Apple Not Planning to Launch Larger-Screened iMac

[wilberforce]

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.

The total number of pixels is relevant.

No, we are not going to claim that 6K is not between 4K and 8K.

The total number of pixels scales with the square of the linear resolution (i.e., number of pixels along one side), if the aspect ratio remains the same (which in this case, it does).

 

[Student of Life]

First of all im surprised by the open hostility some have towards the 27 iMac. I was not expecting that at all. Apple is about making things simple, it just works etc, not tinkering with like a PC. So the idea that this studio display and a mac mini would make 27 iMac happy makes no sense.

The other thing that just seems off is that this display is basically the same exact display as the 27 iMac. Remember we have updates to the Ipad Pro screen, the Mac Book Pro etc. I understand first gen technology gets the short end of the stick but this is like pushing it since its over 5 year old tech. Apple is clearly moving to Mini Led, this display at this price makes no sense especially knowing whats around the corner. The new Air’s are expected to get Mini Led etc.

 

[HazardousT]

First of all im surprised by the open hostility some have towards the 27 iMac. I was not expecting that at all. Apple is about making things simple, it just works etc, not tinkering with like a PC. So the idea that this studio display and a mac mini would make 27 iMac happy makes no sense.

The other thing that just seems off is that this display is basically the same exact display as the 27 iMac. Remember we have updates to the Ipad Pro screen, the Mac Book Pro etc. I understand first gen technology gets the short end of the stick but this is like pushing it since its over 5 year old tech. Apple is clearly moving to Mini Led, this display at this price makes no sense especially knowing whats around the corner. The new Air’s are expected to get Mini Led etc.

I can only imagine how expensive a 27" Mini LED display will be once it's released. But hey I enjoy spending $400 on a monitor stand.

 

[CWallace]

I can only imagine how expensive a 27" Mini LED display will be once it's released. But hey I enjoy spending $400 on a monitor stand.

I figure $1999 for the Apple Studio Display Pro (no stand) and then two stand options: VESA for $199 and tilt-and-height-adjustable with rotation for $499. That way, we hit the $2499 price point originally rumored for the Apple Studio Display.

 

[Freida]

Thats fair point but I still think Apple has the data and knows what are the buying habits. Also, with AS things change as RAM is no longer accessible by user (and won't ever be) so if you wanted to spec the iMac like you did in 2015 it would cost you probably very same as what Apple is now proposing.

I understand your point but honestly, time has changed. I too remember when I got my 2008 8 core Mac Pro for about £1799 and it was an absolutely amazing machine but now, Mac Pro starts at £5499 and the specs are not even worth the money (even when they released it). I always miss the 2008 value deal we had from Apple.

So yeah, Apple Silicon changes a lot of things and I feel we just need to adjust again. As for the display, most display will last you a long time so you will have 2-3 computers changed in that time if you are power user and if not you will have minimum 2 iterations before you think for a new display.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand your position but Apple changed it

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.

 

[B-Mc-C]

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.

The 14” MacBook Pro replaces the $1799 model, it’s disingenuous to compare it to the $1299 13” model, which is still being sold.

You are getting much more computer for the extra $200 over the previous high end 13” MBP’s starting configuration. Why do people feel entitled to the extra inch of screen, the mini LED and ProMotion tech, leaps and bounds of extra performance, better thermals and battery life, more ports, better speakers and webcam, etc, without a slight price increase? That’s not how it works. Apple does not owe you and you are free to buy anything you like. Many of us are happy to pay a little bit more, not because of inflation (though that could and should come into play too if component and labor costs have increased substantially) but because we are getting a much better value with all the various improvements, which, believe it or not, cost money to develop.

If you want to compare apples to apples, there is an M1 13” Air and Pro that outperform all of the previous Intel-based 13” MBPs at far lower prices, starting as low as $899.

 

[ikramerica]

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 original iMac in 1998 was $1299.

Just saying…

And general consumers have a large number of iPads and iPhones to choose from, as well as the MB Air, mini with third party monitor and 24” iMac as AIO.

The iPads and iPhones replaced the iBook for consumers.

