The current M1-series can already drive the 32” 6K Prod Display XDR, if you had the cash for that monitor. It would not take any more GPU, but it would have a pucker-worthy price tag.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Not Planning to Launch Larger-Screened iMac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe the new all in one will be the real Apple TV we’ve all been waiting for .. ?
I think if Apple releases a larger iMac, it'll continue to be a 27" version. Why I think so has to do with Ross Young's prediction. Young is a display analyst, not a leaker, so he'll sometimes get product predictions wrong. What he thought was a 27" non mini-LED iMac turned out to be the Studio Display, for instance.
I think he's got it reversed again, predicting a 27" display with mini-LED and ProMotion coming out early next year (after revising his prediction of a fourth quarter 2022 release). While I have no insider information, I do have logic. How is Apple going to do ProMotion with Thunderbolt? If what he's predicting is true, Apple is about to release a product no current Mac can actually use to its full extent. Thunderbolt 4 simply cannot support 5K120, let alone whatever retina resolution would be at 32". But Young is adamant another monitor is coming.
What I think is going on is that Apple is about to release a 27" mini-LED iMac with ProMotion. When Apple released the original 5K iMac, they had to create their own timing controller because nothing at the time could support 5K60. By releasing a product with 5K120, they're going to have to go against standards again. That's why a display makes no sense to me. It would have to be a self-contained iMac with its own proprietary timing controller again. Since Young isn't a leaker and doesn't ever see the completed product, that's why I think his prediction is wrong again. While he confused a display over an iMac the first time, I think he's got it backwards again. I think this time it's an iMac over a display.
The only possible way Apple can release a 5K120 standalone is to pull a trick using two Thunderbolt cables and combining the signals. That is a completely inelegant solution that runs against Apple's DNA. Dell did it on their 8K monitor but Apple's not a company that kluges things like that. Hence my belief that it's a 27" iMac that's coming.
DisplayPort 2.0 via USB-C Alt Mode can support up to 2x8k @ 120Hz - so whether or not existing Macs can support that, a future Mac could without resorting to a proprietary interface or dual cable kludge - and existing Macs could drive it at lower refresh rates/resolutions. I'm not even sure that 5k120 wouldn't squeak in with DisplayPort 1.4 Display Stream Compression.
Is it so unthinkable that such a new display couldn't be launched alongside new M2/M3 Max/Ultra/Extreme Macs that can drive it at full speed? Even if it can only do 5k@60Hz on an existing Mac, MiniLED and better HDR could make it attractive.
We know we've got a new Mac Pro coming Real Soon Now, probably with a yet unannounced system-on-a-chip, so a new display (or an update of the Pro XDR) would be a likely accompaniment to that.
Long term, anything is possible, but short term, launching a new iMac with a better-than-Studio-Display display is just going to tick off new Mac Studio owners. At the higher end, a Mac Studio with a choice of Studio Display, Pro XDR, mythical new 27" miniLED or third party display is far more flexible than an iMac (and in the same price ballpark as the top-end 5k iMac and iMac Pro). At the lower end the "problem" is the hole left by the lower-end 5k iMacs - but I can't imagine a miniLED/120Hz iMac hitting that ~$2000 price point. A more sensible "new iMac" might be a 24" with a Mx Pro processor.
My question is, who actually wants an all-in-one with a 27" or larger display eternally wedded to a M2-series based Mac - probably in the $4000+ price range? The 5k iMac succeeded, I think, because Apple managed to offer a 5k screen - revolutionary for the time - at an (un-Apple-like) end-of-argument price, while - at the same time - not having a credible headless Mac.
Having just gone from a 2017 iMac (in 2017 it was that or an already-outdated Trashcan) to a Studio + third party displays my "buyers remorse" is backdated to 2017 since I'm now stuck with a lovely 5k screen that I can't use with my new computer (well... remote desktop/luna display etc. but those all come with a list of ifs and buts).
All-in-one's have a niche (which is filled nicely by the 24") but I think headless systems are more sensible for the ~$3000+ (including display) market.
Thunderbolt 4 doesn't support DisplayPort 2.0, so that's not workable for any existing Macs. We also have rumors of a 7K Pro Display XDR on the horizon as well as the alleged 27" display. If Young, Gurman, and Kuo are correct that a 7K display is on the way, that'll be for the Mac Pro. The 27" display wouldn't be of any use to Apple if they're going to create a 7K display for the Pro.
The only possibility is that Thunderbolt 5 is coming out sooner than we expect, though I wouldn't expect it for another two years. TB5 is supposed to support double the bandwidth of TB4.
