Maybe huge numbers of people don't want/can't afford to spend $3600 on a home computer but want a larger screen and will happily sacrifice some performance. The Studio is aimed at companies NOT the general public.
Apple Not Planning to Launch Larger-Screened iMac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
cmaier
Suspended
Then they can buy a mini and buy one of a thousand 27” or larger monitors on the market.
Or they can buy apple equipment and keep the monitor for a long time, and end up spending less in the long run.
CWallace
macrumors G5
If one "just wants a larger screen", there are plenty of options other than the Apple Studio Display.
I highly doubt anyone walking into an Apple Store and buying a "consumer Mac" (Mini, Air, 13.3" MBP) also purchased a Pro Display XDR and and effectively no-one walked out with an UltraFine 5K or 4K. They either had a monitor they already intended to use with their new Mac or had one on the way from Amazon.
I highly doubt anyone walking into an Apple Store and buying a "consumer Mac" (Mini, Air, 13.3" MBP) also purchased a Pro Display XDR and and effectively no-one walked out with an UltraFine 5K or 4K. They either had a monitor they already intended to use with their new Mac or had one on the way from Amazon.
CWallace
macrumors G5
I understand a lot of us on this forum are "power users", but sometimes I think there is just a collective bias present that anything "entry level" is by definition "garbage" and while that can be true in the PC world with sub-$500 PCs using years-old parts with the minimum support configurations of RAM and storage to boot Windows, it is most certainly not the case in the current Apple silicon Mac lineup.
The M1 Mac mini and MacBook Air are not "garbage" no are they "poor performers" or "bad". Apple sells more MacBook Airs then anything else in the line-up and it is not just because it is "only" $1000 because $1000 is still a fair bit of cash. There are plenty of prosumers and actual professionals who make a good living with their MacBook Airs. They don't need 10 CPU cores or 16/32 GPU cores or 32GB/64GB of RAM or 4TB/8TB of SSD to do their paying occupation.
It is most certainly not the case if you choose to make a living with a Mac, you must have a MacBook Pro or Mac Studio with M1 Max and 32GB of RAM. You might need that (or even more) depending on how you make your living with a Mac, but it is not the "entry-level" configuration.
And people did not need to have a 27" iMac with BTO options to make a living with a Mac in the Intel era. Multiples more people did it on 13.3" or 15.4" MacBook Pros and a fair number of those folks traded those in for M1 MacBook Airs and 13.3" M1 MacBook Pros because it actually did the work faster. And then when the M1 Pro and M1 Max arrived on the MacBook Pro, I am sure a fair number of them upgraded, but a fair number of them didn't because their M1 MacBook Airs and Pros were still perfectly acceptable for their work.
My 27" Intel iMac is my work computer and is how I make a living. It bites that we don't have a 27" Apple silicon iMac with M1 Pro. I myself was waiting for one and a base Mac Studio is overkill for what I need in terms of SoC and RAM so I have no intention of buying one even though I can afford it. My most-likely option would be buy the Apple Studio Display Pro (when it comes out at WWDC) and pair it with my M1 Pro MacBook Pro 14" in clamshell mode because my MBP is just as effective as my 27" iMac at making a living and I want to stay with a Retina-quality display.
The M1 Mac mini and MacBook Air are not "garbage" no are they "poor performers" or "bad". Apple sells more MacBook Airs then anything else in the line-up and it is not just because it is "only" $1000 because $1000 is still a fair bit of cash. There are plenty of prosumers and actual professionals who make a good living with their MacBook Airs. They don't need 10 CPU cores or 16/32 GPU cores or 32GB/64GB of RAM or 4TB/8TB of SSD to do their paying occupation.
It is most certainly not the case if you choose to make a living with a Mac, you must have a MacBook Pro or Mac Studio with M1 Max and 32GB of RAM. You might need that (or even more) depending on how you make your living with a Mac, but it is not the "entry-level" configuration.
And people did not need to have a 27" iMac with BTO options to make a living with a Mac in the Intel era. Multiples more people did it on 13.3" or 15.4" MacBook Pros and a fair number of those folks traded those in for M1 MacBook Airs and 13.3" M1 MacBook Pros because it actually did the work faster. And then when the M1 Pro and M1 Max arrived on the MacBook Pro, I am sure a fair number of them upgraded, but a fair number of them didn't because their M1 MacBook Airs and Pros were still perfectly acceptable for their work.
