quad core 2.8GHZ Nehalem Xeon cheesegrater was actually Y280,000 Japanese yen when I bought it in Tokyo with 1TB Hard Drive and a massive 3GB RAM (1GB x 3 sticks in the PCI lanes) with Radeon 5770 GPU (later upgraded to 6 core 3.46GHZ Westmere with Radeon 5870). The Mac Studio M1 Max base modal with 1TB SSD memory equivalent costs Y271,800 so it is LESS than what I paid 11 years ago. No need to discuss performance. Enormous boost for less!! I always wanted the monitor separate in case issues arose ...but each to their own. So cost wise the Studio (M1 Max) is not a bad deal at all. I just wish they would have cheesegrated the front side. That front panel looks awful but I guess this was meant to be the Mac Mini Turbo version not Mac Pro.

 

[Abazigal]

Is anyone totally against a thicker iMac? Since it’s stationary anyway, I don’t think it should matter. I wouldn’t be fussed at all if it was as thick as the iMacs with disc drives. This obsession with making things thinner just for aesthetics doesn’t sit well with me.

The direction taken by the 24" M1 iMac points to Apple rethinking the role which the iMac plays in the home. It's now mainly a consumer desktop designed to be seen as much as it is to be used (as evidenced by the dual-colour design, and being thin and light to be placed pretty much anywhere in the room).

The sensing I have gotten from this forum over the past few years is also one of umbrage by professional users who preferred a more modular approach. They hated that the iMac was thermally constrained, and you were 'stuck' with the bundled display (albeit a fairly good one). The Mac studio is not really "modular" in the sense that it likely will not support expandable memory / storage, but it does offer users the versatility of being able to use their own monitor (one common criticism of the 5k iMac), and users will still be able to plug in external drives via the thunderbolt ports (and it at least sports some front-facing ones).

My guess is that Apple no longer feels the iMac form factor is enough to handle "pro" workflows for the aforementioned reasons, and their answer to this is the Mac studio + studio monitor combination. Never say never, but I believe Apple if they say the 27" iMac is dead in the water for now.

 

[blairh]

Is anyone totally against a thicker iMac? Since it’s stationary anyway, I don’t think it should matter. I wouldn’t be fussed at all if it was as thick as the iMacs with disc drives. This obsession with making things thinner just for aesthetics doesn’t sit well with me.

Have fun lugging that thing to the Apple store for repairs.

 

[BornAgainMac]

For a Pro machine, separating the machine from the monitor is the right move. Let the end-user pick the display(s) they need as it doesn't need to be Apple. Let the system can be beefed up more when it isn't limited to the iMac chin. The iMac at the consumer level should remain for a clean setup that is still very powerful.

 

[panjandrum]

The only issue I really see is going to be with the professional market that uses large iMacs for client-facing meetings etc. I work with quite a few of this type of professional (architects, studio & art photographers, interior design firms, that kind of thing), and right now every single one I can think of has a nice space with a 27" iMac for meeting with clients to go over projects; it makes for such an attractive experience, especially with a bluetooth keyboard and mouse. I'm not sure the 24" will make them happy, even though it seems fine for most of us. Hopefully this particular rumor is untrue; since creative-professionals are such an important part of Apple's ecosystem.

 

[Karma*Police]

Why would anyone want a 27” iMac Pro, especially now that they have a display and choice of 2 M-based desktops? Decoupling the processor from the screen makes a lot more economic sense in the long run.

 

[fockx]

Why would anyone want a 27” iMac Pro, especially now that they have a display and choice of 2 M-based desktops? Decoupling the processor from the screen makes a lot more economic sense in the long run.

Not everybody has a dedicated room at home for their computer. If the thing resides in your living room it's nice not to have a cable mess on display.

 

[Edsel]

The space efficiency of the iMac is hard to replicate with the Mini M1. My M1 mini is fast but the spider web of cables and adapters is a horrid mess. Not having a decent speaker, fewer accessible ports, and no camera has made this a poor decision on my part. The thought of adding a second monitor to the Mini means more desktop cable clutter. The new 24" iMac is too small.