From the reaction of all the people disappointed a 27" iMac wasn't released, I'd say there's a definite market for it.
Last edited:
There’s definitely a market that love the all in one form factor. And, as much as I love it too (though I’ve only had laptops, no desktops from Apple) your point is solid. That’s a lot to invest to have an M2 Pro, Max, Ultra, etc., only to be pretty outdated in 3 years when M4 and M5 are out. At the price point, it’s starting to sound like display + Mac Mini/Studio/Pro make more sense that a really expensive all in one.
Not in Thunderbolt mode, but USB4 DisplayPort Alt Mode does so a new Mac could support it via a TB4 port, and existing Macs would still be able to drive it via DP 1.4 at 60Hz and still enjoy other benefits of a 5k miniLED "XDR" display. C.f. the introduction of the 5k iMac when there just wasn't a standard connection that could support 5k.
Which, I suspect, is source of the "new large screen iMac" rumors - a mistake the analysts have already made once...
Such a display wouldn't just be for Mac Studio & MacBook Pro (if not existing models, future M2/M3 models - its doable with TB4 and although the max spec of current Macs says 6k we don't yet know if that's hardware, software or just Apple claiming support for displays it doesn't make yet).
If Apple release a 7k display that means that there will be a choice of 5k (existing Studio Display or rumoured new miniLED display), 6k (refurb & secondhand, at least) and 7k Apple displays. Its a long time since there's been that sort of choice of Apple displays which really makes headless systems more attractive.
Yeah, but I'm not sure those people have thought about how much a new iMac would likely cost.
At the low end of the iMac range, 5k XDR/MiniLED iMac would be nice but just ain't gonna happen at $1800-$2000.
At the mid/high end, top-spec 5k iMac with 32GB RAM was $3800 - suspiciously the same price as a Studio Max with the non-binned processor and a Studio Display, which is really getting into iMac Pro territory. Or you can get a $4000 Mac Studio Ultra c.f. the $8200 (with 64GB RAM) 18-core iMac Pro - enough change for a pair of studio displays.
27" iMacs have always been in the neighborhood of their MBP cousins in pricing. I'm sure a new 27" iMac won't start above $1999. At this point though I think we'll get new/updated 24" and 27" models at the same time - I just wonder how similar they will be to each other - i.e. can they make a 27" model with pro and/or max CPUs, but still keep the same thinness of the 24". Or will the 27" be a little fatter.
A real "pro" imac though I think is out - having a Mac Studio, the eventual Mac Pro, and a new iMac Pro just doesn't make sense to me - 2 of them maybe, but not all 3. Especially with their current lineup of dedicated monitors.
A real "pro" imac though I think is out - having a Mac Studio, the eventual Mac Pro, and a new iMac Pro just doesn't make sense to me - 2 of them maybe, but not all 3. Especially with their current lineup of dedicated monitors.
I find this disappointing on a few levels, but mainly from the angle of..
Apple Silicon could finally deliver us an impossibly thin and sexy large screened iMac powerhouse ... and now they won't make it.
I was really hoping we'd be ushering in the 27" & 32" size classes here.
Apple Silicon could finally deliver us an impossibly thin and sexy large screened iMac powerhouse ... and now they won't make it.
I was really hoping we'd be ushering in the 27" & 32" size classes here.
If it has the same 5K display as the Mac Studio Display, an 8c/10g M2 SoC, 8GB of RAM and 256GB of SSD then yes, I could see it starting at $1999 for that configuration.
This.
Anymore, I can't see how/where a next gen 27" 5K iMac would fit in Apple's lineup given the current price points - a base model Mac Mini and a 5K Monitor (LG's 27MD5KL-B) would come out to around $2K w/taxes and such while the same Mac Mini and a Studio Display would only be about $300 or so more. When it came time to upgrade, you'd still have a solid monitor and you'd only be out the cost of a new Mini - vastly more economical any way you cut it.
I'm really doubtful on the 32" iMac, but I think Apple did try to make a 27" iMac. I suspect thermal issues with the M1 Ultra caused Apple to abandon their work on the 27" iMac last year, which spawned the Mac Studio, which could contain a much larger set of fans and heat sinks to handle the heat an Ultra generates.
The husk that remained of the 27" iMac became the Studio Display, which is why it looks so over engineered. They needed something for the new Mac Studio, so rather than starting from scratch, they took the body and cooling system they had been going to use for the iMac and junked the motherboard, stole the A13/64GB package from the existing iPhone 11 and SE lines, and stuffed them into the remains of the iMac. Thus was born the Studio Display.