My 27" Intel iMac is my work computer and is how I make a living. It bites that we don't have a 27" Apple silicon iMac with M1 Pro. I myself was waiting for one and a base Mac Studio is overkill for what I need in terms of SoC and RAM so I have no intention of buying one even though I can afford it. My most-likely option would be buy the Apple Studio Display Pro (when it comes out at WWDC) and pair it with my M1 Pro MacBook Pro 14" in clamshell mode because my MBP is just as effective as my 27" iMac at making a living and I want to stay with a Retina-quality display.
Not at all. It was actually Intel (if I remember correctly) that made this amazing value possible. Nothing to do with Tim vs Steve
Why do you care? For home computer you can get Mini which is plenty powerful or Studio (or even imac) and get external screen and you are done.
If Apple was to release bigger iMac it would for sure be more expensive than the Intel one (pretty much everything went up recently) so studio + display is very close to what people would pay OR studio + 3rd party display and you are good to go.
The Studio is not aimed at companies. The studios is aimed for a lot of prosumers that need more power etc. than the normal imac and Studio delivers.
Its by far the best product that Apple has released in the recent year price/performance. Really don't understand why people complain about this when this is the 'cube' product a lot of people were asking for.
It is amazing value - if you don't see it then perhaps you don't need the product and mini is fine for you.
If Apple was to release bigger iMac it would for sure be more expensive than the Intel one (pretty much everything went up recently) so studio + display is very close to what people would pay OR studio + 3rd party display and you are good to go.
The Studio is not aimed at companies. The studios is aimed for a lot of prosumers that need more power etc. than the normal imac and Studio delivers.
Its by far the best product that Apple has released in the recent year price/performance. Really don't understand why people complain about this when this is the 'cube' product a lot of people were asking for.
It is amazing value - if you don't see it then perhaps you don't need the product and mini is fine for you.
CWallace
macrumors G5
This.
Apple wants $1600 for the Apple Studio Display alone. To then believe that Apple would only charge $200 more to put an M1, 8GB of RAM and a 256GB SSD in it so as to match the price and configuration of the base Intel iMac 5K...
HazardousT
macrumors regular
Unfortunately I think that ship has sailed.
Unregistered 4U
macrumors G4
Yes, if “success” is “replacing the PC”, then it’s a failure. But, then again, Apple’s been failing for years now with the Mac.
I wouldn’t say it’s an unfair comparison because all those hundreds of millions of iPad sales aren’t in a vacuum. Many came from people that may have otherwise purchased an Android, Windows or Mac system.I'd absolutely love to learn how to make Matlab and R and Endnote and Parallels and .... work on an iPad Pro.
The iPad Pro is an amazing device (we have one) and is plenty sufficient for a lot of use cases. But not for all. There is a justified existence for proper desktop OS'es. And not all of those use cases need - or could afford - the power - and price-point - that comes with a Mac Pro (or now Studio).
Please, do show us all those great and affordable screen options from other vendors that come even close to the Quality of the 5k Display of the 27" iMac/Studio Display.
I've said it before in this thread, I'm really feeling stuck between a rock and a hard place, as I too was holding out for an upgraded 27" iMac.
I was hoping to downgrade my current MBP to an MBA. I've always preferred the MBA, but just couldn't justify getting one back in late 2016 when my old one died and it still didn't come with Retina... My macbook is my secondary computer, it doesn't need all the power I need in my work horse. So for my mobile mac, I definitely prefer mobility over power (and I just absolutely prefer the form factor of the MBA over the MBP, even after 5.5 years of having been a MBP user, even more so with the new MBPs).
The mini is not an option by a loooooong shot.
I'm now considering the 24" for its all-in-one package, but continue thinking it also isn't really an option I'm eventually going to choose. I really don't want to go down in screen size for my desktop main computer (and it also maxes out at 16GB RAM).
There's also no way I'm going away from Apple-quality displays (aka 'choose a display from another vendor').
The studio is cost prohibitive for me. That's just the realitiy of it.
So the only option left is to get a high-spec as possible/affordable MBP and pair it with the Studio Display. Which stings, because I really really didn't want to get a MBP again.
And I also actually really like to have two macs, one dedicated desktop and one mobile; I often have some code running on the desktop while I'm out and about at work with my macbook. That solution would greatly reduce my multi-tasking capability. It would also completely take away the option for my husband to work on the mac at home while I'm traveling (which I do quite a bit and for which I need to take my macbook with me).
So for now, I'm just trying to keep my current macs from dying (they're both on their final legs) as long as possible and hope that Apple will come up with a larger screen-sized iMac that fits inbetween the current 24" and the studio (both in price and in specs) before I definitely need to upgrade. I guess, if that doesn't happen in time, I will end up going with the 24" as this seems to be the cheapest interim option.