 

[ikramerica]

First of all im surprised by the open hostility some have towards the 27 iMac. I was not expecting that at all. Apple is about making things simple, it just works etc, not tinkering with like a PC. So the idea that this studio display and a mac mini would make 27 iMac happy makes no sense.

The other thing that just seems off is that this display is basically the same exact display as the 27 iMac. Remember we have updates to the Ipad Pro screen, the Mac Book Pro etc. I understand first gen technology gets the short end of the stick but this is like pushing it since its over 5 year old tech. Apple is clearly moving to Mini Led, this display at this price makes no sense especially knowing whats around the corner. The new Air’s are expected to get Mini Led etc.

True. It does have a thunderbolt/usbc hub and camera/speaker system built in. But I think it’s overpriced.

 

[ikramerica]

Thats fair point but I still think Apple has the data and knows what are the buying habits. Also, with AS things change as RAM is no longer accessible by user (and won't ever be) so if you wanted to spec the iMac like you did in 2015 it would cost you probably very same as what Apple is now proposing.

I understand your point but honestly, time has changed. I too remember when I got my 2008 8 core Mac Pro for about £1799 and it was an absolutely amazing machine but now, Mac Pro starts at £5499 and the specs are not even worth the money (even when they released it). I always miss the 2008 value deal we had from Apple.

So yeah, Apple Silicon changes a lot of things and I feel we just need to adjust again. As for the display, most display will last you a long time so you will have 2-3 computers changed in that time if you are power user and if not you will have minimum 2 iterations before you think for a new display.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand your position but Apple changed it

Steve was still alive then. Tim is more greedy.

 

[skaertus]

The 14” MacBook Pro replaces the $1799 model, it’s disingenuous to compare it to the $1299 13” model, which is still being sold.

You are getting much more computer for the extra $200 over the previous high end 13” MBP’s starting configuration. Why do people feel entitled to the extra inch of screen, the mini LED and ProMotion tech, leaps and bounds of extra performance, better thermals and battery life, more ports, better speakers and webcam, etc, without a slight price increase? That’s not how it works. Apple does not owe you and you are free to buy anything you like. Many of us are happy to pay a little bit more, not because of inflation (though that could and should come into play too if component and labor costs have increased substantially) but because we are getting a much better value with all the various improvements, which, believe it or not, cost money to develop.

If you want to compare apples to apples, there is an M1 13” Air and Pro that outperform all of the previous Intel-based 13” MBPs at far lower prices, starting as low as $899.

Well, yes, the 14-inch model offers much more VALUE, but the PRICE is still higher. It is a much better computer indeed, but Apple does not offer a lesser cheaper version for the general consumer. That is the point.

The M1 MacBook Air starts at $999 and not $899.

 

[skaertus]

The original iMac in 1998 was $1299.

Just saying…

And general consumers have a large number of iPads and iPhones to choose from, as well as the MB Air, mini with third party monitor and 24” iMac as AIO.

The iPads and iPhones replaced the iBook for consumers.

Yes, that is precisely the point I was making in my earlier post.

It seems to me that Apple decided that most users do not need a full computer and that the iPad may fulfill all their computing needs. So most Macs are now focused on creative professionals and there are plenty of more affordable iPads so the consumers can choose from.

 

[CWallace]

Well, yes, the 14-inch model offers much more VALUE, but the PRICE is still higher. It is a much better computer indeed, but Apple does not offer a lesser cheaper version for the general consumer. That is the point.

Sure they do - the 13.3" model with the M1 at $1299.

 

[skaertus]

Sure they do - the 13.3" model with the M1 at $1299.

Of the 14-inch model, I meant. The point is that the general consumer is stuck with only one option: 13-inch for laptops, 24-inch for all-in-one desktops.

 

[CWallace]

Of the 14-inch model, I meant.

Because Apple needs a reason for people to choose the 14" over the 13.3" model with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD at $1699.

For $300 you get a larger display with MiniLED, a fairly more powerful SoC, better memory and SSD bandwidth, more USB4/TB4 ports, HDMI and SD Card. You also get a bit less battery life and a half-pound more weight.

The point is that the general consumer is stuck with only one option: 13-inch for laptops, 24-inch for all-in-one desktops.

