It has to be said, though, that Apple sells more iPads than HP sells laptops. They beat Dell and all the other laptop vendors.
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
Absolutely. The Mac Studio is a welcome addition to the range. Personally, I don't need the Ultra - but the Max is certainly do-able, although a (full) M1 Pro would probably have been the sweet spot for me - but honestly, the Max option was a pleasant surprise, because I was expecting the "Mac Pro Mini" to be at least in the $3k+ range of the Trashcan.
I had a quick look at "comparable" PCs (although that's nigh-on impossible/irrelevant post Apple Silicon) and while, yes, you could get a decently powerful mini-ATX tower PC with an 8 core AMD for a lot less, if you start looking at something comparable design-wise, quiet/silent builds or something like the NUC 'Beast Canyon' you soon burn through the thick end of £2000. Some of it comes down to what GPU you consider 'equivalent' to the M1 Max - and that could be anything from $300 to $3000 depending on how well your software is optimised for Apple Silicon. As usual, the "problem" comes down to Apple not making a basic pick-up-truck for those who don't want a gull-winged SUV.
I do not. I was thinking of buying a large M-series iMac, but now my plans are gone.
It is not the iMac. I noticed that Apple has drastically reduced the options in lower-priced Macs. The revised 14-inch MacBook Pro starts at $1999 now. The 27-inch MacBook Pro is gone.
And, if you look at the big picture, Apple advertises both the MacBook Pro and the Mac Studio for creative professionals. Apple used to be much more subtle about that. In the past, the MacBook Pro was for everyone that needed its power. Now Apple interviews real people with creative jobs, which means that the audience is more personified.
I notice a clear shift here.
Apple has covered the entire market with the iPhone. Other products were also meant to cover the whole market, although they were not as successful. The iPad was meant to, as well as the iMac, the Apple Watch, the Apple TV. The Mac occupies a niche now due to Apple being unsuccessful in making it widely popular, and the way around it was to make it more premium to raise the margins and compensate for the lost revenue.
Writing as somebody with failing vision, size matters. And as the population ages, it will increasingly matter more. I have a 27" iMac and i hope someday Apple replaces it with a new model.
That will have a 5 figure starting price (unless the offer a cut down 2 die version).
Yeah, it's called a transition. As I just posted...
"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 don't have multiple generations of SoCs to choose from to create a wider product line like they do with iPad and iPhone. And they don't have the sales volumes to justify the cost fab'ing dozens of different variants.
Now you may think they can easily create a 27" iMac with an M1 Max in it, and I'm pretty sure they could. But Apple knows they don't want to make that product... yet. They dropped the 27" iMac because they figure the Max Studio + display (any display) could stand in for it in the meantime.
Last edited:
Yes, it has. I said that the iPad is a successful business. As a business line, it is excellent and profitable.
However, it has failed to replace the PC as a platform. The combined sales of laptops by HP, Dell, and other vendors is much higher than the sales of the iPad line. You may say that this is an unfair comparison, and, from a business standpoint, it is indeed.
However, the iPad uses a proprietary OS (iPadOS) that may be considered a competitor to Android or Windows. If the iPad is meant to replace Windows, then its sales should be higher so it can increase its market share. And it has not done it.
I'm not sure which part of "name two available third party 5120x2880 displays" you're not understanding.
Edited the quote for length but the entire thing is literally one of the best things I have ever read on this site.
You make some great points!
I don’t run at normal Apple resolutions
Additionally, I like having more on screen along with some space to breathe around it.
Essentially, I like a large canvas and the on screen resolutions I use make things larger than Apple defaults.
Nor do I. Even with the 27" monitor the text size is set at a larger size. Some people may be happy with a 24" We are not among them and some just don't get it.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
- LG still really available as a new retail monitor, created "in partnership with Apple" and the Apple-endorsed, recommended monitor until they launched their own version of it a few days ago
- Apples new monitor
- Iiyama ProLite XB2779QQS (presumably junk, but it is 5120 x 2880)
- All of the ones in iMacs going back years (but locked down to no outside use without hardware hacks)
OR, we can step it up to higher resolutions like Apple 6K or Dells 8K if vertical pixels really matter most.
I understand what you are doing here. You are trying to make a single spec detail into a big thing. I seriously, seriously doubt that the average shopper for a monitor is keying their decision around exactly 2880 pixels... including steadfast Apple people. I'm an Apple people person and didn't blink at giving up a few hundred vertical pixels for double the screen RE width in this ultra-wide. My good eyes adjusted quickly and I just can't notice that vertical is no longer 2880.
What I do notice is now I can have 3 full-sized windows side by side in the same screen at the same time with some room to spare. And I can split screen it to have an iMac-like 16:10 left or right and a Windows 16:10 screen side by side at the same time to tangibly replace bootcamp in the only way that really works in our new Silicon world. That feels very Parallels-like minus the annual subscription. My former iMac was my best Mac, my best Windows machine and my monitor. This most readily replaces that while embracing Silicon... and adds even more room for the combination of both when both are needed on screen at the same time.
But even if people- or more specifically "Apple people-" ARE keying hard on 2880, they can save a lot of money by buying the LG one "endorsed by Apple" to pair with new Macs as recently as a few days ago. I just looked and it is only $1299 on Amazon right now and probably less with some good "shopping around." Included stand comes with tilt & height adjustment in the same price, not extra and is VESA ready for any old third-party VESA option should that become needed at any point during its useful life.
