Good question, but I can only write you what I think ... a Mac mini with M1 Pro would eat into the sales of the low end Mac Studio. And Apple doesn't want that to happen, I assume.
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 Not Planning to Launch Larger-Screened iMac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’ve been a Mac user since 1991, having worked professionally in DTP, Photoshop and video editing on Quadras, Powermacs and Mac Pros. The Studio Mac sounds really great. But!
Our 2015 Corei7 3TB iMac 27 have been brilliant working horses at home and in the office too. The screen is great, and the machine is still great, once I got used to the performance and screen of the M1 Max laptop, I was waiting for a M1 Max iMac with 4TB storage. Potentially with a HDR screen upgrade option.
Let’s all remember that the original Macintosh was an all in one, and that the original iMac was too. Apple’s leaving a huge gap here, not just in heritage, but also feature, easy of use and price wise and also position wise between consumer grade machines and professional equipment.
Bring back the all in one Macintosh. Simply call it the Mac. It’s the missing heart of Apple’s computer line-up.
Apple Mac
Screen 30 inch with nano, HDR, ProMotion options
CPUs: M1, M1 Pro, M1 Max
Memory 16, 32, 64GB
Storage: 512, 1, 2, 4, 8TB
10GE, Wifi6, BT, camera, mic, speakers, some nice USBC ports and target display mode please.
Make the price range from €1999 base spec to €6000 full spec and Apple sales wil roar since these Macs will be very popular in homes, education, business and with prosumers and pro’s in photography, video editing, but don’t need the Mac Studio’s oomph for their regular day to day work.
I think Apple is failing with their attempt to position the iPad as the replacement for Windows PC’s. We need lower end Macs like Apple used to offer with the fun and affordable iBooks and iMacs, and we need prosumer stuff like larger all in one Macs. The pro end of the spectrum seems covered with the new CPU’s, and the upcoming Mac Pro will definitely be a beast.
Oh and the Studio Display? Old tech and overpriced. Totally not impressed.
Our 2015 Corei7 3TB iMac 27 have been brilliant working horses at home and in the office too. The screen is great, and the machine is still great, once I got used to the performance and screen of the M1 Max laptop, I was waiting for a M1 Max iMac with 4TB storage. Potentially with a HDR screen upgrade option.
Let’s all remember that the original Macintosh was an all in one, and that the original iMac was too. Apple’s leaving a huge gap here, not just in heritage, but also feature, easy of use and price wise and also position wise between consumer grade machines and professional equipment.
Bring back the all in one Macintosh. Simply call it the Mac. It’s the missing heart of Apple’s computer line-up.
Apple Mac
Screen 30 inch with nano, HDR, ProMotion options
CPUs: M1, M1 Pro, M1 Max
Memory 16, 32, 64GB
Storage: 512, 1, 2, 4, 8TB
10GE, Wifi6, BT, camera, mic, speakers, some nice USBC ports and target display mode please.
Make the price range from €1999 base spec to €6000 full spec and Apple sales wil roar since these Macs will be very popular in homes, education, business and with prosumers and pro’s in photography, video editing, but don’t need the Mac Studio’s oomph for their regular day to day work.
I think Apple is failing with their attempt to position the iPad as the replacement for Windows PC’s. We need lower end Macs like Apple used to offer with the fun and affordable iBooks and iMacs, and we need prosumer stuff like larger all in one Macs. The pro end of the spectrum seems covered with the new CPU’s, and the upcoming Mac Pro will definitely be a beast.
Oh and the Studio Display? Old tech and overpriced. Totally not impressed.
Last edited:
Name two - apart from the LG one that Apple have just dropped from the store - (and check they're actually available - the HP and Dell ones show up on the web occasionally but were discontinued ages ago, and the LG doesn't sound like it is going to be around much longer...)
Apple might not have an exclusive, but only Mac users are particularly interested in 5k.
