Apple Not Planning to Launch Larger-Screened iMac

[DeepIn2U]

Guess apple thinks Studio covers all those bases.

I agree with them.

Agreed.

I find it hard to believe that Apple’s end goal for the iMac product line is just one single product. A 27 inch iMac powered by an M1 Max would sell.

Well the 27” is Intel-based.

Honestly I feel the M1-based iMac should’ve allowed for 21 & 27“ variants like yourself. However I believe this is a profit based decision along with product based.

The Apple Studio Display returned and is of great quality, despite SnazzyQ‘s great insightful YouTube video stating the technology of the current M1 iMac is 4yrs old (think the LG studio display Apple used, is exactly the same in teh current M1-iMac).

The Studio display is for all machines, outside of the iMac lineup. 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.

I think locking in feature set to the 2022 Studio Display for Mac only users may not have been the best ‘sales’ decision. There have been a few former macOS users that jumped ship prior to M1 or Apple Silicon migration that maybe considering moving back yet have invested heavy $$ into their rig but would like to see what the Studio Display brings, a halo affect to bring them back to Mac.

The iMac Pro always was intended as a stop-gap until the heavy duty Mac Pro got updated from the Trash Can. I.e. lol still THE best suited ‘consumer‘ nickname for a computer.

Apple’s AIO, the iMac should get a top tier love … it’s the heart and soul of Macs!

 

[Freida]

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.
If Apple released both then I think a lot of people would still lean towards studio + screen combo. iMac would not have ram upgradable/accessible so the price of it would be almost the same and hence why it would not make sense.

Sure, there are people who love AiO and I was one of them until this combo. I can hide the box under my desk and just have the screen if I really want to have super minimalistic look.

We have been craving for a bridge between Mac Mini and Mac Pro for ages and now that its here people are again craving for something else.

Apple now has much better portfolio than before and it caters more people. This studio combo is really good deal once you crunch the numbers.

So, lets adapt and move on

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.

 

[Tagbert]

I can believe that maybe its not possible for them to fit in a cooling solution that's satisfactory in a thin iMac enclosure for the M1 Max or M1 Ultra. Especially as these chips will only get more and more powerful as the years go by.

That being said, they NEED to have an M1 Pro desktop solution. Whether that be in the Mac mini or 24" iMac. Because right now you have "consumer" devices and industry-grade "pro" devices with a $1000+ price gap. You could just say "get the Mac Studio" but there's a lot of industries where that power is probably overkill and its hard to justify paying extra for power you wont use. M1 Pro is definitely the sweet spot.

they can cool the M1 Max inside a MBP so cooling is not the problem. It might require more thickness than the 24" iMac but there is no rule that says they need to limit themselves to that thickness, especially in a larger iMac.

I think that they just want to see if they can satisfy the market with the smaller iMac and then Studio Monitor with Mac Mini and Studio for the larger screen needs.

 

[Danoc]

Max Studio serves the professionals well enough. iMac and Mac mini serve the consumers and the prosumers.

 

[DMG35]

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.

 

[LeeW]

Only Apple knows, maybe people are not buying iMacs in justifiable numbers for a larger screen version.

 

[Trusteft]

I think it is funny.
How over the last few years more and more people wanted, talked about, demanded a new iMac which would be at least 30-32 inches as 27 inches were so 1985 or something.
So Apple said sure, here is the 24 inches iMac and we are killing the 27 inch. Happy?
Perhaps it's just me, I just find it hilarious.

 

[sub150]

My guess is that 27" iMac was always a bargain for what you got and was "too good to be true". Basically Apple is saying you don't want to see the price of a 27" iMac so we are taking it away.

 

[spicynujac]

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?

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.

 

[Fender2112]

If the Studio Display has an A15 chip in it, it shouldn't take much to put an OS on it. You know someone already has a hack for it.

 

[tobybrut]

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.

 

[campingsk8er]

I personally don't see what an iMac has to offer over a Mac Mini / Mac Studio + external display solution, but people still seem to love the iMac.

For me its about space. I live in a studio apartment and have small desk, maybe 2.5 ft wide. For me, having JUST an iMac with a keyboard and mouse and no wires going all over the place is perfect for me. Also, when the price is comparable, why not just have a single solution?

 

[spicynujac]

Bloomberg analyst Gurman was wrong.

Gurman: Larger Apple Silicon iMac 'En Route,' May Feature More Powerful 'M2X' Chip

Are we talking this year or 2022? I'm guessing 2022 but hope I'm wrong.

forums.macrumors.com

 

[ADGrant]

If the Studio Display has an A15 chip in it, it shouldn't take much to put an OS on it. You know someone already has a hack for it.