The "general consumer" has two laptop options - MacBook Air and MacBook Pro 13.3" - and two desktop options - Mac mini (paired with an inexpensive 3rd-party display) and iMac 24".

 

[Ankaa]

This is curious for two reasons. First, Apple's store still lists "iMac 24"". If that was the only size iMac they are putting in their lineup, what is the point of identifying it by its size? Second, the Mac Studio doesn't serve the same market as the 27" iMac did, given the significant price difference between purchasing the Studio with Display versus just the iMac, plus the fact that many iMac users are looking for an all-in-one solution. Personally, I prefer to have my computer behind the screen and not another component with more wires on my desk. I have been waiting on a 27"-30" iMac since the M1 was introduced.

At this point there are so many stories out confirming this decision that it would seem to be true, but it is a real disappointment and a head scratcher.

Same.

I'm a prosumer. I'm not a pro-user in the sense that I'm making a profit off my computer. But as a scientist, I need a tad more power than the average consumer that needs their iMac/mini for emailing and light web browsing and the occassional pages document. I do, however, not need quite as much power that come with the "Pro" desktop solutions.

I also value and need screen real estate for my DESKTOP computer which is my main working machine.
And I prefer all-in-one solutions.

I'm not in the market for a 24" iMac. It's simply too small for my use case. (and up to 16GB RAM is simply unacceptable - I'm at 24 in my 2015 iMac and won't go below that ever again for my work horse)
I'm certainly not in the market for a mini.
But I'm also not the target demographic that could afford the previously existing iMac Pro. Let alone the Mac Pro. Price tag aside, it would be just way too much power I'd never need. Why would I pay for that.

The Mac Studio has a starting price at $2,000. Adding a display that comes close to the quality of my 27" iMac, I easily have to put another $1,000 on top of that (mind you, the Studio Display starts at $1,600). So, the minimum I'd have to pay is $3,600 for an all-Apple solution. I paid $2,400 for my 27" with upgraded specs. So now, if I want a bit more power and larger screen size than come with the 24"/mini+display, I have to pay a minimum surchage of $1,200 and still wouldn't get a nice and clean all-in-one solution.

They're literally forgetting an entire demogaphic that fits inbetween the 24" iMac and the "Studio solution", the latter of which is supposed to be an inbetween-step towards the Mac Pro as a replacement for the iMac Pro.

So I'm genuinely hoping it's just marketing for now to push sales on the Studio.

I've been desperately waiting for an 27"-30" upgrade for the iMac as my 2015 27" is on its dying leg, and these news certainly have been very disappointing as this really has me stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Considering we simultaneously have an iPhone in two screen sizes and an iPhone PRO in two screen sizes, I'm holding out hope that before long a larger iMac will return.

 

[Ankaa]

I’m not sure the amount of power users on iMac but remember the iMac really was not intended for power users from it’s inception. The iMac is pure consumer, hence the nice colours. It’s got great 5K resolution but for power Apple realizes many power users may choose competing display’s but may opt for theirs.

There's an entire niche inbetween consumer users and power users and there's a LOT of power users on iMacs in the sciences specifically. Those who don't particularly care about choosing their own displays (nor would ever pay $1,000 for a dipslay) because they're not in photography/videography/... and who prefer all-in-one-buy-and-done solutions, but still want and need large screens.

Larger-screen iMacs have existed for almost two decades for a reason.

There may not have been a market for the iMac Pro. There certainly very much is a market for larger iMacs.

 

[Ankaa]

Not surprising. The iMac Pro was never intended to be a consumer device and was only a stop gap until the Mac Pro was released. I still love it though.

There was an 27" iMac. Withouth the "Pro". That existed long before the iMac Pro. Going all the way back to 24" when the base iMac was 17". We've had two different sizes of iMac since 2006.

 

[DMG35]

There was an 27" iMac. Withouth the "Pro". That existed long before the iMac Pro. Going all the way back to 24" when the base iMac was 17". We've had two different sizes of iMac since 2006.

I understand that, but the general consensus here was that Apple was going to make the 24” iMac the consumer device and then release a Pro 27” iMac.