I'm basing that assumption off of the M2 using A16 cores, not A15 cores. We've watched over the years how much gains Apple has been able to pull out of each generation. The M1 -> M2 would be a two generation leap. Based on previous A-series, I figured that could be a 40% increase in multicore performance CPU-wise. Which would put the M2 between the two M1 Pro SoCs. The G14 in the A15 is supposed to be a beast when let loose compared to the G13 in the M1 - according to Anandtech while testing the iPhone 13. And all cores got a boost in the A15. Even the ANE got a 30% boost. So who knows what another generation brings to the table.
And of course, I expect the M2 won't be released until the Fall.
Having purchased a 24" iMac at launch it's fair to say that this single 24" size neatly replaces both the 21" and the 27".
Initially I thought the smaller screen would be an issue but actually the delta between 4480 by 2520 for the 24" and 5120×2880 for the 27" for day-to-day tasks like web, email, Office, etc is so negligible that one does not miss the extra space.
Now - for media creator tasks like video, audio and coding I'd prefer a bigger screen [or maybe two] but along with that I also want serious compute power ... enter the Mac Studio.
Yes, the initial cost of Mac Studio + Studio Display is likely more than a loaded 27" iMac, however there are multiple advantages:
• Computer + Monitor is more flexible as one can update just the computer. Also add a second monitor that looks just like the first one.
• Computer itself is way more powerful than something you could put in an all-in-one unit. Looking towards the top end [M1 Ultra with 128Gb RAM, 48 GPU, 2TB SSD] it's way more compute power than an iMac form factor could support.
• Portability may be an advantage if one works in multiple locations.
Yes, I hear folks when they say that Apple have killed the 27" so they can charge more for the Studio/Monitor combination but to be frank the new machine offers way more power.
I don't know the sales splits between 21" and 27" models but I suspect Apple knew what they were doing when they progressed with 24" as the replacement for both models.
I personally love the iMac and understand some users want the 27" version reworked but personally I'm upgrading from a 27" iMac to a a Mac Studio + Monitor, resulting in a setup that's simply stupidly quick.
My only slight issue is that the Studio Monitor, once you've added the decent stand and AppleCare, comes close to £2k which is a tad punchy price-wise.
Initially I thought the smaller screen would be an issue but actually the delta between 4480 by 2520 for the 24" and 5120×2880 for the 27" for day-to-day tasks like web, email, Office, etc is so negligible that one does not miss the extra space.
Now - for media creator tasks like video, audio and coding I'd prefer a bigger screen [or maybe two] but along with that I also want serious compute power ... enter the Mac Studio.
Yes, the initial cost of Mac Studio + Studio Display is likely more than a loaded 27" iMac, however there are multiple advantages:
• Computer + Monitor is more flexible as one can update just the computer. Also add a second monitor that looks just like the first one.
• Computer itself is way more powerful than something you could put in an all-in-one unit. Looking towards the top end [M1 Ultra with 128Gb RAM, 48 GPU, 2TB SSD] it's way more compute power than an iMac form factor could support.
• Portability may be an advantage if one works in multiple locations.
Yes, I hear folks when they say that Apple have killed the 27" so they can charge more for the Studio/Monitor combination but to be frank the new machine offers way more power.
I don't know the sales splits between 21" and 27" models but I suspect Apple knew what they were doing when they progressed with 24" as the replacement for both models.
I personally love the iMac and understand some users want the 27" version reworked but personally I'm upgrading from a 27" iMac to a a Mac Studio + Monitor, resulting in a setup that's simply stupidly quick.
My only slight issue is that the Studio Monitor, once you've added the decent stand and AppleCare, comes close to £2k which is a tad punchy price-wise.
That is correct. I think the next standard step in monitors will be a jump from 4K to maybe 6K or 8K.
I personally don't even have a 4K monitor and I asume many other computer (destkop, notebook) users doesn't have either.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Perhaps only Mac users are interested in 5K because that's the resolution of the only semi-affordable monitor now offered by Apple and/or the resolution of the iMac 27" available for years. If Apple had made iMac 27" 4.5K or 6K, it would be "only Mac people are interested in 4.5K or 6K" That's how that always works: whatever Apple chooses to sell is the one thing "Apple people are interested in" because it can be as little as the only thing that lets them be Apple people.
