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
Ahhh that is good to know that 1440p scaled on a 4k display doesn't look too bad. I have been using a 24" 1440p monitor which gives me a pixel density around 120 ppi. It is on the fritz though, and I have been looking for something new. Just have such a hard time bringing myself to go for something that isn't 2x scaling.....but I suppose maybe I should give it a try....
*The side complication is I am using the trashcan Pro, which only has Thunderbolt 2. Otherwise, I would have just grabbed one of the LG 5k monitors a long time ago.
Yea, I’m using an LG 27” 4K monitor running at “looks like” 1440. While its not exactly 2:1 scaling it is 1.5:1 and the results are not bad. I wish I could have gotten a true 5K screen, but this fit the budget. Maybe next round. I don’t really notice problems on a day to day basis. The extra GPU Processing is unnoticeable. The M1 GPU handles that without breaking a sweat.
Never thought I’d see the day that I’d be forced to switch back to PC. Until today.
I did the switch to PC!
And here I am again............
Don't worry. Once one hears the fans blowing, mac to pc switchers will come back.
LOL>
M1 near silence for the win!
LOL>
M1 near silence for the win!
The only problem with that math is that the screen sizes are actually 21.5", 23.5" and 27"
23.5" is 20% bigger screen area than 21.5"
27" is 60% bigger screen area than 21.5"
Similarly for total megapixels.
The 23.5" is much closer to the 21.5" than to the 27"
Last edited:
Well, now I don’t have to wait to see what a new bigger iMac will be like. And no way I’m paying $1600 just for an elaborate monitor to which I have to add a desktop (no matter how compact) along with a keyboard and a mouse. Although technically I already have a keyboard and mouse I could continue using.
Nope, I will continue to use my existing computer until at least the next iMac 24 refresh which will be either later this year or sometime in 2023.
Nope, I will continue to use my existing computer until at least the next iMac 24 refresh which will be either later this year or sometime in 2023.
That is because the old 4k iMac had a lower ppi than the 27" iMac.
The new M1 iMac has a 4.5k display at the same ppi as the better 27" iMac. The end results is something that is exactly halfway in terms of resolution, but not halfway in terms of physical area.
As a user of a 25" (24.5") external display myself, I could maybe see why some might want an extra 3" compared to a 24" iMac, but it really isn't a deal breaker. You will only notice it if you had them side by side, and 4.5k resolution is going to impress you more than a couple more inches.
I think the iMac may have gotten too big at 27" to be economical in today's economy, and too small at 21.5" to be desirable by a large user base, and Apple split the difference for the non-professional market.
iMac sizing slowly marched upward, but maybe had nowhere to go. It started at 15", (then adding a 17" eMac), then the LCDs which started at 15", 17" and 20", then 20" and 24" for the Aluminum (with a "pro" like Core2Extreme model), then eventually going 21.5" and 27", and now a base size of 24". 27" is just not a big enough difference, and an AIO at 30" or 32" is just too unwieldy.
I expect the 24" to get the M-pro processor, whether it's the M2 and M2pro later in the year, or an M1Pro at WWDC and the M2 series next year, who can say?
Not true, they are all 218 ppi
4096 x 2304 at 218 ppi is 18.79" x 10.57" which has a diagonal of 21.56"
Last edited:
Ah ok. For some reason I thought the smaller iMac had a worse screen, not just a smaller screen.
My bad.
So true. My 2011 MBP was a hairdryer. I was very impressed with the new (2020 and 2021 Dell) i5 laptops we have that run windows as they were pretty damn quiet most of the time.
Then I got my 2021 16" MBP M1Pro. With no fan noise, ever, even pegging all cores for 30 minutes.
I used my wife's core i5 windows machine yesterday to fill in some forms in Acrobat, and all I could hear was the FAN NOISE, even if it isn't close to a hair dryer like her old 17" HP or my old MBP.
The 16" MBP with M1Pro is just a different category of quiet...
No, the 24" literally split the difference, and Apple called it a day on the AIO. The whole reason the older iMac was 21.5 and 27" was to get retina display quality.
People were worried when the rumors came out of the 24" because they thought at 4k, it would not be retina, and at 5k it would be too expensive. Surprise, Apple "invents" a resolution and has custom panels produced for them, which streamlines their product line at the same time.