The Studio display has an A13 but that is still an ARM64 SoC powerful enough to run MacOS. However, I suspect that the monitor is running some variant of the OS which runs on the A10 based T2 chip (also an ARM64 SoC) in the recent Intel Macs.

 

[CWallace]

I personally don't see what an iMac has to offer over a Mac Mini / Mac Studio + external display solution...

The main complaint appears to be around the price, as you could get an iMac 5K with lousy specs for $1800, which is almost what the Apple Studio Display alone costs (though the ASD is a better monitor than the iMac 5K in terms of webcam and audio and it has a bit better peak brightness).

iMac 5K BTO prices rose very quickly and a well-configured system could easily run $3000-plus, though not having to buy your RAM through Apple could offer significant savings.

 

[randomdude83]

To me, Apple putting it out that they won't do a 27"...."For Now" is a clear signal for all pro users specifically to get the Mac Studio as your next thing.

Apple is right with that no matter what everyone argues as far as all in one solutions or ascetics.

The Mac Studio allows pro users to change, expand and add storage/displays and other Thunderbolt options much easer than a imac pro user would. Its just a better long term investment than the imac pro.

But I'm also going to huge guess the M1 Ultra just got constrained with thermal issues and they couldn't make it work in a thin imac 27" is probably the real reason. so really they could have only offered m1 max only in the imac 27" and that was a boring move to them and would have competed with the mac studio's sales and R & D recovery.

I personally would never buy an apple display mostly because I'm a huge believer of ultra wide curved displays and the superior benefits to regular sizes.

What Apple is not getting right in my opinion though, is that the consumer level would totally eat up a 27" easy.

I think they really need to consider a 24" and a 27" M2 imacs for sure and they'd be dumb not too.

 

[Realityck]

For me its about space. I live in a studio apartment and have small desk, maybe 2.5 ft wide. For me, having JUST an iMac with a keyboard and mouse and no wires going all over the place is perfect for me. Also, when the price is comparable, why not just have a single solution?

I wonder if 24" iMac sales will increase because of this absence of the 27" iMac?

 

[niho]

In the UK, I see 27" iMac everywhere. In stores and in offices. It's compact and also it's a nice decorative object. I don't think they are going to be replaced by Mac mini/studio + Studio display, it's just too expensive and it's not as compact. 24" iMac is small for productivity, Base iMac 27" was a great priced product, i think it will be a loss for Apple if they don't come with a similar solution.

 

[dpace32]

That is disappointing... as a 27" iMac user, I can't downgrade to a 24" iMac display and hate the idea of taking the beautiful all in one design and swapping it for a desktop (or laptop) + monitor...

Even if they made it the same specs as the 24" iMac, I'd be happy...

 

[blairh]

I still believe it will happen. Even if it isn't anytime soon.

24" isn't larger enough for everyone. I believe we will see a 30" 5.5k iMac at some point.

 

[gnipgnop]

Why would the iMac product line be the ONLY one with a single screen size? Very, very odd.

 

[Seoras]

I sit and write this on my 27" iMac.
Just last week at my kids school, where I'm the volunteer IT person, I had them order a new 24" iMac to replace the dead one the reception admin uses.
I toyed with the idea of getting them a Mac Mini this time and sourcing a monitor for it while keeping the old machines keyboard and mouse.
However when I went to find a similar spec monitor to the one the current 24" iMac has I couldn't find anything as good and in a price range that justified buying a Mac Mini instead of another iMac.
My own 27" iMac is a 2017 max spec machine which is my work horse (I write Apps and other software for a living).
If this rumour is true then I see myself replacing it with a high spec Mac Mini and sourcing a decent screen.
The high end Apple stuff seem to be more aimed at the video and media editing users than developers like myself.
My App compile times are still decent on my iMac but I'm sure they would be spectacular on even the lowest spec-ed M2 machine.

 

[turbineseaplane]

(thought the ASD is a better monitor than the iMac 5K was).

In what way?

Same panel is it not?

 

[theluggage]

My guess is that 27" iMac was always a bargain for what you got and was "too good to be true". Basically Apple is saying you don't want to see the price of a 27" iMac so we are taking it away.

You might have hit the nail on the head there - good price considering the display you get, plus you could easily upgrade the RAM. Probably looked at the profit margin rather than the number of sales.

 

[maxoakland]

I find it hard to believe that Apple’s end goal for the iMac product line is just one single product. A 27 inch iMac powered by an M1 Max would sell.

That was the way it was originally and it seemed to work really well. I think all the different options had a diluting effect.

On the other hand, offering cheaper models than the current one would make it more popular, which would be a plus side. But a more expensive option kind of defeats the purpose that the iMac originally held, which was a consumer device