And whether LG has discontinued it or not, it's available for sale $1250 on Amazon right now... and $1199 renewed. Maybe some Apple people would be interested in 8K? That's available to them now too... just not from Apple. Maybe some Apple people like me want an Ultra-Wide? That's available to them too. Maybe MANY Apple people want a size other than 27"? That's readily available too.
If we want to rationalize this ONE monitor from Apple as the ONLY choice for all people, let's just go with A13 or Apple logo, etc. Then it stands alone among all possibilities... even if no user will likely ever see the A13 and Apple stickers are free.
I'm VERY MUCH an Apple person... but my main monitor for the next 6-10 years will be branded with someone else's logo. Why? Because 27" 16:10 is no longer desired by me (too small) and $6K is too expensive. With those 2 choices eliminated for me, Apple has no other desktop monitor to sell me. But other monitor makers have plenty of options.
Last edited:
This is Apple flushing inventory and maximizing cost. The 27" iMac go bye bye, the Studio Display makes use of those panels. Once they're all dried up (in a year or so, depending on sales of course), larger iMac will return, along with a larger Studio Display.
Well, if you happen to need the power of the Mac Studio, then it may be worth it.
I am sure that a Mac Studio, coupled with the new Studio Display, is a great computer for a creative professional in the U.S. and well worth the price. Those creative professionals need the computer for their daily work and will have a return on their investment that will make it worth it.
MINORITY OF USERS
But the fact is that not everyone is a creative professional. Far from that.
A report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows that, in 2012, a little over 1 million U.S. citizens were employed in creative occupations such as photography, design, or animation: https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2015/article/creative-careers.htm?view_full.
Another report, also from the BLS, shows that a little over 1.1 million people in the U.S. were employed in such creative occupations in 2016 (https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2015/article/creative-careers.htm?view_full).
So, creative professionals are a minority in the U.S. If there are now 1.5 million creative professionals in the U.S., that would not account for 0.5% of the country's population. And the U.S. has the biggest creative industry in the world, by far. In other countries, the percentage should be much lower.
It seems to me that the Mac Studio is meant for this very narrow audience. The new redesigned MacBook Pro seems to also appeal to this audience. Very niche. It makes sense for a creative professional in the U.S. to pay $1999 for a Mac Studio coupled with a $1599 monitor and have such a powerhouse for less than $4,000. Or to buy a 14-inch or 16-inch laptop with so much power and capability for $1999 or $2499.
But what if you belong to the 99.5% of the U.S. population that is not a creative professional? What if you are a student? Or a lawyer, a physician, or a writer? For those users, Apple has the Mac Mini, the 24-inch iMac, and the 13-inch MacBook Air/Pro. Those are limited options. What if you want a laptop or an all-in-one with a larger display?
Of course, even if you are not a creative professional, you can spend $2499 to buy a "combo" Mac Mini + Studio Display or a 16-inch MacBook Pro. You may have the money to do that, and that is fine. Most people in the world do not have this kind of money. And, even if you do have it, you are spending on things you do not need: a 16-inch MacBook Pro comes with features such as 16-core GPU, additional ports, or advanced support for high-impedance headphones, that most regular users will not need. That is overpaying for unnecessary features due to the lack of options.
APPLE'S SHIFT IN STRATEGY
Apple really seems to have shifted its strategy. Tim Cook once mentioned that "I'm traveling with the iPad Pro and other than the iPhone it's the only product I've got" (https://appleinsider.com/articles/1...s-he-travels-with-just-an-ipad-pro-and-iphone).
Tim Cook has also said, in another interview, that "I think if you’re looking at a PC, why would you buy a PC anymore? No really, why would you buy one?", and concluded that "the iPad Pro is a replacement for a notebook or a desktop for many, many people. They will start using it and conclude they no longer need to use anything else, other than their phones" (https://www.macworld.com/article/226779/tim-cook-on-ipad-pro-why-would-you-buy-a-pc-anymore.html).
If Apple's CEO does not need a Mac, and can well get along with an iPad, then he may assume that the vast majority of the world's population can do the same.
That would restrict the Mac to a niche market. It would make sense to raise the price of the Macs as it would be aimed at the very few people who need the power of a real computer. This is also aligned with Apple's strategy of adopting a different enhanced OS for the iPad and of raising the prices of the iPad line so it can compete in the same price range expected for consumer-level desktops and laptops, from budget to premium (ranging from $329 to $1099 for the base models).
I suppose the bottom line is something like this. If you are a common user, then the iPad will fit you well, and you have plenty of options for a price that will fit your pocket. If, despite Apple's efforts, you are the very few common users that happen to need or want a computer, then you may go with one of the entry-level Macs (but, as you are an exception, options are limited).
This strategy makes sense, at least in theory, because this is perhaps the smartest way of Apple having a chance at challenging Windows PCs while keeping its margins high. Offering a MacBook for $499 or $699 would do the trick, and drastically increase the Mac market share, but it would also consume Apple's margins. It might result in higher revenue and even profit, but it would spoil a yet-to-be-developed market for Apple.
THE PROBLEM
The problem is that the iPad does not live up to many people's expectations. And, after 12 years on the market, now I doubt it might ever will.
And the fact is that Apple launched some successful products over the years, but the real reason it is the #1 company in the world is the iPhone. The iPhone was the masterstroke, and all the other products live in its shadow.
The Mac has always been a "glorified failure" as a platform. Steve Jobs turned the Mac into a successful business, and it brings good profit, but it is still far from threatening the hegemony of Windows in the PC world.
The iPad was Steve Jobs' alternative to cheap netbooks, and Tim Cook, who seems very fond of the device, made it an alternative to Windows PCs in general. The iPad is successful and reigns over other tablets, but it has also failed to replace the Windows PC as a platform.
Should this master plan go forward, Apple would have dominance over the computer world as much as it has over the phone market. But the fact is that Apple, successful as it is as a company, has fallen short of reproducing the iPhone's supremacy and ubiquity in other markets.
That is my view. And the failure of Apple to offer me, as a regular knowlegeable non-creative user, compelling alternatives to Windows PCs (in aspects other than processing power), at comparable price points, drives me away from its platforms.
Everyone Just needs to speak with their wallets. i can afford the new studio and monitor but I’m going to hold off and just keep using my 27” iMac. Apple is losing out on a $3500 sale of a new iMac this year. I think they might realize there’s a hole in the lineup now for people who can’t or don’t want to afford the studio + monitor setup.
I want 3 monitors but they all don’t need cameras and speakers. Had they released a new iMac and $999 displays I would have been in for an iMac and two matching display, so from that perspective they are losing out on abou $5500 from me this year.
I want 3 monitors but they all don’t need cameras and speakers. Had they released a new iMac and $999 displays I would have been in for an iMac and two matching display, so from that perspective they are losing out on abou $5500 from me this year.
No need to rationalize anything. The pixel density on a true 5K display is much higher. 217 vs. 163.
VALUE!!! I can pay $2000 for a solid upgraded iMac...that damn separate display costs as much as the base iMac did... it should be Half the price....
I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just waiting to see this list of, specifically, 5120x2880 displays - an option that works particularly well with MacOS, even if it's not the only fruit - that are available from third parties.
Well at the end of the Apple Event they did say we have one more Product not two more & that was the “Mac”
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
OK, so what do you have to say against 8K monitors then? Pixel density of 280 > 217. So we should all buy that one???
Or is iPhone screens with Apples highest ppis the one and only best screen to use for all things because it is the current king of ppi screens from Apple?