I don't think Apple totally gave up on the iMac, though. They probably continued to work on it, but if my theory is right, the new iMac 27" will end up with the M2 Pro and M2 Max chips, but no Ultra with the same reasoning that they couldn't get it to work originally. The same body that now houses the Studio Display will be the 27" iMac again. Re-use is Apple's new slogan. Just as I theorized they're going to re-use the MacBook Air's motherboard in the M2 iPad Pro (given that an accelerometer isn't all that useful for a laptop), Apple's going to re-use the Studio Display for the 27" iMac.
I find it very credible that Apple will move away from iMacs completely.
They will do it as part of their zero carbon initiative. There is too much waste in all in one units.
IMO, the iMac continues to have a place in Apple's lineup.
The 24" 4.5K model splits the middle between the 21.5" 4K and 27" 5K Intel models so I am not convinced Apple needs to offer a 27" model.
I think offering an M2 Pro and a 32GB RAM option would be sufficient to cover most uses cases and I don't see a need for an M2 Max / 64GB option as those can stay exclusive to the Mac Studio and Apple Studio Display combination for those with more serious needs.
Apple plans products with long lead times so they rarely get surprises like that. i don’t see why they would need to put the M1 Ultra in a 27” iMac. They don’t need to reproduce the old iMac Pro as a separate product. The need for that product ended long ago and was why they never updated it. What would make sense would be a larger iMac M-Pro/Max chips similar to the MacBook Pros. They may call it an iMac Pro due to the size and chips but it would not be something competing with the Studio or Mac Pro. The market for an iMac with an M-Ultra would be so small, they would just prefer that those customers go with the Mac Studio and Studio Display.
I don't buy that. People are reading too much into the fact that the Studio Display has fans and an A13.
Nothing in the Studio Display actually suggests vestigial iMac features to me: The fans are there to cool the power supply and ultra-bright LEDs. The waaay over-engineered ultra-thin Power supply is there so that the display can power a Macbook Pro. The A13 processor is there to drive the webcam (an iPhone webcam that relies on processor support), spatial audio and because modern displays are microprocessor controlled rather than relying on lots of discrete circuitry. Using an A13 and the iOS kernel makes economic sense for Apple. The spare space is there to provide air volume for the speakers.
In an iMac the fans' most important role would be to cool the processor, and they'd be mounted on top of, or immediately next to the processor & coupled to it with ducting, heatsinks or heatpipes & where the hot air could go straight out of an air vent. In the studio display, they're nowhere near the processor or air vents. Although Apple could get it a bit wrong with cooling, the Studio Display cooler doesn't look like it was ever conceived to cool a M1 Max/Ultra...
Nor does the Studio Display look like it was intended primarily to fill the need for a Mac Studio display: I think Apple are banking on selling these to Macbook Pro owners as deluxe external display/docking stations - which was the primary purpose of the old 27" Cinema & Thunderbolt displays. In particular, a display for the Mac Studio wouldn't need that fancy power supply that occupies so much space & is probably what necessitates the fans.
Apple made the decision to get back into the displays business several years ago with the Pro XDR - which really weakens the case for high end iMacs/iMac Pros vs. headless, choose-your-display Macs like the Studio.
Totally disagree. Fans do not need to be next to the CPU as they are designed to circulate air throughout the chassis. On none of the MacBooks are the fans directly on top of the CPU. They are off to the side. If you've seen the teardown of the Studio Display, half the people at iFixit thought it was a computer, not a monitor. It was way over engineered. Yes, it did need an A-series to run things like Center Stage but that was a result of making an iMac, not a monitor. The original design would have had the M1 Max or Ultra running Center Stage. They simply removed the motherboard they were going to use, but then had to make a new one to accommodate the A13 because they were stuck with the ultra wide camera, a useless addition without Center Stage.
The power supply did not have to be internal. They could have easily made it like the iMac 24" and set it as external. That could have supplied power to external devices whether it be a Mac or a monitor.
Apple never had a single rumor about making a standalone. That didn't get exposed until the day before the announcement. Apple set out to make an iMac, but failed. They intended it to be a cross between the iMac and the iMac Pro and would contain the M1 Max and M1 Ultra, but couldn't get the Ultra to work. There were rumors the 27" iMac was in trouble and ended up shipping the Mac Studio a year after the M1 24" iMac. In the past, they'd always shipped the iMacs together. They couldn't revert the iMac to just the M1 Pro and Max because they had spent a long time on the Ultra. They could have either ditched it or created a new form factor. They decided to make the Mac Studio instead and repurposed the old iMac into a monitor. Remember Ross Young's original prediction was for an iMac. I think sometime along the line it had been an iMac.
