Apple Not Planning to Launch Larger-Screened iMac

[ikramerica]

You certainly do your research.

They left out the massive growth of large phones over that time.

The iPad/iPhone replaced the iBook/MacBook, not the PC in general. As a former iBook owner, I can see how it could do that for most uses I saw people had for the iBook: photos, emails, web/shopping, music, games. Consumption of content and communications.

The laptop and desktop market on the mac side starts to make sense when you use the computer to produce things, not just consume.

 

[Tagbert]

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.

The reason a given device is considered “retina” is because the pixel density is enough that, at the expected viewing distance, the human eye cannot distinguish individual pixels. More density beyond that is not useful. Phones are held close to the eye and need a higher density than a laptop which is typically used within bent arms reach. Desktop monitors are typically use no closer than extended arms reach and can be retina at around 220ppi. That is why Apple‘s devices are different pixel densities, they are not “all over the place”. They tend to fall into about 3 ranges based on typical viewing distance.

A 4K display is in the range of “retina” at sizes less than 24”. A 32” 4K screen is definitely not.

 

[Tagbert]

I sympathize with those of you who planned to get a 27” iMac only to have Apple dash those hopes. None of the remaining options is exactly what you want. That sucks.

I don’t know if this is a permanent situation or just a transition within the Mac product line. I think that there is a demand for a larger AIO and Apple may return with a product once they get all of the other products aligned. Right now the entire product line is in flux. Even some of the recently updated products, like the Mac Mini and the 13” MBP, are obviously not done evolving and are missing obvious features that may or may not appear.

Rumors fly around saying that Apple will definitely do X and others that Apple is for sure done doing X. With all of the pieces moving the chess board is a little confusing right now. I suggest taking a breath and not stress too much about the choices. Don’t assume that the current lineup is the end goal, there are still some moves left in this game, at least over the next year. Maybe by then this will all make sense.

 

[mjtomlin71]

Agreed. So the choice is do you downgrade to a 24 inch iMac or do you get a M1 Mac mini or Studio with an external monitor like a Dell ultrasharp. The Studio Monitor is a dud, IMO.

a 27“ 4k dell ultrsharp is 1500.

Hardware wise, the Studio display is only different from a 27” iMac because it has an A13 instead of an Intel CPU, better speakers, mics, camera.

 

[HazardousT]

I sympathize with those of you who planned to get a 27” iMac only to have Apple dash those hopes. None of the remaining options is exactly what you want. That sucks.

I don’t know if this is a permanent situation or just a transition within the Mac product line. I think that there is a demand for a larger AIO and Apple may return with a product once they get all of the other products aligned. Right now the entire product line is in flux. Even some of the recently updated products, like the Mac Mini and the 13” MBP, are obviously not done evolving and are missing obvious features that may or may not appear.

Rumors fly around saying that Apple will definitely do X and others that Apple is for sure done doing X. With all of the pieces moving the chess board is a little confusing right now. I suggest taking a breath and not stress too much about the choices. Don’t assume that the current lineup is the end goal, there are still some moves left in this game, at least over the next year. Maybe by then this will all make sense.

If Apple had a more open forum about what is to come I would be more optimistic. Unlike the PC market, which I got out of a long time ago, there are no other options in the MacOS realm so we are slaves to what they have to offer. It’s not encouraging to me when I hear the 27” is end-of-life.

As an alternative I’d feel a little better if there was a middle ground between the mini which I’m not interested in and the studio that is overpowered and overpriced for my needs and a monitor that costs more than the mini itself.

 

[mjtomlin71]

Well, not in fact.

In 2021, 168.8 million tablets were shipped worldwide, a 3.2% yearly growth, according to IDC. The figures are here:

Aren’t we beyond this? Like 10 years ago? Shipped does not equal sold. What kind of moron still uses these numbers, especially from IDC and these other bean counters. According to their predictions, Windows Mobile has 80% of the mobile market by now.

Remember when iPad wasn’t the market leader and all those cheap $50 tablets were… but at the same time, for some strange reason, iPad had 80% of the tablet web browsing “market”? No of course you don’t. Because that statistic doesn’t prop up your opinion.

 

[Ankaa]

And I was like you. I had 16GB in my maxed out 2011 MBP and was pushing up against it with 3D CAD and browser and multiple large PDFs running all at once (my workflow for construction documents) and said I would definitely need more to “future proof”.

Then I watched detailed reviews of the M1 Pro and how memory is managed and how fast swapping/paging is and I decided to risk it and not pay for the 32GB and got 16. I don’t regret it. I have less memory pressure now than before and since I don’t expect my file sizes get bigger over time, I am not worried.