Let me guess, 217 is the ideal pixel density in around this size screen while 280 is overkill and 163 is so inferior. Before you might try to go there, be sure to check the ppi of the rest of Apple's screened devices because it ranges all over the place.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
If vertical pixels matter most, I already identified two. The LG is readily available at exactly that resolution, built "in partnership with Apple" for $1299. Dell has much MORE vertical pixels in a 32" 8K monitor too. More 8Ks from other makers are on the way, probably this year... and Apple will probably roll one out eventually themselves too.
I have LONG enjoyed iMac 27" screens/res. But I wanted ultra-wide and traded a bit of vertical pixel count to get doubled horizontal screen RE. To my eyes, the tradeoff has only one issue: I wish I had done it several years ago. The substantially larger screen RE is much more useful than trying to do what I mostly do at 16:10... at ANY resolution. When I squeeze my usable area down to HALF the physical width of the monitor (to get back to the most iMac-like aspect ratio, my very good eyes don't really notice a difference... or, more likely, have readily adjusted. I have a very solid sense of productivity improvements because now I'm not scrolling across to virtual screens when I need to spread things out.
Does that mean my way is the ONLY option for all? Definitely not. The Apple screen and screens from tons of others can all find a home with people "thinking different" and finally getting whatever they want in a screen. There's finally real options to consider for all Apple people... with Apple certainly offering 2 great ones among many possibilities.
Last edited:
Umm, When has Apple ever covered the entire market with a competing product and appeased everyone? Your just butt-hurt that Apple dropped the one and only Mac you liked. That also happened to be my favorite Mac as well. Difference is, I'm not crying about it.
Do you even actually own a 27" Intel iMac now?
I don't know if anyone mentioned this already, but 24" is right between 21" and 27". (21 + 3 = 24; 27 - 3 = 24)
Also of note is that the 24" iMac's 4.5K display falls right between the 4K display of the 21" and the 5K display of the 27".
So Apple's strategy all along must have been to have the 24" iMac replace both the most common 21" and 27" models, and the Mac Studio replace the 27" iMac for those who need a higher-performance model.
Also of note is that the 24" iMac's 4.5K display falls right between the 4K display of the 21" and the 5K display of the 27".
So Apple's strategy all along must have been to have the 24" iMac replace both the most common 21" and 27" models, and the Mac Studio replace the 27" iMac for those who need a higher-performance model.
User installable RAM is cheap when you don’t buy it from Apple. I have 64G in my iMac and it was only a couple of hundred dollar. So my iMac was like $2100 which is a hell of a lot cheaper than Pro options. Just added external 1TB SSD to replace the Fusion drive crap Apple used instead of putting in a real SSD as base.
I think people worried about Apple leaving a "huge" gap in some of their product lines need to chill. With Intel Apple had many, many different performance options they could offer. They are in the middle of a transition and only have a limited number of SoCs they can choose from. You need to wait until a second and third generation arrives before Apple can start offering more options and [re]expand their lines.
They will eventually release a Mac mini "pro". They will eventually release a larger display iMac. They obviously feel at this point in time, there's nothing compelling they can do to fill either of these "gaps". Especially since they know how capable the M2 is going to be.
They will eventually release a Mac mini "pro". They will eventually release a larger display iMac. They obviously feel at this point in time, there's nothing compelling they can do to fill either of these "gaps". Especially since they know how capable the M2 is going to be.
Last edited:
There are other 5120 x 2880 monitors?
I just did a search and the only 27” 5k monitors I could for for sale (as in they could be purchased today) are the Apple Studio and the LG Ultrafine.
I did find a few 5120 x 2880 monitors larger than 34”, but those aren’t exactly comparable as the ppi is much lower.
As for 8k, none of the Macs can run a 8k display, so you are talking external GPUs or some horrible blurry upscaling mess.
I agree.
5K wide looks like 2K height **** to me. but that's just me. don't hate!
LG is the only game in town besides apple. I just bought one used with a Grade A and this thing still Ghosts like a scary story set on the english moors.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Again, if we wish to rationalize ONE monitor, we may as well just zero in on A13 or the Apple logo or this one stand. I was asked to name 2 monitors with vertical resolution at least 2880. I did that.
