Apple Not Planning to Launch Larger-Screened iMac

[BornAgainMac]

iMac is Steve Jobs's baby. His legacy will live on forever through an iMac. For now, Apple wants people to focus on purchasing the Mac Studio. It also comes down to how good Mac Studio will do. Sales wise!

Next year it will be a different story. Apple will release a new lineup of an iMac. Preferably 30" iMac. ?

The original Steve Jobs iMac was really about that simple computer to get people on the Internet and importing their CDs to digital MP3s and introducing people to creating using iMovie. They had the PowerMac G3/G4 for professional users. The current iMac is still good for most people.

 

[batmanofvietnam]

The All-in-one design was great but the internals died long before the screens on both of my previous 27inch iMacs. Waste of beautiful screens, wish I could have bought a new Mini or Laptop to plug in to them.

 

[richest]

My iMac is a late 27 in 2013 model.

How would the new screen compare to this?

Thanks

 

[cmaier]

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

They should instead of just believing their own marketing hype!

Why? Forums are not at all representative of the overall customer base.

 

[richest]

Why? Forums are not at all representative of the overall customer base.

They are part of the customer base, both commercial and consumer.

 

[cmaier]

They are part of the customer base, both commercial and consumer.

A very tiny part. The whiniest part who should never be listened to.

 

[theluggage]

Imo I'm better off with with M1 pro and double the RAM than M1 max, something currently not offered.

I don't disagree that an M1 Pro Mini/Studio would be a helpful option, but it could be a rather narrow "niche".

One wildcard is what is happening with the M2. With the rumours all over the place, who knows if we'll get a M2 Mini this year, next year or not. ...but let's imagine that the base M2 SoC gets announced at WWDC, probably with the new Air as the headline M2 machine, at which point Apple have no real excuse not to update the M1 Mini to M2 (which is what the rumour sources seem to be backpedalling towards).

If you look at the various M2 rumours, it's looking likely to me that the M2 is likely to match - if not out-perform - the lower-end ("binned") M1 Pro 8/14 and 10/14 SoCs - and could even support more than 16GB or RAM as a result of using a newer LPDDR spec. The full-spec M1 "pro" maybe safe, although it's lead is going to be reduced.

So, if the lower-end M1 Pros are likely to be obsoleted by the M2 in the next 6 months, that would explain their non-appearance in the Mini. In the case of the full-spec M1 Pro... once you've upgraded to 32GB RAM (which you say you need) its "only" $200 more for the M1 Max (based on MBP 14 pricing - i.e. if a M1 Pro 10/16 32GB Studio existed you'd expect it to be $200 less than the M1 Max 10/24) which, as well as the better GPU, has twice the RAM bandwidth and supports one more external displays.

I don't think GPU power is ever totally irrelevant to a graphically rich OS like MacOS - especially if you're going to be running multiple screens in "scaled mode" - and despite Apple's hype the M1 Pro GPU is only really impressive in that it can run in a thin'n'crispy MacBook Pro, or if you are using it to encode Apple video formats.

and if cost is paramount then, realistically, if you rule out pro media production and heavy "scientific" computing, there's not a lot you can't do on a 16GB M1 Mini...

 

[skaertus]

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.

Do you have different numbers to back up your claim? Well, I do.

These numbers mean units shipped worldwide and not actually sold. So, let us see this from a different perspective. As you mentioned, we can take into consideration the web browsing statistics, the results are consistent. I am using Statscounter (https://gs.statcounter.com/) because it is the most readily accessible.

COMPUTERS MARKET SHARE

The desktop market share for computers as of now, in the last year (Feb 2021-2022) is as follows (https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide):

Windows: 75.86%
Mac OS: 15.76%
Chrome OS: 2.86%
Linux: 2.2%

Windows is the absolute leader here. Macs represent over 15% market share of web browsing while less than 10% of overall sales for some probable reasons such as:

- not all Windows PCs are meant to browse the Internet, and some of them have specific purposes and/or are used in a work environment where Internet browsing is not allowed;

- Macs in general tend to last longer, so there may be older Macs still accessing the Internet while their contemporary Windows PCs are already gone.