It might be different for your scientific data, but I am shocked at how efficient the M1 is with memory.

I differentiate between my mobile and my desktop machines. I repeatedly opted not to max out my macbooks fully knowing that I still have a sufficient power horse at home should I need it.

I have zero doubt that the M1 is phenomenal, including memory handling and will be more than efficient for me. Right now. And that is the important point. My 24GB RAM were way overkill 6 years ago for what I was computing then. It's very much not enough, now. My workflow hasn't changed dramatically, but the file sizes and codes I'm using, have. These days, my mac can hardly handle multiple PDFs, one word document, and Safari open. I like to average my macs at 6ish years of usage, which is mostly due to funding limitations (but also from an environmental perspective). From my longterm experience, and with the fast progression of everything, I'm more than willing to bet that what is considered 'max' now will barely be 'minimum' in 6 years. Point in case: 12 years ago I sufficiently was using an iMac with 4GB RAM and a MBA with 2GB RAM and now I wouldn't even DREAM about that ... Another point in case: our work PC has 32 GB RAM and recently defeted while I was running something in Matlab, which too was a first within the last years. New code - new (large) datafiles - new computing requirements we couldn't anticipate when our lab bought it, maxing it out at the time. In my field but also privately, funding very very much limits how often we can upgrade our machines.

But I'm also just not pro user enough who could ever justify buying a full blown Pro machine (including the now extinct iMac Pro). Those use cases don't happen often enough nor do I have the funding. My use case is semi-professional-semi-private and this is my private machine that I sometimes (and within the last 2 years more often than not) use for my work. Which is really really common in science.

So yes, I'm just very concious about future proofing. There is a reason why the Studio starts at 32GB RAM while the iMac maxes out at 16 ...

I suggest taking a breath and not stress too much about the choices.

Which we can't when we've already been holding out for a year or two and our macs are literally dying away under us.

I was ready to upgrade last year and when the M1 iMac came out decided to wait until the 27" received that update. It's a punch in the face and my current iMac just won't live long enough for me to take a breath and not stress until Apple hopefully decides to maybe bring a larger iMac back at some point in 2023.

 

[lotones]

I didn't see an answer to this: could a 27" 5K iMac be used as a monitor for the Mac Studio? If so that would take the sting out of there not being a similar priced 27" M1 iMac. And if both could be used simultaneously even better.

Could this work?

 

[mjtomlin71]

I didn't see an answer to this: could a 27" 5K iMac be used as a monitor for the Mac Studio? If so that would take the sting out of there not being a similar priced 27" M1 iMac. And if both could be used simultaneously even better.

Could this work?

Depends on the model of iMac. I use my 2009 as a display for my M1 mini. It even sits on top the mini, so you don’t even really notice it.

And yes, you can use both. I still use the iMac for older software and for x86 VM’s.

Use your iMac as a display with target display mode - Apple Support

Target display mode is a feature available with certain older Mac models.

support.apple.com

After reading that page, doesn’t look like any 5K iMac is supported. Sad. That is great feature of older iMacs

 

[Ankaa]

After having caught up on the entire thread, I honestly think there is a large proportion of people who don't know/understand that there were two different machines:

the 27" iMac, which was discontinued this week
the 27" iMac Pro, which was discontinued a year ago

The 27" iMac was a slighly better 'consumer' iMac, with a 5k display and a tad more upgrade options for specs. Targeted at prosumers. Just like the larger-sized iMac always has been since it was first introduced in 2006 (with 24" vs. the original base 17", then 20"). It provided a middle-ground between "really just your average consumer" and "PRO" (with all the strings and funding attached).

The iMac Pro was targeted at pro-users from the beginning, both in starting specs as well as price point. Just because it was quite popular among people who could afford it despite not really needing it, didn't mean it was another prosumer machine.

They literally had different target audiences.

The Studio is an amazing mac and definitely has its niche. It has a fair price point for what it is.

But it is a replacement for the iMac Pro. It is targeted at the iMac Pro demographic.

 

[CWallace]

I didn't see an answer to this: could a 27" 5K iMac be used as a monitor for the Mac Studio?

You cannot use an iMac 5K as an external display by directly connecting it to another Mac because none of the iMac 5K line has Target Display Mode due to the custom timing controller they need to drive the display at 60Hz vs. 30Hz.

AirPlay or a third-party option like Luna might work, but probably not as well as having a direct connection.

 

[Mr.PT]

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.