Then it becomes "a list" of them, so we can add this new one from Apple too and the old ones in now deprecated iMac 27", except those can't be used for monitors for anything other than the computing guts locked down inside of them. Where's some American ingenuity offering a service of "Send me your old 27" and I'll pull the screen, package it an iMac-like aluminum case and give you use of your perfectly good monitor for the rest of its useful life???"
If I really need more vertical, I can rotate this ultra-wide to make it 2K5K for a while. Doing that would add MANY monitors to "the list" of at least 2880 pixels vertical... but... let me guess... it must be 5K wide at all times to qualify.
If 2880 vs. 2K is so important, there is an 8K monitor available with FAR more vertical pixels and Apple's 6K (3384). But no, let's dismiss 8K because even newest Mac power can't quite push that many pixels and we really need to help Apple sell this ONE specific new monitor.
Our crowd here was longing for iMac 30", iMac 32"... not just iMac 27". Now this crowd can get the size of screen they want. "Here, we now offer this terrific 27" option optimized to blend perfectly with our new Studio Mac... but if you want some other size, while we don't have such monitors right now, many other monitor sellers make them and Studio & Mini can push the picture to them too."
I take no issue with Apple's new monitor. If someone wants to spend that much and wants 27" at 16:10 and someone wants exactly 5120 x 2880 pixels and someone wants to only buy Apple, it looks like it is the best desktop monitor available for such people (and ONLY monitor for such people). However, if some people want to "think different," it's not the only real option to link with this new Studio, Mac Mini, etc. In fact, step back only a few days and all other monitors were fully, perfectly and seemingly endorsed by Apple as possibilities to hook to the Mini that was/is available because Apple had no monitor to offer except the $6K one.
Then it becomes "a list" of them, so we can add this new one from Apple too and the old ones in now deprecated iMac 27", except those can't be used for monitors for anything other than the computing guts locked down inside of them. Where's some American ingenuity offering a service of "Send me your old 27" and I'll pull the screen, package it an iMac-like aluminum case and give you use of your perfectly good monitor for the rest of its useful life???"
If I really need more vertical, I can rotate this ultra-wide to make it 2K5K for a while. Doing that would add MANY monitors to "the list" of at least 2880 pixels vertical... but... let me guess... it must be 5K wide at all times to qualify.
If 2880 vs. 2K is so important, there is an 8K monitor available with FAR more vertical pixels and Apple's 6K (3384). But no, let's dismiss 8K because even newest Mac power can't quite push that many pixels and we really need to help Apple sell this ONE specific new monitor.
Our crowd here was longing for iMac 30", iMac 32"... not just iMac 27". Now this crowd can get the size of screen they want. "Here, we now offer this terrific 27" option optimized to blend perfectly with our new Studio Mac... but if you want some other size, while we don't have such monitors right now, many other monitor sellers make them and Studio & Mini can push the picture to them too."
I take no issue with Apple's new monitor. If someone wants to spend that much and wants 27" at 16:10 and someone wants exactly 5120 x 2880 pixels and someone wants to only buy Apple, it looks like it is the best desktop monitor available for such people (and ONLY monitor for such people). However, if some people want to "think different," it's not the only real option to link with this new Studio, Mac Mini, etc. In fact, step back only a few days and all other monitors were fully, perfectly and seemingly endorsed by Apple as possibilities to hook to the Mini that was/is available because Apple had no monitor to offer except the $6K one.
Last edited:
so let’s see … Jobs comes back to Apple to find 297 versions of Performas, Quatras, or whatever they were called and said we only need 4 lines:
A desktop for home/consumer and a desktop for Pros (iMac and Power Mac)
a laptop for home/consumer and a laptop for Pros (iBook and Power Book)
this covered the entire market (or 95% of it)
Mac Mini was created solely for the purpose of getting Windows users to try/switch to Mac