TABLETS MARKET SHARE

For tablets (https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide):

iOS: 53.78%
Android: 46.13%
Windows: 0.03%
Linux: 0.03%

The iPad is the leader here, with more than 50%. This may sound strange, as the sales of iPads represented only 1/3 of the overall tablet sales in 2021. However, this should be taken into consideration:

- Cheap tablets are not necessarily sold for Internet browsing. Many cheap tablets are used by the staff of stores and restaurants for internal purposes. iPads are more likely to be used for Internet browsing.

- Many Android tablets are cheap and disposable. They are more likely to be left in the drawer or be thrown away after a brief period of time. iPads tend to last much longer.

COMPUTERS VS. TABLETS VS. PHONES MARKET SHARE

The market share of computers, tablets, and smartphones, is divided as follows (https://gs.statcounter.com/platform-market-share/desktop-mobile-tablet):

Phones: 56.05%
Computers: 41.52%
Tablets: 2.43%

If you take away phones out of the equation, you will see that the relative distribution between computers and tablets is as follows (considering that computers and tablets combined account for 43.95% of all devices which browsed the web during the last year):

Computers: 94.47%
Tablets: 5.53%

Applying these percentages to the percentages above, we will have the following:

Windows computers: 71.66%
Macs: 14,89%
Chromebooks: 2.7%
Linux computers: 2.08%
iPads: 1.31%
Android tablets: 1.12%
Windows tablets: below 0.01%
Linux tablets: below 0.01%

I am not sure if these numbers are correct. They may be not. Tablets may represent more than 2.43% of all devices surfing the web. The iPhone had a 28.27% market share among smartphones, and that would account for 15.85% of the overall total. Considering that iPad shipments correspond to approximately 20% of the total shipment of iPhones, the iPad numbers may be too low in the statistics above. However, there is also the fact that iPhones are far more used than iPads, so I do not really know. That is the number I have.

CONCLUSION

The statistics above show a scenario that is even better to reinforce my point. Windows has a 71.66% overall market share of computers/tablets browsing the web last year, while only 57.8% of the overall sales. Even if these numbers are not precise, they point to the fact that the Windows platform is untouched and that tablets (either iPads or Android tablets) could not replace it up to this point.

 

[NowBatting]

One reason why the 27" iMac sales may have been down is because after the introduction of the new 24" iMac, people that were going to buy a new 27" iMac instead waited for an update to it with Apple M-silicon.

 

[wilberforce]

The All-in-one design was great but the internals died long before the screens on both of my previous 27inch iMacs. Waste of beautiful screens, wish I could have bought a new Mini or Laptop to plug in to them.

I replaced my 2014 iMac with a 2020 iMac not because the internals were inadequate (I had a 1TBB SSD and a high spec processor), but mainly because the screen had developed bad image retention around the edges, and I wanted the better P3 gamut for photo-editing. A year later the internals were no longer supported by the latest MacOS.
So in a sense the screen failed me slightly earlier than the internals.
Just to point out that the common wisdom that screens last much longer than computers is not always true.

 

[skaertus]

One reason why the 27" iMac sales may have been down is because after the introduction of the new 24" iMac, people that were going to buy a new 27" iMac instead waited for an update to it with Apple M-silicon.

Yes. Some people who were willing to buy the 27-inch iMac may have bought the 24-inch model instead, as it is faster and was redesigned. Some other people may have waited for a new larger iMac to be released.

The Intel 27-inch iMac was a hard sell when compared to the cheaper and much more compelling 24-inch iMac.

 

[skaertus]

Why? Forums are not at all representative of the overall customer base.

They are part of the customer base, both commercial and consumer.

A very tiny part. The whiniest part who should never be listened to.

These forums are not representative of the customer base. We are just a few nerds who waste our time writing useless things to unknown people.

However, I suppose some Apple employees read these forums. Forum users voice their complaints much more than the common user, so Apple has additional material to work with.

 

[theluggage]

The success of that monopoly had everything to do with Apple charging extremely high prices for their computers, making them a niche product.

...and the high prices had a lot to do with Apple having to make its own custom hardware from non-mainstream parts (even the PPC chip was an Apple/Motorola/IBM collaboration) and sell it with enough margin to fund development of its own OS and Apps. Those much cheaper PC clones were assembled from cheap commodity parts (manufactured in huge numbers) and sold as almost-loss-leaders by box shifters who made their money selling finance, extended warranties and $100 printer cables. Microsoft collected a tithe from every PC sold (including ones sold without Windows if the regulators weren't looking) as well as having an even bigger cash cow with Word/Office (which was also dominant on Macs) than they did with windows.

The underlying problem was when those cheap PC clones got sufficiently powerful for the DTP and graphics pros who were Apple's main customer base.

Even when Apple tried licensing MacOS to third parties, the result wasn't a range of "people's Macs" targeted at PC users - they went directly after Apple's expensive workstations and undercut them by just enough to steal sales.


Apple's most successful products in that period were laptops - possibly because it's harder for box shifters to throw together a cheap laptop from standard parts than a desktop PC.

This happened to every non-Wintel maker in the 90s. Heck, it even happened to IBM - their PC sales were decimated by cheap clones, OS/2 was a flop and they nearly went bust, and they sold off their PC making business to Lenovo (who bought it mainly for the ThinkBook).

Yeah - the whole Copeland

Diversity in IT increased because enough people pushed to be allowed to use their Macs at work and school.

...which only succeeded because Macs started to "just work" on corporate/institutional networks - ans that was largely because of the rise of the Internet led to open standards like TCP/IP, HTTP, SMTP/POP/IMAP (and open-source implementations of Microsoft's SMB) replacing proprietary stuff like Novell Netware. Microsoft even helped by supporting Office and Internet Explorer on Mac - possibly as a fig-leaf against anti-trust actions.

Macs started getting Ethernet as standard rather than Localtalk, and always did a rather better job of supporting Internet protocols than contemporary Windows.... and switching to the BSD Unix-alike OS X cemented that.

Then there's USB - suddenly, instead of having to hunt around for expensive Mac-only ADB/Localtalk/RS423/SCSI peripherals, Macs and PCs had a common interface, so printers/scanners/mice/keyboards/modems/storage became increasingly "universal".

Jobs deserves a lot of credit for the iMac (where Internet was one of the things the 'i' might have stood for) but he got a big helping of serendipity - the concept wouldn't have worked 5-10 years earlier before the Internet got big and USB came along.

The iMac was only ever cheap w.r.t. other Macs, it was still pricey by PC standards.

Then, of course, Wintel totally missed the phone/tablet bus which is what really sealed the fate of their monopoly. Even monoliths like MS Office are now under threat from web apps etc. Of course, Apple take part of the credit for that, too - but it isn't because iPhone is cheap.

(Wintel is dying - although it is so big that it is not going away anytime soon and Apple are not the guaranteed successor).

Apple is dangerously close to pricing their computers out of student and consumer markets

Look at the "go tos" for students/consumers:

The 2006 white plastic MacBook was $1100. The 2020 M1 MacBook Air is $1000.
The original 1998 15" iMac was $1299. The 2021 24" M1 iMac is $1299.
(yes, folks, the base iMac has stayed at the same price since 1998!)

While those old entry-level models were pretty much wordprocessing & email machines, the 2020 incarnations are perfectly up to web/app development, amateur video and audio production or the odd game of Minecraft. The higher-end models are far more "specialist" than they were back then.

There are specific problems with Apple pricing - including ones being discussed in this thread - but Apple have been pretty careful at keeping their biggest sellers at their old price point.

They've never tried to compete below the "premium" end of the market - in fact, what's been notable in the last 10 years is that brands like Microsoft & Dell have added premium ranges (XPS, Surface etc.) that are clearly targetted at Apple's laptops at - especially in the case of MS Surface - very Apple-like premium prices.

 

[Warped9]

The Intel 27-inch iMac was a hard sell when compared to the cheaper and much more compelling 24-inch iMac.

Definitely. Yet we were all assuming there would be a redesigned 27in. coming. And it still might perhaps, but given what we are seeing presently it puts the 24in. in an entirely new light. I, like many others, accepted the 24 as the replacement for the tiers of 21.5 iMacs. Now it appears the 24 replaces all tiers of both 21.5 and 27 Intel iMacs. Seen in that light the 24 looks to have a lot of value in it in terms of overall performance.

I get it. I just didn’t see it coming given other manufacturers like HP still offer a 27in. AIO.

 

[skaertus]

Definitely. Yet we were all assuming there would be a redesigned 27in. coming. And it still might perhaps, but given what we are seeing presently it puts the 24in. in an entirely new light. I, like many others, accepted the 24 as the replacement for the tiers of 21.5 iMacs. Now it appears the 24 replaces all tiers of both 21.5 and 27 Intel iMacs. Seen in that light the 24 looks to have a lot of value in it in terms of overall performance.

I get it. I just didn’t see it coming given other manufacturers like HP still offer a 27in. AIO.

I was honestly expecting a 6K 32-inch iMac to replace the 5K 27-inch iMac.

And this is for a few reasons.

First, Apple launched a 24-inch iMac to replace the 21.5-inch model. It was clear to me, at the time, that the 24-inch iMac was not a replacement for the 27-inch model, as it continued to be sold.

Second, the 24-inch is a bit too close to 27-inch for this to be a differentiating factor. So, a larger screen would make sense.

Third, as Apple increased the size of the smaller iMac, it would make sense for it to increase the size of the larger one as well.

Fourth, Apple has historically increased the size and resolution of iMacs as years went by, and never reduced it:

15" ---> 15", 17" and 20" ---> 17" and 20" ---> 17", 20" and 24" ---> 20" and 24" ---> 21.5" and 27"

Fifth, Apple increased the size of the screen in the MacBook Pro models and in the iPad models, reflecting a trend in the industry. So, it made sense that the iMac followed the same trend.

Sixth, 32-inch monitors are now common in the market. As they became far cheaper, many consumers use them. Apple could launch a 32-inch iMac to not fall behind those PC desktops and to be a step ahead of other all-in-ones (just like it did when released the 27-inch iMac).

Seventh, Apple already sells a 32-inch display (the Pro Display XDR). The steep price of the Pro Display XDR is due to its professional features and not its size. So, Apple could well put an inferior 32-inch display (with a similar quality to the one found in the 24-inch iMac) in the larger model.

Due to these reasons, it made perfect sense in my mind that Apple would launch a 32-inch iMac. Unfortunately, it did not.

 

[jca666us]

I still think a larger iMac will come eventually, but there are growing indications that it isn't going to be soon.

If it happens, I think it won't be 27 inches, because the difference between 24 and 27 inches is a bit ridiculous. It would have to be 30+ inches.

I think the M1 pro would be too thermally constrained by the current iMac enclosure.

Probably by the time an M2 pro comes around in a 3 nm process, that would probably be when we see a larger iMac.

 

[IlluminatedSage]

Disappointing, I'd like a 27" iMac.

that said, I could be down with the new studio system too

 

[HazardousT]

I think the M1 pro would be too thermally constrained by the current iMac enclosure.

Probably by the time an M2 pro comes around in a 3 nm process, that would probably be when we see a larger iMac.

If a power hungry Xeon processor can run in an iMac enclosure, surely a more efficient M1 Pro couldn't.

 

[Warped9]

IF we eventually get a bigger redesigned iMac I’m suspecting it won’t be priced as consumer friendly as the just discontinued Intel 27. OTH I don’t think it would be as pricey as the former iMac Pro.

Which leads me to ponder what will be happening in the MacBook lineup. The M1 MBA made the 13in. MBP largely redundant. Given its pricing the new 14in. MBP is not a replacement for the existing 13in.We’re hearing rumours of a 13 MBP replacement, but maybe that won’t happen in quite the way we expect.

The 24 iMac now covers the range of the former 21.5 and 27 Intel iMacs. The new Studio Mac and Studio Display are for serious pro users. They’re not replacing the Intel 27, but perhaps more the old iMac Pro. The new 14 and 16 MBP are for serious pro users while the forthcoming redesigned MBA will replace the existing Air and the existing 13 Pro.

That simplifies the lineups. The new iMac and MacBook Air will be the mainstream computers for consumers and relatively light pro users (this could also suggest Apple might drop the Air designation and just call it MacBook). The Studio Mac and MacBook Pro are for dedicated pro users.

 

[CWallace]

While there is no doubt that the 27" iMac 5K was a popular desktop model, let us also not forget that it was also the only desktop model for most Mac users because the Mac mini did not have enough CPU and GPU power and the Mac Pro had too much (and was significantly more expensive).

So we all bought it because we did not have a choice, while many pined for a Mac mini with a better GPU or a cheaper Mac Pro so they would not be forced to pay for a display they might not have needed or wanted and could not carry with them when it came time to replace the compute unit.

We have had the former (Mac mini with a better GPU) since the M1 model dropped in 2020 and we now have the latter with the Mac Studio (a powerful machine that is cheaper than a Mac Pro).

To get it, we had to lose the AIO option we had all settled with and for those who were fine with the 5K integrated display and accepted that they had to effectively re-buy it every time they replaced their iMac are understandably upset because now they are being asked to pay a significant premium to recreate that AIO experience with a 5K display (be it Apple's or LG).

But for those who didn't care about the 5K panel and wanted something that better suited their needs (be it larger or supported higher refresh rates or had multiple inputs or offered advanced calibration options), they now have a compute option that is far more powerful than the M1 Mac mini and far cheaper than the Mac Pro.

Apple has said they are listening to the "pro market" and I think the Mac Studio and Apple Studio Display are the result of that conversation. I won't claim "pros don't like AIOs", but I would not be surprised if more pros than not prefer the option to have separate compute and display options and now Apple is offering them something in each category that is half the cost (or less) of the Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR.

Some like Gurman and Gruber are hedging their bets on a future 27" iMac (Pro) because they interpret Mac Pro as a model line and not an individual unit. Under such logic, the iMac has already been moved to Apple silicon with the 24" model so a 27" model would just be another iMac (as the 13.3", 14" and 16" models are all MacBook Pros). They also note that Apple's comment that the Mac Pro is the last existing model that will migrate to Apple silicon does not preclude new models being created and point to the Mac Studio as proof. And since the iMac Pro is no longer a model in Apple's lineup, the next iMac Pro would be a new model, not an existing one, and therefore can be released without contradicting Apple's statement.

I will note that if the next - and only - 27" iMac we get is the iMac Pro, it's going to cost as much or more as a Mac Studio and Apple Studio Display thanks to the 27" ProMotion MiniLED display, M2 Max and M2 Ultra SoCs and 32GB starting RAM.

I think Apple will offer M2 Pro and 32GB of RAM on the 24" model to make it more relevant to those who were buying 27" iMacs with the i7 and 5300/5500XT GPUs.

 

[theluggage]

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.

I'm afraid those days - specs doubling every 18 months but price points not even rising with inflation - are probably over. The PC world is coping with higher SSD prices, GPU price hikes/shortages/scalping too. $100 on the price of a $2300 computer (4%) is still a sub-inflation price rise these days.

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.

...and that is what they call a straw man.
Then you're quibbling over a 7% change over 13 years when the cumulative inflation is 32%
And you're trying to have it both ways - if you want to compare "small" with "small" then it would be the current 24" against the 2009 20" (which was $100 cheaper, but over 13 years, 4" of extra screen plus twice the pixel density and a vastly better CPU... seriously?)

If you want to go back in time and look at price points without taking any account of power, the original 1998 iMac was $1299 and the entry-level iMac (ignoring edu specials) has hovered around that forever.

There have been price hikes - particularly in 2012 when the MacBook Pros went all-SSD and all-Retina display (although Apple actually updated the 'classic' MBPs to the latest CPUs and kept them around for a year or so then). But SSD was expensive and still hasn't overtaken HD in price-per-GB - and the switch to SSD was probably the biggest step forward in performance for a decade.

Then of course there was the 2016 MBP fiasco, and I'm certainly not going to defend them there.
...and I do agree that the demise of the 5k iMac & price of the Studio display is a shame - but that could be because Apple are the only ones buying 5k panels in any quantity and they've become too expensive to include in a $1800 computer.

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?

It starts at $1999, buying an expensive Apple display is not compulsory and the $4000 model is claimed to be more powerful than the $6000 Mac Pro. The nearest past equivalent was the Trashcan which started at $3000 and was equally unsuitable for gaming.

Apple have a games platform: it's called the iPhone. Serious 3D gaming is a "niche" even within the PC world (a friend has just spent £1300 on a gaming GPU card...).

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 Studio and the 14/16" MBPs (certainly the Max models) aren't needed by the general consumer - and that is something that has changed over the years. You can't just ignore the differences between (e.g.) standard def and retina displays, what an M1 can do c.f. a Core 2 Duo, what you can do today with a tiny laptop like an Air. Most people I know who were using 15" MBPs in 2010 are now happily using Airs - they were already plugging their 15" onto a large display for heavy DTP/WP, 13" is good enough - and much more portable - on the road, and the modern Airs are more than powerful enough for their needs.

The big consumer sellers are the "small" iMac and the MacBook Air. Which have been ~ $1200 and $1000 respectively since forever. They're now far more powerful than before and can take on "creative amateur" tasks that previously would have needed more expensive, more powerful Macs. If the "higher-end" options are more expensive (debatable) it's partly because fewer people need them.

If I wanted to replace my late, lamented 2011 17" MBP today for work-justified purposes - which cost $2300 in 2011 - I'd be deliberating between the $2000 14" MBP or even the $1300 M1 13" MBP with a RAM upgrade. 17" made sense at the time, but retina is so much more flexible with a multitude of scaled modes that it doesn't really bear direct comparison (I can run it with tiny text until my eyes get tired and then switch back to larger text), and I'd be using an external display on the desk anyway. Frankly, I could survive with a base MBA - not ideal but far more viable than using a base MacBook Pro in the 00s would have been.

There are problems with Apple pricing, but on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Warped9]

iMac 24 with M2 and 32GB RAM = SOLD!

 

[skaertus]

I'm afraid those days - specs doubling every 18 months but price points not even rising with inflation - are probably over. The PC world is coping with higher SSD prices, GPU price hikes/shortages/scalping too. $100 on the price of a $2300 computer (4%) is still a sub-inflation price rise these days.

They may be over, but it has been like this for some 40 years. Prices of components go down as technology evolves. The tech industry developed over this premise. By offering better products at the same price point or even cheaper, people will be inclined to buy computers every 3-5 years or so, as the new ones will be dramatically better than the old ones.

There has always been inflation, and that never stopped computers from becoming increasingly cheaper.

...and that is what they call a straw man.
Then you're quibbling over a 7% change over 13 years when the cumulative inflation is 32%
And you're trying to have it both ways - if you want to compare "small" with "small" then it would be the current 24" against the 2009 20" (which was $100 cheaper, but over 13 years, 4" of extra screen plus twice the pixel density and a vastly better CPU... seriously?)

The cumulative inflation in the U.S. Inflation varies from country to country. Apple may be an American company, but its products are sold worldwide. The components come from many parts of the world and are assembled in China. Using U.S. inflation to justify a hike in prices may not be precise.

I live in Brazil, and we have our own problems with inflation and exchange rates. Every country does.

If you want to go back in time and look at price points without taking any account of power, the original 1998 iMac was $1299 and the entry-level iMac (ignoring edu specials) has hovered around that forever.

Yes, the iMac keeps the $1299 price point for the entry-level, and that is OK.

...and I do agree that the demise of the 5k iMac & price of the Studio display is a shame - but that could be because Apple are the only ones buying 5k panels in any quantity and they've become too expensive to include in a $1800 computer.

Well, I am not sure about the reason.

Apple is the only one that buys 24-inch 4.5K displays, and that does not prevent it from selling the 24-inch iMac at $1299. I am not sure if putting a 27-inch 5K display in a larger M1 iMac for $1799 or $1999 would be unfeasible. I suppose it was more of an Apple business decision.

It starts at $1999, buying an expensive Apple display is not compulsory and the $4000 model is claimed to be more powerful than the $6000 Mac Pro. The nearest past equivalent was the Trashcan which started at $3000 and was equally unsuitable for gaming.

I mentioned $2600-4600 because it was the example in the post I answered.

In any case, most users will not need the power of the Mac Studio. I am pretty sure that many "pros" in this forum are absolutely loving the Mac Studio as it is the fulfillment of their dreams, and they cannot care less that the 27-inch iMac was discontinued, and that Apple does not offer more options for budget-minded customers. But most of the users worldwide certainly do not share this opinion.

The iMac is convenient because it came with everything, including the webcam and the speakers. It is possible to buy a cheaper display, but a webcam will have to be bought separately and that would add wires. To avoid all those wires and keep a clean and elegant desk will now cost much more.