Now neither of us has direct evidence either way, so either of us could be right or wrong, but this scenario fits all the rumors, including the troubles and delay for the iMac 27" and the diversion of the 27" iMac team to the 24" version. Why would there be a problem with the iMac if it were just an ordinary Mac? Why would there be a rumor about diverting a team from a non-existent product?
They're off to the side due to insufficient space to put them on top of the CPU/GPU/SoC. So all laptops place the fan off to the side connected to a heat-pipe which is used to draw the heat away from the CPU/GPU/SoC to the fan where it can be exhausted.
Yes, because it has a systemboard to support the A13 SoC and it's associated RAM and other required chips. I mean the thing technically would be a computer if you could jailbreak the SoC and run something like Ubuntu 20 like some kid did with their iPhone 7.
Apple does not "over engineer". Over-engineering just wastes money making it more expensive to manufacture.
They engineer exactly to what is needed to support the functionality the product offers.
Apple has not run external power supplies to their standalone displays since the Cinema (HD) displays of the early 2000s which used ADC.
Once Apple launched the 24" LED Cinema Display in 2008, the displays had an internal power supply and the ability to power a Mac laptop (up to a certain wattage) via either MagSafe (LED Cinema Display and Apple Thunderbolt Display) or via ThunderBolt over USB-C (Pro Display XDR and Apple Studio Display).
Well there were rumors of a "taller Mac mini", but that was what everyone assumed it would be - a Mac mini with more ports and an M1 Pro/M1 Max.
So the Mac Studio was rumored and leaked before it launched - we just did not know it would be called Mac Studio.
Ross Young's sources are in the display channel so all he sees is LCD panels. So he was seeing new 27" 5K panels being developed by LG Display and naturally assumed they would be for a 27" iMac. Let us not forget that back in 2020 Ming Chi Kuo first leaked that LG Display was working on a 27" MiniLED panel and he assumed it would be for a refresh to the 2017 Intel iMac Pro (since Apple had not yet announced Apple Silicon for Mac).
It was only as the Apple Studio Display went into production did his sources say "yeah, this is a monitor, not a PC" which is why he updated his tweet to say this new panel was going into a monitor and not an iMac.
He is still evidently still getting leaks about the 27" 5K MiniLED with ProMotion panel, but now he is hedging his bets and saying it will be either in a new iMac or it will be in a new standalone display.
Despite their money, Apple does not have infinite engineering talent and they especially do not have infinite management oversight due to their management structure which favors the most senior managers overseeing all hardware and not specific hardware silos (Mac, iPhone, iPad, Watch, etc.).
So when one Mac product hits a snag, they have to pull resources from other projects. Laptops are the most important, so they get all the engineers they need. When the laptops are sorted, then they go with iMac since it is the second-most important. So the 24" iMac suffered from a lack of engineering talent because those assets were working on the MacBook Pro 14"/16" and M2 MacBook Air (as all three were designed in parallel per interviews with Apple executives). And once the 24" iMac and the MacBook Pro 14/16 were done, engineers were freed up to work on Mac Studio and get it out the door.
By your own argument (and historical precedent) that Apple designs all sizes of the iMac together, there is no sense to Apple pulling engineers from a 27" iMac to get Mac Studio out the door. They would have worked to complete the 27" iMac to complement the 24" iMac and then returned to work on Mac Studio.
The leakers who have consistently claimed a larger 27" iMac is coming only to see it not are, IMO, just trying to save face by claiming "Apple doesn't want to cannibalize iMac 24 / Mac Studio / Studio Display sales" or "this new iMac is being delayed so it can use M2 Pro / M2 Max" so they can kick the can down the road another year and hope that, like the square-sided Apple Watch, it actually happens so people continue to pay attention to their sites.
Last edited:
I don’t have any face to save because I never made any predictions about an iMac last year or this year. Mine are based on past rumors (not current) and the impossibility that a monitor can have 5K120 and be usable on any Macs now or in the near future. If Apple were planning on such a display, they would have used either DisplayPort 2.0 or HDMI 2.1 on the MacBook Pros or Mac Studio (I’m not even sure HDMI 2.1 would work since I haven’t calculated the bandwidth needed for 5K120 to see if it fits in 48Gbps, but I think it does). As you said, Apple plans years in advance, so why wouldn’t advance Macs have the capability to drive 5K120 if they planned on a display that could do that? But since it’s still TB3/4 and HDMI 2.0, it’s utter nonsense a 5K120 monitor will be coming out. Therefore, the only other conclusion is an iMac with yet another custom timing controller.They're off to the side due to insufficient space to put them on top of the CPU/GPU/SoC. So all laptops place the fan off to the side connected to a heat-pipe which is used to draw the heat away from the CPU/GPU/SoC to the fan where it can be exhausted.
