Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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
I think if you look at the overall Mac product line, that argument does not hold. Apple has put massive resources into reorganizing, redesigning, and updating their Mac over the last 2 years. Most of the new products are similarly priced to the previous model. They have even responded to longtime desires by a lot of Mac customers for a standalone monitor and a mid-range desktop Mac.

In the reshuffle, it seems that the 27” iMac no longer fits within the product line. I hope that is not a permanent situation, but we’ll need to wait for at least a year to see if there is room in the line as the new designs are revealed.
 
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.
I'm sorry, I clearly misunderstood your previous posting. I was just saying the LG 5K panels appear to have been calibrated in a different way than the 5K iMac (the old, Intel one). I'm sure the 5K iMac screen IS the ASD panel. Exact same with exact same calibration. We agree. That's how they're making their margins on $1,500.00 (or whatever they are charging). They've had 5K displays forever in tech terms.
 
Waving the flag... tired of this discussion.

I stand by points shared and am thrilled with my own new monitor after enjoying iMacs since the very first 27" was released. I look forward to attaching the most expensive Mac I have ever purchased to it in a few days. For my needs, ultra-wide space without a noticeable sacrifice of a little vertical resolution has led to a much more productive Mac working environment. I regret not doing it several years ago.

I perceive "think different" is literal, meaning that it doesn't mean "...as long as whatever you are thinking aligns with only what a single corporation has for sale right now." But in conversations like this, it seems the interpretation is more like "resistance is futile." Comply with only what is for sale right now from this one entity.

All of the people around here who dreamed of something bigger than 27" can now very clearly make their move. Apple has spoken and rolled out the full range of Apple choices: the $6K one vs. a 27" one.

Those who find either of the TWO Desktop Monitor choices from Apple perfectly match up with exactly what they want, enjoy your monitor. They seem GREAT! When Apple builds things, they usually build them exceptionally well. As a long-term Apple user myself, I'm 110% confident you will enjoy your new monitor for much longer than you could have enjoyed your next monitor locked inside a brand new iMac 27" had one launched.

Those who want something other than $6K or 27" should understand that even this newest Mac can readily send its graphics output to just about ANY other monitor avaialable, at any size, any shape, including any separate monitor you might already have on hand (probably even the old Apple monitors discontinued long ago). Linking it with some other branded monitor will not break it, infect it, etc. It's just a screen... like linking a MBpro to a television screen or projector with countless other brands on them for a presentation or to show something on that MB to a bigger group.

If you believe "think different" means think as individuals, you can think for yourself and buy whatever you want in a screen. If you believe it is about corporate offerings compliance, you have a whopping 2 relatively pricey and locked-down choices. Comply.

Or don't.
 
Last edited:
How about a 24 inch Studio Display ... and without the ugly hole in the stand that is visible from the front (and in all the photos). BTW, the 24 inch iMac has the same hole and the same stand, but it is not visible on the iMac ... it IS visible on the Studio Display because they made the monitor too high (and re-used the same stand), and you can't adjust the monitor any lower.
Screenshot 2022-03-13 at 5.16.00 am.jpg
 
If the 4.5K iMac won't work for "your eyes" then unfortunately none of Apples monitors will..

All of Apples retina monitors have the exact same physical resolution of 218 pixels -per inch-.
So, for the same reason a larger closet won't increase the size of a pair of 34"x34" jeans,
a 6K XDR won't* show text/images/websites/apps etc any larger than what a 4.5K iMac does.
(*You probably could run the 6K XDR in a "looks like 1080p"-mode, but what a waste..)

If an Apple monitor won't work for your eyes then a 27"4K monitor might do the trick.
Still sharp but objects on the screen will appear about 30%-ish larger compared to Apples 5K monitor.
An added benefit is that a decent 4K 27" cost almost nothing compared to Apples Studio 5K display.
For people with less than pristine vision, the larger display allows zooming in while still showing the full document. Having the additional screen space allows more UI elements and content to be viewed at once without zooming. 27” is significantly larger area than a 23.5” screen. A 30” monitor would provide more though there is a balance between screen size and size on the desk.

Certainly the 24” iMac is a fine machine, though according to your measure, it is only 2” larger than the 21.5” iMac it replaced. Would you want to go back to that one?
 