Last edited:
I've had 2 5K's and a 4K. All had varying degrees of yellow/blue tint out of the box. I had to return several. I've had two 5K iMacs--both perfectly calibrated out of the box. I heard on ATP a few years ago there is a different calibration process. I have no link, but fairly certain it was Siracusa saying it. Him saying that plus my experience with multiple machines is the reason for my answer. I'll accept I could be wrong, but I think I'm correct.
But what does any of that make us think the 5k iMac and ASD would have different calibration processes?
Both being from Apple, and being the exact same panel (with a slight backlight brightness boost), I would expect them to be nearly indistinguishable honestly.
If I had not been forced to replace my 2017 iMac 5K with a 2020 Intel iMac 5K back in September for WFH, on Tuesday I would have bought the Apple Studio Display and just connected it to my 14" MacBook Pro because for macOS, the MBP is better and faster than the 2017 and right there with the 2020 iMac (which has i7/32GB/5700).
If nothing else, the Mac lineup as of Tuesday now offers more choice than it did on Monday. There are hundreds of monitors available at all price points with so many different feature sets and you now have three desktop Mac options instead of two (and the two at the opposite ends of the performance/expandability/price spectrum).
Yes, if you want to keep it "all Apple" you will pay more, but then you always did and always will. Apple displays have always been more expensive than the competition going back to the CRT days and the competition often offered more features at a lower price for the same size screen.
If nothing else, the Mac lineup as of Tuesday now offers more choice than it did on Monday. There are hundreds of monitors available at all price points with so many different feature sets and you now have three desktop Mac options instead of two (and the two at the opposite ends of the performance/expandability/price spectrum).
Yes, if you want to keep it "all Apple" you will pay more, but then you always did and always will. Apple displays have always been more expensive than the competition going back to the CRT days and the competition often offered more features at a lower price for the same size screen.
Last edited:
That’s MacRumors for youGotta love the fog of rumors
Kuo: iMac Pro Won't Launch Until 2023, 27-inch External Display Without Mini-LED Coming This Year
Apple will not launch an iMac Pro or a Mac Pro until 2023, while it still plans to release a 27-inch external display without mini-LED sometime this...www.macrumors.com
The only people who are unhappy are the ones who lost a product that hasn’t been replaced by this new one, the 27” iMac. They specifically want a larger screen iMac
Maybe an A15 means the Display can browse web, play Apple TV and music, etc, without a computer at all. (hmm, but should it be a touchscreen? Maybe not).
Which is the exact mistake Apple made in the late 80s and early 90s, which decimated their market share and almost destroyed the Mac business
Hopefully they won’t allow the Mac to become an increasingly niche product. It would be the end of the Mac in the long run
The M1 MacBook Air and the M1 13" are about the same prices as the Intel versions yet are far more powerful. The M1 Mini is $100 cheaper than before. Same for the 24" iMac. The discontinued high-end 13" Intel MBP used to have a weaker CPU and far weaker GPU than the 16" (and is now out-performed by the low-end M1 13") - 14" MBP is now closer to the 16" MBP in performance and specs, and $1999 was actually the price of the old i7 13".
If you ignore the Studio Display and pair your Mini up with a third-party display (or just plug it in to your 4k TV) you've got a pretty affordable and powerful "entry level Mac".
The M1 Studio is really a new, cheaper alternative to the Mac Pro ($6k+), iMac Pro ($5k+) and the higher end non-Pro iMac configs that cost $3200+ - again, combine a Studio with, say, a nice $600 third-party display and you've got a $2600-$4600 alternative to what was previously a $3000-$6000 range.
The issue really all comes down to the demise of the 27" iMac and the $1600 price of the Studio Display vs. the old ~$700 difference between a base 27" iMac and an Intel Mini with a comparable CPU. If you wanted that particular 5k, 27" display (which was a sweet spot for MacOS) and built in camera & sound, you're stuffed.
Yes, LG makes the panel for the 27” iMac, the Studio Display, and their own 27” Ultrafine monitor. What they don’t do is keep the same quality control over all of those products. A number of Ultrafine owners have complained about uneven brightness and backlight bleeding as well as loose connectors. Things that would usually not make it through Apple’s quality control for the iMac. That LG at $1300 is not much cheaper than the Studio monitor when you look at the quality of the housing, speakers, and the presence of a high res webcam.
And the LG is the only other equiivalent 5K monitor available. All of the rest are 4K monitors that just don’t have the resolution to give a pristine image at 27”, let alone the common 32” 4K size. 4K works well for video/TV usage because the color resolution and movement are more important. For statistic displays of text 4K 32” is a problematic resolution.
27" MacBook Pro? That's one big laptop!...
I'm guessing you are talking about the 27" iMac. Yes that is gone but they added a 27" monitor to replace it. With that monitor both the 27" iMac Pro (Discontinued last year I think) and the lower end 27" iMac are covered. The price starts at $2298 when paired with the Mac mini. Yes that's a little more than the base 27" iMac was but with inflation it's not that much more.
I can see Apple putting out a low end 27" iMac maybe next year but it's still likely to be a little over $2k. Things are much better with the 21.5" iMac being replaced with the 24". That's a night and day upgrade.
Also you have to remember inflation. I've never seen Apple raise their prices with the same model so they have to compensate for the runaway inflation going on now. They like to keep the release prices but if they're going to do that they have to realize the product is going to be out there for at least a year or longer.
Edit: You said revised 14" MacBook Pro starts at $1999 now. Umm did they raise the price? I'm pretty sure that was the release price.
Last edited: