Apple Not Planning to Launch Larger-Screened iMac

[Unregistered 4U]

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?

To hazard a guess, possibly because the users that would be interested in that wouldn’t want to pay what Apple would charge for it. There are a large number of things that a great number of people would like to see, but, when it comes down to it, they wouldn’t pay Apple’s prices for it. Apple knows that, that’s why, instead of making things that some small group thinks is “cool, but I’d never pay that much), they focus their feature sets such that those with money will go “yah, that’s pretty cool and does the things I’d like for it to do” and just buy it. It’s smart business to make things for people that are buying rather than making cool things that are too expensive for those fans that want the cool thing

Consider… once you exclude Apple’s mobile systems from unit sales, you’re ONLY looking, at the most, around 5 million systems in a given year. Apple’s going to put a huge amount of effort in those mobile systems in the 80% and only provide a token effort for a minimum variety of different desktop systems.

 

[ric22]

They can't really release a bigger iMac for a sensible price, now that they sell the Studio Display, which is basically an old iMac screen without intervals, for a similar price to the old IMac. "But it has a better webcam and better speakersssss..." Eye roll.

 

[Jouls]

I wouldn’t claim that. The Mac 128k, like it’s predecessor the Lisa, all are derived from the Xerox Star which is where most of the Mac GUI is derived from, including the mouse. While Mac 128k -> 512k ->plus-SE, Apple then went to computer/displays for years until 1998 iMac G3. That’s a lot years without a desktop all in one.

The computer mouse was invented by Douglas Engelbart in the mid 1960s and demonstrated in an acclaimed demo in 1968. And he worked for the Stanford Research Institute not Xerox.

 

[theluggage]

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.

Exactly - plus Apple buy 64GB and larger flash modules in vast quantities for the iPhone so they'll be getting them for a knock-down price, so it could easily be more expensive for them to buy small quantities of, say, 16GB just for the display (they could even be using up surplus parts bought/ordered for iPhones)... but those are all arguments as to why Apple would put an iPhone processor in a display, and actually contradict the "Studio Display was supposed to be an iMac" argument.

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?

As I've said - the cooling system in the Studio Display, with the fans nowhere near the processor board, makes no sense for any SoC as hot as a M1 Max that needs an active cooling system thermally connected to the processor. Sure, you probably could build a M1 Max system into that enclosure but not without totally re-thinking the layout and cooling system. This product is not an M1 Max iMac with the M1 Max left out.

As for why Apple wouldn't make a M1 Max iMac...

(1) They've given the "small" iMac a bigger, better 24" screen and a far more powerful processor than it had before. That will eat into the low end of 5k iMac sales.

(2) Higher-end iMacs used to have desktop processors and GPUs which gave night-and-day better performance than MacBook Pros. With Apple Silicon, until you get up to the Ultra, desktops and laptops are using the same processors with only relatively minor performance differences due to thermals. Add to that the general trend away from desktops towards laptops of the last decade or so and lots of people are going to be getting MacBook Pros rather than iMacs.

(3) We're dealing with the end of the market where Apple sales volumes are far smaller than for laptops, so they're not going to offer too many overlapping models - a new iMac would satisfy one niche, while the Mac Studio + optional Studio Display solution would have the widest appeal: The Mac Studio will sell to people who want to use existing/third party displays and people who want a Pro XDR. The Studio Display should also sell to Mac Pro users who don't need a Pro XDR and MacBook users who want the ultimate docking station (hence the "overengineering" - particularly in the PSU department).

and the impossibility that a monitor can have 5K120 and be usable on any Macs now or in the near future.

Well, first, a monitor could have 5K120 today, via DisplayPort 2.0, and still be usable on any currently available Mac - at 60 Hz - by falling back to DP1.4 or Thunderbolt. Since it would still be full 5k resolution - plus the advantages of MiniLED/HDR - that's not such a bad deal.

Second, why would support by current Macs even be an issue? Nobody saying that this new display is going to launch tomorrow, in isolation. More likely, it would be be launched alongside or after the forthcoming Mac Pro and next gen 14/16" MacBook Pros - which are expected to have as-yet-unseen M2 or M3 silicon. Apple saying that you have to buy a new Mac to enjoy the shiny new display in 120Hz mode? I can hear Tim begging not to be thrown into the briar patch.

In the case of the 5k iMac, it launched in October 2014 only one month after DisplayPort 1.3 (the first version which supported 5k, was approved - let alone commercially available) and it was years before Intel's Thunderbolt/DisplayPort controllers and/or the Intel integrated GPUs in many MacBooks supported it. So when the first 5k iMac was being designed there really was no non-vapourware external interface that could support 5k without needing dual cables.

Today, DisplayPort 2.0 was approved a couple of years ago, is part of the USB4 standard as an "alt mode" and is already starting to appear in real devices. Even if it isn't in Macs yet, it's perfectly feasible that the M2 Pro/Max/Ultra/Ludicrous or M3 will support it - especially now that Apple is completely in control of the hardware and doesn't have to wait while Intel, AMD and Nvidia play games over DP 2.0 support.

 

[tobybrut]

Exactly - plus Apple buy 64GB and larger flash modules in vast quantities for the iPhone so they'll be getting them for a knock-down price, so it could easily be more expensive for them to buy small quantities of, say, 16GB just for the display (they could even be using up surplus parts bought/ordered for iPhones)... but those are all arguments as to why Apple would put an iPhone processor in a display, and actually contradict the "Studio Display was supposed to be an iMac" argument.


As I've said - the cooling system in the Studio Display, with the fans nowhere near the processor board, makes no sense for any SoC as hot as a M1 Max that needs an active cooling system thermally connected to the processor. Sure, you probably could build a M1 Max system into that enclosure but not without totally re-thinking the layout and cooling system. This product is not an M1 Max iMac with the M1 Max left out.

As for why Apple wouldn't make a M1 Max iMac...

(1) They've given the "small" iMac a bigger, better 24" screen and a far more powerful processor than it had before. That will eat into the low end of 5k iMac sales.

(2) Higher-end iMacs used to have desktop processors and GPUs which gave night-and-day better performance than MacBook Pros. With Apple Silicon, until you get up to the Ultra, desktops and laptops are using the same processors with only relatively minor performance differences due to thermals. Add to that the general trend away from desktops towards laptops of the last decade or so and lots of people are going to be getting MacBook Pros rather than iMacs.

(3) We're dealing with the end of the market where Apple sales volumes are far smaller than for laptops, so they're not going to offer too many overlapping models - a new iMac would satisfy one niche, while the Mac Studio + optional Studio Display solution would have the widest appeal: The Mac Studio will sell to people who want to use existing/third party displays and people who want a Pro XDR. The Studio Display should also sell to Mac Pro users who don't need a Pro XDR and MacBook users who want the ultimate docking station (hence the "overengineering" - particularly in the PSU department).


Well, first, a monitor could have 5K120 today, via DisplayPort 2.0, and still be usable on any currently available Mac - at 60 Hz - by falling back to DP1.4 or Thunderbolt. Since it would still be full 5k resolution - plus the advantages of MiniLED/HDR - that's not such a bad deal.

Second, why would support by current Macs even be an issue? Nobody saying that this new display is going to launch tomorrow, in isolation. More likely, it would be be launched alongside or after the forthcoming Mac Pro and next gen 14/16" MacBook Pros - which are expected to have as-yet-unseen M2 or M3 silicon. Apple saying that you have to buy a new Mac to enjoy the shiny new display in 120Hz mode? I can hear Tim begging not to be thrown into the briar patch.

In the case of the 5k iMac, it launched in October 2014 only one month after DisplayPort 1.3 (the first version which supported 5k, was approved - let alone commercially available) and it was years before Intel's Thunderbolt/DisplayPort controllers and/or the Intel integrated GPUs in many MacBooks supported it. So when the first 5k iMac was being designed there really was no non-vapourware external interface that could support 5k without needing dual cables.

Today, DisplayPort 2.0 was approved a couple of years ago, is part of the USB4 standard as an "alt mode" and is already starting to appear in real devices. Even if it isn't in Macs yet, it's perfectly feasible that the M2 Pro/Max/Ultra/Ludicrous or M3 will support it - especially now that Apple is completely in control of the hardware and doesn't have to wait while Intel, AMD and Nvidia play games over DP 2.0 support.

There simply is no explanation that makes sense for a 5K120 monitor. Absolutely none. None of your explanations make sense since you're advocating Macs far in the future that don't match the timelines of a monitor release that was rumored for THIS YEAR originally (many expected the monitor to be released at WWDC since that's close to the time Ross Young originally said it would come out - summer 2022, but just recently Young said production problems pushed the monitor to early next year) and monitor technologies Apple has never used in its entire existence. The simple fact that the current MacBook Pros or the Mac Studio do not even have HDMI 2.1 is conclusive proof Apple never planned on a stand-alone monitor that could support 5K120. Why be stupid and limit the market for your display when it costs very little to supply HDMI 2.1 with DSC? Apple would rather sell a mini-LED expensive display than a relatively cheaper Studio Display. All the evidence points to the Studio Display being a stop gap to give them something to stick on the Mac Studio, which was delayed by a year because they couldn't make the iMac work.

My final word on this is the Mac Studio, itself. This is a machine that could replace the Mac Pro, and is in fact thought of as the Mac Pro mini. The upcoming Mac Pro is expected to start with a base version with the M2 Ultra. They created the Studio Display just for the Mac Studio instead of relying on people buying the Pro Display XDR. That they put HDMI 2.0 and Thunderbolt 4 on the Mac Studio while simultaneously planning the release of a mini-LED 27" 5K120 monitor, allegedly, tells us that the 5K120 display rumor is completely bogus. Apple would never develop the two at the same time while making the highest end Apple Silicon Mac for now unable to support the monitor to its fullest. How does that make any sense to you?

With the Pro Display XDR 7K (also rumored by the trio of Young, Kuo, and Gurman) expected to release with the Mac Pro, where does that leave a 5K120 mini-LED display? Nowhere. It would have no machines to use it. And why would they release a 5K120 display at roughly the same time as the expected Pro Display XDR and Mac Pro, all three of which are now expected in Q1-Q2 2023? Apple isn't that stupid to release a product no one would buy. As Young has said many times, the coming Pro Display XDR and the mini-LED 5K120 monitor are not the same product. The only thing that makes any sense at all is an iMac with 5K120 mini-LED screen because it wouldn't have to rely on another computer, past, present, or future to be useful. The demand for 27" iMacs is there. With 27" iMacs usually starting around $2799 (or $2499 for weak versions), though with mini-LED probably starting at $2999, this product would fit nicely in their lineup since it would replace both the old Intel 27" iMac and the iMac Pro assuming they're successful in cooling an M2 Ultra. it also fits Kuo's rumor that insists Apple is still planning on a 27" iMac for early next year.

 

[theluggage]

The simple fact that the current MacBook Pros or the Mac Studio do not even have HDMI 2.1 is conclusive proof Apple never planned on a stand-alone monitor that could support 5K120.

That's a red herring: video on Apple Silicon is implemented internally using DisplayPort and Thunderbolt and the HDMI output on Macs is driven by a DisplayPort-to-HDMI converter (https://www.ifixit.com/News/54122/macbook-pro-2021-teardown). It's not going to be driving anything via HDMI that DisplayPort 1.4 can't drive.

Just to be clear, I'm not claiming that a 5K120 display is anything more than a possibility: just that it's perfectly feasible for Apple to implement DP 2.0 staring on the next generation of Macs and that there's no reason Apple would worry about a brand new display fully supporting older Macs (which could run it at 5k@60Hz). Maybe they will, maybe they won't - but that's different from claiming that it is impossible. Nobody here knows (including the analysts, as they've shown with the last couple of rounds).

you're advocating Macs far in the future that don't match the timelines of a monitor release that was rumored for THIS YEAR originally (many expected the monitor to be released at WWDC since that's close to the time Ross Young originally said it would come out - summer 2022, but just recently Young said production problems pushed the monitor to early next year)

A new 5k display at WWDC - only 3 months after the launch of the Studio Display - was never credible.

"Many expected" the new Mac Pro (with previously unseen Apple Silicon) at WWDC, as well, alongside the "real" 3nm M2, M2 Pro, M2 Max and the new MacBooks that use them... all of which could have supported a new display. All we know about any of those rumours is that they all turned out to be wrong, so you can't tell anything one way or the other.

The relevant "timeline" here is the DisplayPort 2.0 standard, which was formally released in 2019 and devices were originally expected to appear in 2021. There was plenty of time for Apple to plan to incorporate the tech in 2022/2023 devices. Of course, DP2.0 got delayed just like Apples launches probably did. Again - I'm just saying that DP2.0 in 2022 was feasible - not a certainty.

With the Pro Display XDR 7K (also rumored by the trio of Young, Kuo, and Gurman) expected to release with the Mac Pro, where does that leave a 5K120 mini-LED display?

Perhaps at a price point somewhere between the 7k XDR (probably about $5000 going by the 6k version) and the Studio Display (which still ain't cheap). Or maybe replacing the Studio Display (which could be a year old by the time the Mac Pro finally appears).

Apple would never develop the two at the same time while making the highest end Apple Silicon Mac for now unable to support the monitor to its fullest. How does that make any sense to you?

They're not developing it "at the same time" - the Studio Display has been out since March and I wouldn't expect any new display - whether it is 120Hz or just miniLED/HDR at 60Hz (which many people would be happy with) to appear until at least 6 months, possibly 12, after the existing Studio Display and the Mac Studio. Typical dates for Mac launches would be October/November or next March. Apple are not going to lose sleep if a (by then) 1-year old computer can't drive the new display at 120Hz. It could still drive it at 60Hz and full resolution.

On the other hand, the Studio Display got a lot of flak because the screen technology was only slightly better than the 2017 iMac, while the MacBook Pro etc. had got fancy "XDR" branded miniLEDs - so it could stand an early update even if it was still 60Hz - and a miniLED version would probably re-use much of the same design.

They created the Studio Display just for the Mac Studio instead of relying on people buying the Pro Display XDR.

If the Studio Display was "just for the Mac Studio" why would they give it a massive, expensive slimline power supply that could charge at 96W - completely wasted on the Mac Studio?

 

[tobybrut]

That's a red herring: video on Apple Silicon is implemented internally using DisplayPort and Thunderbolt and the HDMI output on Macs is driven by a DisplayPort-to-HDMI converter (https://www.ifixit.com/News/54122/macbook-pro-2021-teardown). It's not going to be driving anything via HDMI that DisplayPort 1.4 can't drive.

Just to be clear, I'm not claiming that a 5K120 display is anything more than a possibility: just that it's perfectly feasible for Apple to implement DP 2.0 staring on the next generation of Macs and that there's no reason Apple would worry about a brand new display fully supporting older Macs (which could run it at 5k@60Hz). Maybe they will, maybe they won't - but that's different from claiming that it is impossible. Nobody here knows (including the analysts, as they've shown with the last couple of rounds).


A new 5k display at WWDC - only 3 months after the launch of the Studio Display - was never credible.

"Many expected" the new Mac Pro (with previously unseen Apple Silicon) at WWDC, as well, alongside the "real" 3nm M2, M2 Pro, M2 Max and the new MacBooks that use them... all of which could have supported a new display. All we know about any of those rumours is that they all turned out to be wrong, so you can't tell anything one way or the other.

The relevant "timeline" here is the DisplayPort 2.0 standard, which was formally released in 2019 and devices were originally expected to appear in 2021. There was plenty of time for Apple to plan to incorporate the tech in 2022/2023 devices. Of course, DP2.0 got delayed just like Apples launches probably did. Again - I'm just saying that DP2.0 in 2022 was feasible - not a certainty.


Perhaps at a price point somewhere between the 7k XDR (probably about $5000 going by the 6k version) and the Studio Display (which still ain't cheap). Or maybe replacing the Studio Display (which could be a year old by the time the Mac Pro finally appears).


They're not developing it "at the same time" - the Studio Display has been out since March and I wouldn't expect any new display - whether it is 120Hz or just miniLED/HDR at 60Hz (which many people would be happy with) to appear until at least 6 months, possibly 12, after the existing Studio Display and the Mac Studio. Typical dates for Mac launches would be October/November or next March. Apple are not going to lose sleep if a (by then) 1-year old computer can't drive the new display at 120Hz. It could still drive it at 60Hz and full resolution.

On the other hand, the Studio Display got a lot of flak because the screen technology was only slightly better than the 2017 iMac, while the MacBook Pro etc. had got fancy "XDR" branded miniLEDs - so it could stand an early update even if it was still 60Hz - and a miniLED version would probably re-use much of the same design.


If the Studio Display was "just for the Mac Studio" why would they give it a massive, expensive slimline power supply that could charge at 96W - completely wasted on the Mac Studio?

Check out the latest iMac rumor by Amethyst.

 

[theluggage]

Check out the latest iMac rumor by Amethyst.

Interesting, and one explanation of some of the false iMac rumours. But it's really not surprising that Apple prototyped various possible iMacs, and I think everybody initially expected a 27" version of the 24" design - but they clearly decided to go with the Mac Studio instead (and none of these rumored iMac prototypes support the "Studio Display was going to be an iMac" theory).

I don't think Apple does "loss leaders" but I'm sure the $1800 5k iMac was as close as they got - especially after 5k failed to take off in the PC world & bring down panel prices - my guess is that Apple couldn't get the price of these iMac prototypes for ~$2000 - especially with "XDR" features - to replace the low-end 5k iMac and decided that keeping the computer and display separate makes more sense at the higher end. The higher-end desktop market probably isn't large enough (by Apple's standards) to sustain parallel all-in-one & headless systems. Maybe the large-screen iMac will return one day but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Personally - I wouldn't want a new iMac with a non-upgradeable non-miniLED display, nor would I want an expensive miniLED display permanently wedded to a M1-series processor.