1 vs 3 cables. 1 vs 2 boxes.
maxoakland
macrumors 65816
What do you mean?
maxoakland
macrumors 65816
That’s a good point but it’s a concern because it seems like more people are opting for Chromebooks, especially schools. And education used to be one of Apple’s strongholds
Not really. The goto Mac for students and consumers is the MacBook Air 13". The prices aren't that different from 10 years ago.
MacBook Air 13"
2010: $1300
2011: $1300
2012: $1200
2013: $1100
2014: $1000
2015: $1000
2017: $1000
2018: $1200
2019: $1100
2020: $1000
2020: $800
Mac Mini
2010: $700
2011: $600
2012: $600
2014: $500
2018: $800
2020: $700
iMac 21.5"/24"
2010: $1200
2011: $1200
2011: $1000
2012: $1300
2013: $1100
2013: $1300
2014: $1100
2015: $1100
2015: $1500
2017: $1100
2017: $1300
2019: $1300
2021: $1300
CWallace
macrumors G5
The external 5K displays had to be driven by two DisplayPort 1.2 inputs from two outputs on the video card. Each input drove half the panel at QHD (2560x1440) at 30Hz so the effective resolution was 5120x2880 at 60Hz.
Apple developed their own custom Timing Controller that bound the two DP1.2 QHD 30Hz signals into a single 60Hz 5K signal. Apple then licensed this timing controller to LG for the UltraFine 5K so it could be driven by a single TB3 input and the Apple Studio Display almost certainly uses this same timing controller.
I presume Apple developed a new timing controller for the upcoming Apple Studio Display Pro that will support ProMotion up to 120Hz since TB3/TB4 now supports DisplayPort 1.4 and therefore can handle 5K@120Hz over a single TB channel using DisplayStream Compression (DSC).
fwmireault
macrumors 68020
Factoring inflation and all the newer tech packed in these computers, the fact that the base price stayed almost exactly the same over 10 years is pretty good
cmaier
Suspended
Bypassing the internal circuitry to bring in an external signal was problematic for the engineering team because of difficulties with the timing controller. - they explained at the time that they had issues with refresh rates which is why they dropped it. At least that’s what I assume the poster you are responding to is referring to.
skaertus
macrumors 601
Yes, the entry-level models keep about the same price, so Apple does not alienate its customer base. However, there are fewer options at a comparable price range.
Unregistered 4U
macrumors G4
But, even with all of those options available, Apple only used the barest few of Intel processors, though. In some cases, Intel produced chips just for Apple that didn’t show up in ARC until after they shipped. What Apple’s doing today is pretty much the same, just a few chips. The biggest difference, though, is that Apple can provide i9 level single threaded performance in systems that USED to be limited to i3’s, i5’s and i7’s.
I don’t think Apple’s going to expand the product lines, specifically not in desktop. They’ll just repeat what they’ve already done, but just replace the (1) in M1 with a (2). The related systems will still have the same chip variants.
Unregistered 4U
macrumors G4
Yeah, but a lot of of those complaints are along the lines of “Apple should release a new Intel Mac with 8 slots, NVidia graphics, include a monitor AND it should ship with Windows installed for $75. $100 would just be Apple being greedy again”. Not much material for Apple to work with in the end
Abazigal
Contributor
I think you have it backwards. Apple doesn’t fab a dozen variants of their M1 chip because there’s literally no reason for them to. Unlike Intel, Apple doesn’t sell their chips to computer manufacturers, so they don’t have to segment by price. Instead, it makes more sense for Apple to consolidate their products around a few M1 chip variants. It’s cheaper for them, while making for better marketing.
Consumers benefit from the iPad Air getting the M1 chip instead of A15 or A15X or whatever the next iPad Pro chip would have been, simply because it’s more cost-efficient to use a more powerful processor that Apple is already producing in volume.
theluggage
macrumors G3
Yeah, but that’s really about Chromebooks vs. iPads - and you’ll note that Apple still have a $330 basic iPad on the books.
Apple’s solution for education was definitely going to be the iPad - about 6 years ago some schools bought class sets of iPads, tablet-based curricula were all the rage - Apple had a big push in the US with deals with school districts, publishers etc. Then it got political and all went a bit pear shaped, lawyers at dawn etc. Last I looked it was still iPads vs. Chromebooks. Plus, in the last couple of years, it’s been whatever people had at home when the schools were closed, making cross-platform web apps the big thing. Frankly, I can see why people are going for Chromebooks - iPads are great until you need to type anything longer than a tweet.