As soon as I saw the Studio display, I was pretty sure the iMac 27" was dead and buried. The Mac Studio + Studio Display is essentially an iMac 27" in two pieces. The fact that Apple said they had only one Mac to go, the Mac Pro, that cemented it. I don't think there will be an iMac Pro since it would have essentially the power of a Mac Studio with M1 Ultra. But anyone who saw the fans on the Mac Studio would have difficulty seeing those same fans in a body as thin as an iMac. I suspect Apple tried to make a thin iMac with M1 Ultra and abandoned it after they couldn't figure out how to cool it. Hence the Mac Studio was born, and it explains why Apple released a 24" iMac without a 27".

I think this also takes care of another problem Apple was having with AIO's. Whenever someone upgrades an iMac, the computer and display get discarded. By splitting up the two, upgrades will only affect the Mac Studio portion since the monitor wasn't going to change. Apple saves on environmental issues by not having to get rid of a lot of monitors, unnecessarily. Now people will keep their Studio Displays for a very long time while periodically replacing their Mac Studios.

Another benefit of people keeping their Studio Displays for a long time is that they can afford to put top-notch cameras and speakers in the display since they would be a one-time purchase instead of being constantly disposed of whenever the AIO got upgraded.

In the long run, the Mac Studio/Display combo saves us money. With a single upgrade, replacing the Mac Studio but keeping the monitor, we've essentially spent the same amount of money as two iMacs. Upgrade a second time and we come out ahead, money-wise.
Except, the Studio Display is already outdated tech, without XDR / Mini-LED. There will be a replacement within a year as soon as there’s enough production capacity of Mini-LED, possibly even as soon as this summer per Ross Young. The current Studio Display is roughly the same old 5K panel in my 2014 5K iMac with such abysmal contrast ratio that Apple could not even list it in the tech specs. Black levels are atrocious and look like a light gray. Even funnier is that it’s only $200 cheaper than the 2014 model, which included an entire Mac built in for that price. I’ve got one on order but I know I am going to replace it with the Mini-LED version within a year and that is why I’m only buying one, and not three, at this time. I’m finding it hilarious that everyone in this thread think their first upgrade after buying the Mac Studio and Studio Display pair will be the computer, rather than the displays. The computer will still be ridiculously fast 5 years from now. The display is already 8 years old and showing its age to anyone with good vision. I dare these people to put something black on their screen and put a new MacBook Pro next to it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane
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.
Those “5K” monitors are just wide monitors with crappy 1440 vertical resolution. They are not the same thing at all. Only LG and Apple sell 5K monitors with retina-grade resolution.
 
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.

The reason why I am keyed hard on 2880p is because macOS has horrible scaling at not native or 2x resolutions. 2880p gives me a "retina" 1440p monitor, which I prefer as a good balance between element size and real-estate. Sure I can get any old 4k monitor, but then I am stuck scaling it to retina 1440p - which looks horrible in macOS - or using it at retina 1080p, which isn't enough working space.

I think the other thing "Apple people" are geared for is a high pixel density. Sure you can get all sorts of large monitors out there, but getting a large 32 or 34 monitor with comparable pixel density that will also work with a Mac at useable resolutions that macOS can also scale well is very hard.

For my color critical work I am still using a 1440p monitor - cause there really just aren't any good high resolution monitors that work well on Mac. Well other than the ones supplied by Apple (or in partnership with Apple).
 
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
...well there was also the slight problem that the late 80s to mid 90s were the height of the Wintel monopoly & anticompetitive practices. People don't seem to appreciate how much more diversity there is in IT now. Wintel obliterated the market share of everything else and Apple were pretty much the only non-Wintel personal computer maker to survive the 1990s. Finding a niche and occupying it is the way to survive such conditions.

Also, sad truth is, Today's Apple could release XCode for Linux for iOS devs and drop the entire Mac range tomorrow and still be a hugely successful company. Steve Jobs' return did great things for the Mac range, but how he really made today's Apple was by releasing a music player and following that up, just at the right time, with a phone.

Still, Apple are around the #4 largest personal computer supplier, probably higher up if you limit that to consumer/retail sales, which is a pretty big "niche". That's probably on the back of (mainly) laptops. Their problem is in their former strong ground - audio/video creative "pros" - and I'm afraid that niche has been shrinking for years because Wintel PCs and Workstations are now much more capable than they were in the 80s and Apple can't hope to match the range of cheap but powerful PC hardware on offer - and all they could do during the Intel years was, basically, put their standard Xeon hardware in prettier boxes and rely on people being locked-in to MacOS workflows. They won't grow their "pro" market by doing more of the same.

Apple Silicon is an opportunity to offer something different but, really, its big success is likely to be in the ultraportable laptop market where the performance/power ratio is such a huge advantage. It is not a good match to making a full-size PCIe workstation like the Mac Pro - although it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

The Mac Studio could be a good way to open up new markets, as an "appliance" for running well-optimised Pro apps like FCPx and Logic. It's cute, powerful and not that expensive c.f. a much bulkier AV workstation PC (esp. with current PC GPU prices) - and could sell to freelancers, "pro" Youtubers etc. who can make their own buying decisions (without having to deal with beancounters who don't care how much time you waste if it saves money from the equipment budget). It's kinda a re-tread of the Trashcan, except this time round Apple should be able to "do it properly" instead of kludging it together from available Intel and AMD parts and the Intel Mac Pro is still viable for those who need a big box of PCIe GPUs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpotOnT
If you get Pro and Max M1 chips in the 24 inch iMac, I'd be fine with it but you can't. You only get base M1 chips. Not cool. I don't want a Mac Studio. I want an iMac which can outperform Macbook Pro.
 
I think it comes down to this. By splitting up the iMac's CPU and display into two components in the Mac studio and studio display they get two full profits. By combining them they only get 1.2 to 1.5 "profits".

Buh bye large and capable iMac. You only get the hobbled 24" iMac moving forward

If it gets us to a 32" 'mac', I guess it's better than nothing? Hmm...

And don't worry about Apple's margins. They aren't hurting...
 
iMac is a direct descendent of the original Macintosh that Steve Jobs envisioned and pioneered in 1984. There will be a large 30" plus iMac that will probably be announced this summer. It will more than likely will not be a iMac Pro but it won't be chopped liver either. I'm thinking it'll have a M1 Max or M2 and it'll be a awesome consumer grade all in one. I will hold out for this and I'm sure others will also to replace our 27" Intel iMacs.

iu
I would argue then that the iPhone is Steve Jobs legacy. And there’s talks of using AR to replace the iPhone.
 
All-in-one.
A Bundle including Mac Studio, 1TB SSD upgrade, Studio Display, and new space gray keyboard and mouse would cost about $4200, or hundreds less than a similarly equipped Intel iMac Pro. Also consider that Apple clearly branded this bundle in their creative scenes in the keynote, and that the 27” iMac has been removed along with this product launch. For me this signals that the Mac Studio bundle is probably the new iMac Pro we’ve been waiting for. If Apple releases a larger iMac, it may be a consumer design like the M1 24” models, possibly sporting M2 / M2 Pro which should run cool enough for the enclosure. /crystal ball
 
  • Like
Reactions: asdfjkl;
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.
I respectfully disagree with this section of your post. I have a late 2015 27" iMac, which I specced out at the highest available quad core chip and a 3 TB fusion drive. This cost me just over $2600 (without tax) AND included my monitor (obviously) keyboard and mouse. The only thing I upgraded third party was the Ram, which cost a couple of hundred bucks for more RAM than I ever needed. The lowest level Studio STARTS at $2000, without a monitor, keyboard or mouse/trackpad, and if you start speccing up - especially RAM and SSD - you are very quickly surpassing the iMac costs. It is not unrealistic to see that it will be somewhere between 1.5-2x more than my prior iMac purchase to buy Apple's proposed "replacement" for it.

And, if you believe the mac mini with the display is the truer replacement for it, please note the lack of RAM, HD upgradability and even IO compared to what I have from 2015. I am fine adapting to the new Apple reality - indeed we are all compelled to - but that doesn't make it a better or equal scenario. A large part of the customer base has no replacement for what was likely a very popular desktop option.

Finally, your comment that buying the display now means you are set for next time supposes a few things. First, that your display remains good that long. No dead pixels, dust behind the screen, etc. Second, that you aren't taking your old computer and giving it to another family member. I do this as do many other people, I am sure. Harder to pass along computers when we have to keep adding compatible displays along the way. Finally, the comment assumes no increases in display technology on the next go around (ie >5k screen, mini-OLED, etc.). If upgrading the base computer every couple of years, then perhaps the display can go through a few iterations, but if you upgrade every 5 or so years, as many customers do, then the technology is more likely to improve, making the desire to upgrade the monitor even stronger and making your purchase less time valued than you suggest.

Obviously, everyone's use cases will differ, as will what they are willing to tolerate, but having a 27" consumer grade iMac checked a lot of boxes for a lot of people, and I don't see the replacement options being equal or superior at similar price points.
 