Yes, because it has a systemboard to support the A13 SoC and it's associated RAM and other required chips. I mean the thing technically would be a computer if you could jailbreak the SoC and run something like Ubuntu 20 like some kid did with their iPhone 7.
Apple does not "over engineer". Over-engineering just wastes money making it more expensive to manufacture.
They engineer exactly to what is needed to support the functionality the product offers.
Apple has not run external power supplies to their standalone displays since the Cinema (HD) displays of the early 2000s which used ADC.
Once Apple launched the 24" LED Cinema Display in 2008, the displays had an internal power supply and the ability to power a Mac laptop (up to a certain wattage) via either MagSafe (LED Cinema Display and Apple Thunderbolt Display) or via ThunderBolt over USB-C (Pro Display XDR and Apple Studio Display).
Well there were rumors of a "taller Mac mini", but that was what everyone assumed it would be - a Mac mini with more ports and an M1 Pro/M1 Max.
So the Mac Studio was rumored and leaked before it launched - we just did not know it would be called Mac Studio.
Ross Young's sources are in the display channel so all he sees is LCD panels. So he was seeing new 27" 5K panels being developed by LG Display and naturally assumed they would be for a 27" iMac. Let us not forget that back in 2020 Ming Chi Kuo first leaked that LG Display was working on a 27" MiniLED panel and he assumed it would be for a refresh to the 2017 Intel iMac Pro (since Apple had not yet announced Apple Silicon for Mac).
It was only as the Apple Studio Display went into production did his sources say "yeah, this is a monitor, not a PC" which is why he updated his tweet to say this new panel was going into a monitor and not an iMac.
He is still evidently still getting leaks about the 27" 5K MiniLED with ProMotion panel, but now he is hedging his bets and saying it will be either in a new iMac or it will be in a new standalone display.
Despite their money, Apple does not have infinite engineering talent and they especially do not have infinite management oversight due to their management structure which favors the most senior managers overseeing all hardware and not specific hardware silos (Mac, iPhone, iPad, Watch, etc.).
So when one Mac product hits a snag, they have to pull resources from other projects. Laptops are the most important, so they get all the engineers they need. When the laptops are sorted, then they go with iMac since it is the second-most important. So the 24" iMac suffered from a lack of engineering talent because those assets were working on the MacBook Pro 14"/16" and M2 MacBook Air (as all three were designed in parallel per interviews with Apple executives). And once the 24" iMac and the MacBook Pro 14/16 were done, engineers were freed up to work on Mac Studio and get it out the door.
By your own argument (and historical precedent) that Apple designs all sizes of the iMac together, there is no sense to Apple pulling engineers from a 27" iMac to get Mac Studio out the door. They would have worked to complete the 27" iMac to complement the 24" iMac and then returned to work on Mac Studio.
The leakers who have consistently claimed a larger 27" iMac is coming only to see it not are, IMO, just trying to save face by claiming "Apple doesn't want to cannibalize iMac 24 / Mac Studio / Studio Display sales" or "this new iMac is being delayed so it can use M2 Pro / M2 Max" so they can kick the can down the road another year and hope that, like the square-sided Apple Watch, it actually happens so people continue to pay attention to their sites.
I already said Young was a display analyst, not a leaker, so I said that explains why he was wrong about the Studio Display being a Mac, which is why I think he’s wrong this time, too, this time in reverse. If he had not said it had ProMotion, I’d have accepted his prediction at face value. It’s funny people who are dying for a ProMotion 5K display don’t realize they don’t have anything that can use it as anything more than a 5K60 display.
I simply don’t see how it’s physically possible for the rumor to be true. If you disagree, that’s fine, since I am no leaker and have no inside information, but I’m relying solely on logic. I still disagree with you on the Studio Display. It is overengineered and many have said so. There’s no way an LCD or an A13 needs that kind of cooling, seeing as the A13 can go in a simple fanless enclosure like an iPhone with no troubles, and most monitors don’t even need a fan. The A13 isnt’t even being stressed, needing to only run Center Stage, spatial audio, and Siri. Why two gigantic fans when a single tiny one or no fan at all would be just fine to handle the heat from the power supply? When that iMac does come out, it’ll look like the Studio Display, both inside and out. I personally don’t care if Apple ever produces another iMac, but it fits what we’re hearing.