 

[staypuftforums]

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.

I'm not saying any of those things. 4K is more than good enough at that screen size, in my pinion. I was just saying that "5K" ultrawide monitors aren't true 5K. They are 4K monitors (2160p) with extra screen real estate on either side. I'm sure it's a great monitor, I'm just not a fan of the borderline deceptive marketing.

 

[Ankaa]

I understand that, but the general consensus here was that Apple was going to make the 24” iMac the consumer device and then release a Pro 27” iMac.

But this is not what this post is about. The iMac Pro was already discontinued one year ago. Now the larger sized 'consumer' iMac is discontinued without replacement. Various rumours over the months had adressed *both*.

The studio is supposed to take the place of the iMac Pro.

There's nothing equivalent for the 27" iMac-without-the-"Pro"-label.

Also, not sure where you got this alleged 'consensus' from. As I said, there's been rumors for both, a larger consumer iMac and a new iMac Pro.

 

[DMG35]

But this is not what this post is about. The iMac Pro was already discontinued one year ago. Now the larger sized 'consumer' iMac is discontinued without replacement. Various rumours over the months had adressed *both*.

The studio is supposed to take the place of the iMac Pro.

There's nothing equivalent for the 27" iMac-without-the-"Pro"-label.

Also, not sure where you got this alleged 'consensus' from. As I said, there's been rumors for both, a larger consumer iMac and a new iMac Pro.

Does it matter? No more of either Pro or regular. The end.

 

[skaertus]

Because Apple needs a reason for people to choose the 14" over the 13.3" model with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD at $1699.

For $300 you get a larger display with MiniLED, a fairly more powerful SoC, better memory and SSD bandwidth, more USB4/TB4 ports, HDMI and SD Card. You also get a bit less battery life and a half-pound more weight.



The "general consumer" has two laptop options - MacBook Air and MacBook Pro 13.3" - and two desktop options - Mac mini (paired with an inexpensive 3rd-party display) and iMac 24".

Apple could have released a 14-inch MacBook Pro with a regular M1, 8 GB RAM, and 256 GB SSD for a lower price than $1999. But it chose not to. That is my point: the 14-inch MacBook Pro may be a good value, but not everybody needs that kind of power.

The general consumer has two laptop options that are way too similar as they both have the same screen size (and it does not even make sense to have two different models after the release of the M-series processor). As for the desktop, you are right in the sense that you may opt for a cheap 3rd party display. But that is an alternative out of Apple's ecosystem because Apple reduced its 1st party offers to general consumers.

I am not saying it is not possible to find alternatives if you are a general consumer and you want to buy a Mac. I am saying that Apple has reduced the options and made the Mac more expensive (although also more powerful). These new Macs appeal a lot to creative professionals, but not everyone can afford it or justify the price. In fact, Apple reduced the offer to most general budget-minded consumers while expanding to high-end professional customers.

 

[DeepIn2U]

There's an entire niche inbetween consumer users and power users and there's a LOT of power users on iMacs in the sciences specifically. Those who don't particularly care about choosing their own displays (nor would ever pay $1,000 for a dipslay) because they're not in photography/videography/... and who prefer all-in-one-buy-and-done solutions, but still want and need large screens.

Larger-screen iMacs have existed for almost two decades for a reason.

There may not have been a market for the iMac Pro. There certainly very much is a market for larger iMacs.

the large screen iMac (27”) debut in 2009, https://everymac.com/systems/apple/...uo-3.06-27-inch-aluminum-late-2009-specs.html

so just over a decade but definitely understand the market for it. Honestly in 2022 a 21/24” shouldnt really have launched on its own.

aplle surprised everyone until 1 day before the event leak with MacStudio so maybe Macintosh will happen, a new kind of iMac. It’s the heart & soul of Apple since ‘84

 

[Ankaa]

the large screen iMac (27”) debut in 2009, https://everymac.com/systems/apple/...uo-3.06-27-inch-aluminum-late-2009-specs.html

so just over a decade

Apple released 20" and 24" versions of their 17" iMac in 2006.

 

[Candlelight]

Confuses me that Apple would discontinue the 27” iMac and yet they still sell iPods…