Last edited:
You’ve got a point but I think that it is only to not create confusion for product support. Apple released this iMac as the iMac 24 inch, if they change the name for iMac nothing or iMac 2021, it may create confusion over customers who try to get support for their machine.
But they do that now with many products including Macs. In the Mac section of their Store, they have a tab for "MacBook Pro". You have to go into that section to choose from a 13", 14" or 16" version of the MBP. And before removing the 27" option from their store, I am pretty sure they just had an iMac tab which customers would then enter into in order to choose their size, options, etc. As they have only one "iMac" right now, there should not need to be any delineation based on sizing. It's incongruous. Changing names later is something they have always dealt with and customer confusion for support was never at the forefront of they minds. Remember when there was a MacBook, and then there wasn't and then it came back as a 12 inch version smaller than the Air?
 
Well, it would cause way more confusion if they didn't tell you the size. Just like if Apple discontinued one of the Macbook Pro sizes (14 or 16") and then just called the remaining one "Macbook Pro". People know there are two possible sizes of Macbooks and iMacs and it would be extremely confusing to not specify which you are talking about.

I was disappointed in the news at first, but then realized a Mac Mini with third party monitor is much cheaper for the same performance, though it's not as clean and simple (webcam, cables, etc). Mac Mini even gives you superior ports. Apple is betting that more people will trade up to the Studio, but that seems risky to assume more people will not trade down to the $700 Mac mini. You can get 32" 4K monitors for a third of what Apple Studio monitor costs.

If the gamble doesn't pay off, expect a larger iMac next year.
If they only sell one iMac now, what would the confusion be in size? These used to be 13" and 15" MBPs, both found on the "MacBook Pro" tab of the Apple Store. Now, there are 13", 14" and 16" MBPs on that tab. Confusing? No, a customer looking for a MBP clicks that tab and reviews their option. If there is only one iMac available, that should be the location a customer would look to in order to find their selection, which here is only a 24" option. So why the size notation? As I indicated in another reply, it is incongruous on how they handle the other sections of their store, both now and historically.

As for the Mac mini being a better option, I am not sure I agree for a host of reasons. I have more input options on my 2015 27" iMac than a current MM would offer (albeit older Thunderbolts) and internal storage and RAM options which the MM doesn't even offer. This also says nothing about the need to also purchase keyboard, mouse/trackpad and the monitor for additional costs. While 32" 4Ks may be decent, a 5K by Apple is even better, and if we start pricing one of those along with a topped out MM, we are quickly surpassing what I paid for my iMac 7 years ago, and for some lesser specs. Yes, someone who needed to build a 27" replacement could go with a MM/Display option, but it is (or can be) a lesser option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ankaa and wyarp
That’s a huge missed opportunity, a 27” or 32” m1 Imacs, same form factor as the 24”, could have had stupid sales. Now nobodys buying their pretty and outdated monitor. Bad move Apple. I was planning to get a 27”-32” imac but now i will get the LG c2 42” with hdr and 120hz, oled and 4 video inputs to hook it up with my mba m1, windows laptop, windows desktop and my ps5.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane
The reason why I am keyed hard on 2880p is because macOS has horrible scaling at not native or 2x resolutions. 2880p gives me a "retina" 1440p monitor, which I prefer as a good balance between element size and real-estate. Sure I can get any old 4k monitor, but then I am stuck scaling it to retina 1440p - which looks horrible in macOS - or using it at retina 1080p, which isn't enough working space.

I think the other thing "Apple people" are geared for is a high pixel density. Sure you can get all sorts of large monitors out there, but getting a large 32 or 34 monitor with comparable pixel density that will also work with a Mac at useable resolutions that macOS can also scale well is very hard.

For my color critical work I am still using a 1440p monitor - cause there really just aren't any good high resolution monitors that work well on Mac. Well other than the ones supplied by Apple (or in partnership with Apple).
While I agree that a 2880p display scaled to 1440p is the best for 27" sized. A 27" 4K scaled to "looks like" 1440p is not too bad. it is much better than a true 1440p display these days. There is only slightly more blurring of the text than a 5K. Now, those wide screen 1440p panels really do look blurry.
 
A 27" 4K scaled to "looks like" 1440p is not too bad. it is much better than a true 1440p display these days. There is only slightly more blurring of the text than a 5K.

I would also add that one acclimates to it quite readily and you don’t even think about it anymore if you don’t have a 5k side by side for constant comparison
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tagbert and SpotOnT
It's funny as a gray haired one, a 25" console TV 15 feet away was awesome. Now I am merely content with a 27" screen 3 feet from my face.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.