HDMI 2.1 evidently requires DSC to support 5K @ 120Hz. DisplayPort 2.0 has the bandwidth to handle native 5K @ 120Hz with 10-bit color so that seems to be the minimum a Mac would need to drive a 5K display with 120Hz Pro Motion.
USB-C alt-mode does support DisplayPort 2.0, but evidently only the most-recent USB controllers have that functionality. I am going to presume the M1 family can't do it, but the M2 family (especially the "professional" SoCs) might be able to do it or Apple could integrate a standalone USB controller that supports it, perhaps with an HDMI 2.1 controller.
My main guess is the inability of existing peripheral connectors to handle such a resolution, refresh rate and color depth combination. Apple had standardized on ThunderBolt and TB did not have the bandwidth to do it. Even HDMI couldn't do it without DSC, and Apple might believe DSC is unacceptable so even if they had put HDMI 2.1 controllers in the 14"/16" MacBook Pro and Mac Studio, it would not have been enough. And to reach the highest HDMI 2.1 resolutions and bandwidth, you have to use special "Ultra Speed Cables" and that means customer confusion and complexity and Apple doesn't like that.
I don't see Apple putting a DisplayPort connector on a Mac, so it sounds like the best option is DisplayPort 2.0 over USB-C via alt-mode and that sounds like something that didn't really exist until very recently - well after Apple had already finalized the design for the 2021 MacBook Pro 14/16 and 2022 Mac Studio.
So Apple - and Apple customers - might just have to accept that driving this next generation of high-resolution, high-frame rate displays is going to require new Macs or settle for reduced functionality on older Apple Silicon Macs.
If the fans are not needed, why bother installing them? It needlessly increases the Bill of Materials and are likely some of the most common points of failure which means increased warranty claim costs.
Doing something that needlessly costs Apple money runs counter to the narrative of "Cost Cutter Tim". I mean the man only puts one fan in the 24" iMac unless you pay for the model with more ports. It's the same bloody SoC so the cooling requirements are identical, but Tim makes you pay for that extra fan along with the extra ports.
Same reason 64GB sits in the Studio Display. They’re saving R&D expenses. They designed it for an iMac and taking it out would probably create problems. 64GB is absolutely useless for a display that needs less than 2GB to store the OS, so why waste that? it’s because they already designed a 64GB/A13 combination and it would have been cheaper to use what’s already on the production line since the iPhone 11 and SE were already using the same board. The A12 in the Apple TV wouldn’t have been sufficient since it didn’t have the right Neural Engine. If this had been designed as a monitor from the start, they could have created a custom motherboard with an A13 and just enough storage to hold the OS. Instead, they had to re-use what they could to save time. Removing parts takes time and money, too, since everything has to be rebalanced and re-tested. It’s easier to leave it in place and just swap motherboards, requiring less development and testing time.
Think about this. Stick an M1 Max motherboard in there and you’d have a complete computer, including space for four Thunderbolt ports. Why didn’t they just do that then? I think the problem is that the Ultra didn’t work in there and they absolutely needed an Ultra product. The Studio Display just isn’t put together the way a monitor should with a lot more stuff in there than needed.
The A13 was paired with a minimum of 64GB of storage in the iPhone 11 and iPad 9 so perhaps A13s just expect 64GB minimum of storage so that is what Apple uses in the Studio Display even though it doesn't need anything near that.
I don't see why Apple could not cool an M1 Ultra or even Ultra Duo considering Apple crammed a 140-watt 18-core Intel Xeon and a 150-plus-watt AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 into an even thinner (by overall volume) enclosure in 2017.
I took a look at iFixIt's teardown article and they claim the fans are there to cool the power supplies and that those power supplies are custom-designed to fit inside the case and to power the onboard electronics as well as provide sufficient power to drive an external laptop. They note the power supplies are very different from those that Apple would use to power an iMac so, again, I am skeptical that Apple wanted this to be an iMac, decided for whatever reason it wasn't going to work as an iMac, and repurposed the existing case for a display. I remain convinced this case was designed as a display and only as a display.
This analysis was pure genius. I pondered the same thing when I thought about 2014’s iMac with 5K resolution. It was ahead of its time thanks to a fancy TCON cooked up by the company.