Almost agree 100%, I also think headless Mac+Apple Display is a better fit concept as it allows for more “light on your pocket” frequent updates. However I feel Apple shoot itself on foot with these bad decisions:
Price—Studio M1Max only≈1k US$ cheaper than equivalent 16”MBP, not enough to loose a significantly better display and benefit of portability;
Display—visual specs (more important than speakers and webcam) feel already dated.

 

[Mr.PT]

My observation is that a lot of professionals want more screens, not necessarily more computational power. Obviously, there are exceptions like video editors and people doing scientific research. They can use and justify all the computational power they can get.

Anyway, this new Mac Studio can support how many screens? (Answer - a lot) That answers that customer demand.

That takes a lot of GPU processing. They've gone to a lot of trouble to make the cooling efficient, presumably to support all that. That might have been a challenge in an iMac package.

I won't even attempt to justify their pricing for SSD, but the memory they use isn't exactly a commodity. So, it's not surprising the pricing is higher. Plus, this has obviously always been a high margin item for them. It sucks if you're a techno-savvy customer, but I wonder how much of their market falls into that category.

It's funny... For years, I've read complaints here that Apple ought to sell a mini Mac Pro for people who want something between a Mini and a Pro. Maybe make the package a little larger, with more ports. Add a nice monitor. So, they did just that. Now people are unhappy again.

I think problem is people hoped for Mini Pro and got Mac Pro mini. Price wise. Conceptually Studio feels a Mini Pro.

 

[_Spinn_]

I suspect that Apple wants the Mac Studio to take the place of the iMac Pro.

 

[fcracer]

It does (for the user, it very much doesn't for Apple) when the new solution is easily $1,000-$1,500 more expensive when you de-couple that 'expensive display'.

Prosumers going for the 27" paid somewhere between $1800 and $3000. (also: edu discounts are a thing! the edu sector makes up a huge part of the prosumers)
You group the prosumers into the demographic that now should go with the studio, which starts at $3,600 at its cheapest configuration (with comparable display quality).

For me, the studio is cost prohibitive as a prosumer. So I'm stuck with 24" and max 16GB RAM. Thank you very much.

I expect Apple will introduce a Mac Mini with a more powerful processor to fill the gap for people that had an 27" iMac and don't want to spend the extra $1,000-$1,500 for the Studio Max. Again, I'm a huge fan of the 27" iMac and I'm sad that it's not with us at the moment, however I think the Studio opens up interesting options to upgrade the box or screen at different intervals.

 

[BigMac?]

I have mixed feelings about this:
Yeah, 4K+ on a .Mac and you can’t change display or cpu independently for a stationary design might seem dull, but the overall look/cleanliness would be great. The iMac Pro always has been some kind of weird gap filler, but it was a hack of a machine!

 

[Quackington]

Have fun lugging that thing to the Apple store for repairs.

I mean, how many times is one going to be taking this for repairs? Also, there is always the courier option.

 

[AussieStu]

If this is due to cooling then go back to the swivel arm idea with a large screen. looked good. Plus gives them the space for a cooling system if its about the heat from the new chips

 

[xref_M]

1: Macbook pros are now desktop-level in terms of performance. Many users will find it simpler in the context of the ecosystem, as they do tend to have multiple devices. MB pro + Studio display is more affordable than iMac + MB pro.

2: What many users, me included, were hoping for, is the entry level 27 inch, which gives me enough performance with brilliant display. For those, there is the Studio display+ Mac mini m1 (and rumored m1 pro)

3: However, it just seems like a very un-elegant solution. iMac has been for a long time "the" desktop from apple, suitable both for consumers and pros. Base 27 has been a great deal offering great screen, no clutter on the desk at a affordable price. It was also relatively portable.

4: There is a group of people, and I imagine quite substantial: upstarts, freelancers, small design and architecture studios, that are really struggling in this economy and for those, the 27 inch was the sweet spot. I imagine, they will manage, but with a worse experience, possibly affording worse display. 24 inch inch is too small in 2022 for any substantial work.

5: A note. My theory is, that the youtube/influencer age has deformed the perception of what a "pro" is and is neglecting the real economical situation and workflow of many other "pros" in design and architecture that are dependant on mac ecosystem. If you look at all the "pro" devices marketing, they are all clearly addressed to youtubers that will review the products. The mac pro, macbook pro and mac studio are tuned for video editing. However, designers and architects would much more benefit from, say 32inch 100% adobe rgb M1 pro device than P3 27 M1 max/ultra. There is no affordable solution, as other displays at this price point (EIZO, BENQ) are only 4k and peak at 300cd.