Apple have a games platform: it's called the iPhone. Serious 3D gaming is a "niche" even within the PC world (a friend has just spent £1300 on a gaming GPU card...).

Gaming PCs are niche, but not very much. Steam reports that there was a peak of 29.2 million simultaneous users in the last 48 hours (https://store.steampowered.com/stats/Steam-Game-and-Player-Statistics). Steam has reportedly 120 million monthly active users, which is a lot.

If you look at Steam's statistics, 76.14% of the users in Feb 2022 had an Nvidia video card (https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam).

The most popular video card was the GTX 1060 (7.99% of users). The RTX 2060 accounted for 5.38% and the RTX 3060, for 1.92%. See here: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/?utm_source=indiekings.com.

So, there are many people using PC as a gaming platform. Serious 3D gaming is something real, and it does not require a high-end video card.

And, in any case, I suppose even gaming PCs are much less niche than high-end Macs for creative pros.

But you are right: in Apple's perspective, the general user should be using iPhones and iPads to fulfill all their computing needs, leaving Macs to the creative pros.

The Studio and the 14/16" MBPs (certainly the Max models) aren't needed by the general consumer - and that is something that has changed over the years. You can't just ignore the differences between (e.g.) standard def and retina displays, what an M1 can do c.f. a Core 2 Duo, what you can do today with a tiny laptop like an Air. Most people I know who were using 15" MBPs in 2010 are now happily using Airs - they were already plugging their 15" onto a large display for heavy DTP/WP, 13" is good enough - and much more portable - on the road, and the modern Airs are more than powerful enough for their needs.

Well, I see a preference for laptops with larger displays.

These statistics show that, in India, most laptops were 15.6-inch models in 2019 and 2020, while 13.3 and 14-inch sizes were also popular.

Many Mac users are compelled to go for the 13-inch portables because of lack of choice.

The big consumer sellers are the "small" iMac and the MacBook Air. Which have been ~ $1200 and $1000 respectively since forever. They're now far more powerful than before and can take on "creative amateur" tasks that previously would have needed more expensive, more powerful Macs. If the "higher-end" options are more expensive (debatable) it's partly because fewer people need them.

Do you have any statistics in respect to Mac sales? I do not, as Apple does not seem to release the breakdown of Mac sales.

If I wanted to replace my late, lamented 2011 17" MBP today for work-justified purposes - which cost $2300 in 2011 - I'd be deliberating between the $2000 14" MBP or even the $1300 M1 13" MBP with a RAM upgrade. 17" made sense at the time, but retina is so much more flexible with a multitude of scaled modes that it doesn't really bear direct comparison (I can run it with tiny text until my eyes get tired and then switch back to larger text), and I'd be using an external display on the desk anyway. Frankly, I could survive with a base MBA - not ideal but far more viable than using a base MacBook Pro in the 00s would have been.

Yes, a base MacBook Air is "not ideal". Well, why shouldn't Apple offer ideal sizes then? Why someone should be compelled to spend at least $1999 in a laptop with all the bells and whistles just to get the ideal size?

There are problems with Apple pricing, but on a case-by-case basis.

There are many, many problems with Apple pricing. From a business perspective, it is very fine as it allows Apple to squeeze as much as it can from customers. From a customer perspective, it is not fine at all.

Mac enthusiasts and those attached to the Apple ecosystem keep finding ways to justify. "OK, Apple raised the prices, but now it is offering much more power." "OK, the 27-inch iMac is gone, but I can buy a Mac mini and a third-party monitor." "OK, the retina display makes it up for the larger laptops which became more expensive." "OK, I can attach my MacBook Air to an external display and it will be even better than having a larger laptop."

These are all workarounds. Apple does not offer, or ceases to offer, what users want or need, and users find ways around it. It is fine, but not ideal.

 

[indio32]

Guess apple thinks Studio covers all those bases.

I agree with them.

So...... in your world the average family that just wants a larger screen should opt for the cheapest Studio at $3600 which is Apple is targeting at companies?
Utterly dumb move Apple!

 

[macsplusmacs]

So...... in your world the average family that just wants a larger screen should opt for the cheapest Studio at $3600 which is Apple is targeting at companies?
Utterly dumb move Apple!

Yes.