Sure, probably Apple kind-sorta "split the difference" and made an in-between screen size to replace two AIO screen sizes (and called it 24" instead of the 23.5" that it actually is to make everyone feel better), but just to recognize the actual facts: the 23.5" does not LITERALLY split the difference between 21.5" and 27", not even close, especially if you consider screen area and total megapixels. It is not actually midway, it is actually one-third of the way, between the 21.5" and the 27", in terms of screen area and total megapixels.
The total number of pixels between is irrelevant, a 4.5K display is in between the 4K and the 5K resolutions.
Are we going to claim that a 6K resolution because of pixel count is not in between a 4K and 8K resolution next?
There is no linear scaling as you go upwards with resolutions.
I mean, I have the macbook pro max 14".
I also have my previous imac 27" i7 5K, and I don't even want to turn it on cause those fans.
I have renamed my old iMac: Hair (blower) Force One in honor of Craig F.
Two 27" iMacs later I though both were terrible thermal designs outputting the heat with the stand blocking the airflow, in close proximity to the RAM.
Have people’s wages gone up anywhere near inflation? Have Apple’s employee’s wages gone up anywhere near inflation?
Sort of consistent. A decade or so ago the very popular 17-inch MacbookPro was eliminated. Now the very popular 27-inch iMac. That said, I can see the environmental benefit of separating the monitor and the computer (again). Meanwhile my 27-inch iMac is doing great, is silent, has plenty of power and looks fabulous (, darling). I guess I'll keep it as long as that's the case.
You are right that the new products may offer better value, but that is not exactly the point here.
You see, the M1 MacBook Air and Pro and the same price as they used to be, and they are far more powerful. This is true, but for the entry-level.
The 16-inch MacBook Pro costs $2499 now (the base model). Yes, it is far more powerful than its predecessor, which means it offers a much better value. But the predecessor started at $2399. If you look at some history, you will see that the 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display launched in 2012 with a $2199 price tag. And that was already up from 2011's 15-inch MacBook Pro which started at $1799. Yes, it has been 10 years now, and there is inflation, but the whole logic of tech products is that they get cheaper every time.
The 14-inch MacBook Pro is new, but it replaces the 13-inch model. And starting at $1999 is a lot. The 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display launched at $1699 in 2013 and people were already shocked.
The 24-inch iMac starts at $1299, which is OK. You may mention that the last 24-inch iMac prior to that sold for $1499. But that was the large model and not the small one. It was replaced by the 27-inch iMac. The current 24-inch iMac replaces the small iMac, so they should not be comparable.
The Mac Studio is a cheaper alternative to the Mac Pro, but, really, who needs a $2600-4600 desktop that is not even suitable for games? Again, as I mentioned earlier, creative professionals! The Mac Studio should be exciting for creative professionals. But that is only a very tiny percentage of the world's population.
My point is that all of this is fine, and Apple new Macs are terribly good. But they are expensive as well, and not suited for the general consumer. The value is great, but most people do not need all this power, so they do not need to spend this amount of money. The options available for the general consumer are much narrower now under Tim Cook than they were before. Yes, the 13-inch MacBook Air is excellent value, and so is the 24-inch iMac. But what if the general consumer wants a different size?
Creative professionals, which are 0.5% of the U.S. population, and even less of the world's population, get plenty of options. General consumers do not.
The success of that monopoly had everything to do with Apple charging extremely high prices for their computers, making them a niche product. And then their operating system fell years behind Windows in every area except UI, which made it even harder for them to compete
Diversity in IT increased because enough people pushed to be allowed to use their Macs at work and school. That happened because larger numbers of people were buying them because they were powerful and reasonably priced and because of the iPod Halo effect, which made people look at Apple as a company that made quality devices at the mid to high end of the consumer market.
Apple is dangerously close to pricing their computers out of student and consumer markets
Yes, it is the 27-inch iMac! I wish there was a 27-inch laptop...
Actually, if you want to stay within Apple's ecosystem, buying a Mac mini, the Studio Display, and the keyboard and mouse, will cost you about $2500, while the entry-level 27-inch iMac would cost $1799. That is a lot of difference (almost 40%) and not just "a little more".
Yes, there is inflation, but there is also the fact that tech gets cheaper over time.
When I said the revised 14-inch MacBook Pro, I meant revised in relation to the previous small MacBook Pro (which was 13-inch). The $1999 asked for the 14-inch version is far more than Apple ever asked for the entry-level 13-inch.