 

[downpour]

The new Studio/Screen combo is way too expensive compared to the old iMacs. Apple could almost justify it if the screen was using the same tech as the MacBook Pro, but instead it is outdated and ridiculously overpriced. I really hope Apple will reconsider and bring back the iMac otherwise a lot of people will be switching to third party monitors which won’t help them at all. Hopefully they are just waiting for the M2 chips now.

 

[Coconut Bean]

You can't just dismiss the 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD in the lowest end Mini, especially when the RAM is now non-upgradeable and part and parcel of deciding which SoC you need. 512GB SSD is probably compulsory if you want to install bulky Pro software like Logic and have enough space for your work-in-progress video/audio projects on the fast drive. If you don't want that then the 8GB/256GB is probably fine.

So I don't think it's valid to dismiss the $1099 Mini config as an intermediate between the base Mini and the Studio.

Now, looking at MBP 14" prices, the difference between the M1 Max and the M1 Pro is $600 (the RAM upgrade from 16 to 32GB is part of the chip) - so working back from the M1 Max Studio that would put a hypothetical 16GB/512 M1 Pro Studio at $1400. (Yeah, that reasoning isn't cast iron but it's the best you can do with the available info).

So, yeah, that sounds like a reasonable intermediate option between M1 Mini and Studio.
However, remember, the Max supports one more external display than the Pro - and I don't think anybody knows what's happening with TB4 ports and PCIe or if the Pro could support all the ports on the M1 Max Studio (I thought the only Pro/Max difference was GPU cores, but the Max-only Studio has rather more I/O than on the M1 Pro & Max MBPs).

I think there's another way of looking at it, though: The M1 Pro is basically an M1 Max with half the GPU cores chopped off, resulting in a GPU that is more powerful than anything else in a thin & light laptop (with decent battery life) but isn't anything special compared to desktop PC GPUs (or even bulky gaming/portable workstation class laptops).

If price is not your #1 priority (and you're getting a Mac, so it isn't) and you're buying a desktop, so heat & battery life isn't your #1 priority, either, then how much do you need to "save" by getting what is, by Apple standards, a mobile-class GPU?

Apple has been bundling mobile graphics in "desktop" lineups forever though and frankly many Mac users do not use GPU, it's really good for the few dozens accelerated apps, but gaming is pretty meh.

I'm primarily coding and right now there's nothing between the bare minimum m1 and the definitely over kill m1 max on desktop side. Imo I'm better off with with M1 pro and double the RAM than M1 max, something currently not offered.

 

[richest]

I wonder do any Apple exec's read these type of forums for feedback?

They should instead of just believing their own marketing hype!

 

[dumastudetto]

I wonder do any Apple exec's read these type of forums for feedback?

They should instead of just believing their own marketing hype!

Apple focus is always on building the very best products for its consumers. Price is secondary. The whole new studio concept has taken performance to a completely new level for macOS users.

For everyone else, there is iPad Pro.

 

[atoqir]

People really seem very emotional about this lol

When it comes to the price complaint, do people realise they do not have to buy the super expensive display along with their Mac?

There are great and affordable screen options available from other vendors. Seeing as most people want a more ‘casual’ Mac, there really is no need to buy the most pro screen on the market along with it

 

[ACD30"]

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

It's true that the iMac was, from day one, sold as a home computer presumably for novice users; on the other hand, it would be remiss of me not to consider the fact that the current average user is more likely to be found on a laptop or smartphone (and, that's been the case for the last decade or so, now). There is no longer a need to market it to the average user.

Thus, the iMac has increasingly become more capable so that 'power users' can effectively have a clean AIO setup that is simultaneously very capable. Now, the 24" iMac is currently fairly powerful, thanks to M1; but, with the standards set by M1 Ultra and future others, it's going to seem comparatively low end. And, in fact, all the buzz and activity surrounding the prospect of a model with a larger screen and higher-end M1 is already indicative of the demand had by said 'power users.' Makes me wonder if that consistent demand for a better iMac is more significant than whatever particular demand drives the sales volume of the 24" iMac.

If what I'm supposing is true, the implication would be that Apple has to either continue to market an expensive and high-end iMac or just maybe forget about the iMac altogether. (The advent of the Mac Studio, additionally, has me wondering if they may be dropping it altogether.) That would leave the low-end iMac to die on the vine, though, which I admit would be quite sad. I wonder if perhaps they could at least continue selling it for specialized applications where it's either required or preferred. My mind goes to businesses wishing for a clutter-free system for placement on a reception desk or for use as a POS system. After all, it seems iMacs been popular in that sector for some years now.