 

[theluggage]

The “pro imac” always seemed like a waste to me. The computer always becomes obsolete before the monitor. Much better to seperate them for “pros”.

Except it depends what you mean by "obsolete" - I can think of a lot of uses for a second hand iMac Pro at a sensible price, and even my 2017 high-end regular iMac is still a pretty capable bit of kit, even if it's a long way from bleeding edge... but it's no use without a display.

Anyway, I kinda agree about the iMac Pro in that people who needed that much power would also be likely to need specialist display setups and enough peripherals to make the all-in-one bit moot - and sometimes that means things like colour calibrated/certified 1440p displays rather than the absolute best resolution. It's the $2000-$2500 5k iMac models that leave the hole.

My new one is 5K2K UltraWide… basically my dying iMacs 27” screen times 2, side by side, with no break or bezel down the middle. I’m doubting Apple will get around to an ultra-wide themselves for many years.

That's ultrawide - 5120x2160, 21:9 - so it has the same vertical resolution and pixel density as a 4k UHD (3840x2160) display of the same height, and will pose the same issues with probably needing "scaled mode" to get the system font/icon/menus etc. a sensible size. It's not equivalent to a "5k" 5120x2880 (in a world where 3840 is '4k' I guess that's 5k3k?) display which is the optimum for MacOS for a 27" 16:9 display.

Don't get me wrong - "scaled mode" may have been an issue with Intel UHD Graphics but a M1/Pro/Max should eat that for breakfast, and 4k is retina at desktop viewing distances, so you've proven the point that there is a wonderful world of alternative displays out there, but there is a MacOS-related advantage to using 27", 5k 16:9 displays - and there are approximately zero of those on the market (if the LG has been discontinued).

What Apple could have done to fill that gap would have been to release an M1 Pro Mac Studio starting at $1499. Looking at the MBP's the price difference between the base M1 Pro and base M1 Max is $500.

here is no option between the $700 Mac Mini and $2000 Mac Studio, I don't count the 16GB Mac mini as that different. Even though it is price point where a lot of people would be interested in something.

You can't just dismiss the 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD in the lowest end Mini, especially when the RAM is now non-upgradeable and part and parcel of deciding which SoC you need. 512GB SSD is probably compulsory if you want to install bulky Pro software like Logic and have enough space for your work-in-progress video/audio projects on the fast drive. If you don't want that then the 8GB/256GB is probably fine.

So I don't think it's valid to dismiss the $1099 Mini config as an intermediate between the base Mini and the Studio.

Now, looking at MBP 14" prices, the difference between the M1 Max and the M1 Pro is $600 (the RAM upgrade from 16 to 32GB is part of the chip) - so working back from the M1 Max Studio that would put a hypothetical 16GB/512 M1 Pro Studio at $1400. (Yeah, that reasoning isn't cast iron but it's the best you can do with the available info).

So, yeah, that sounds like a reasonable intermediate option between M1 Mini and Studio.
However, remember, the Max supports one more external display than the Pro - and I don't think anybody knows what's happening with TB4 ports and PCIe or if the Pro could support all the ports on the M1 Max Studio (I thought the only Pro/Max difference was GPU cores, but the Max-only Studio has rather more I/O than on the M1 Pro & Max MBPs).

I think there's another way of looking at it, though: The M1 Pro is basically an M1 Max with half the GPU cores chopped off, resulting in a GPU that is more powerful than anything else in a thin & light laptop (with decent battery life) but isn't anything special compared to desktop PC GPUs (or even bulky gaming/portable workstation class laptops).

If price is not your #1 priority (and you're getting a Mac, so it isn't) and you're buying a desktop, so heat & battery life isn't your #1 priority, either, then how much do you need to "save" by getting what is, by Apple standards, a mobile-class GPU?

 

[Sinfonist]

For me its about space. I live in a studio apartment and have small desk, maybe 2.5 ft wide. For me, having JUST an iMac with a keyboard and mouse and no wires going all over the place is perfect for me. Also, when the price is comparable, why not just have a single solution?

Try installing a Mac mini using an under-desk mount. That gives the option of only one more wire than an iMac (the thunderbolt cable).