Apple Not Planning to Launch Larger-Screened iMac

[Tagbert]

I sit and write this on my 27" iMac.
Just last week at my kids school, where I'm the volunteer IT person, I had them order a new 24" iMac to replace the dead one the reception admin uses.
I toyed with the idea of getting them a Mac Mini this time and sourcing a monitor for it while keeping the old machines keyboard and mouse.
However when I went to find a similar spec monitor to the one the current 24" iMac has I couldn't find anything as good and in a price range that justified buying a Mac Mini instead of another iMac.
My own 27" iMac is a 2017 max spec machine which is my work horse (I write Apps and other software for a living).
If this rumour is true then I see myself replacing it with a high spec Mac Mini and sourcing a decent screen.
The high end Apple stuff seem to be more aimed at the video and media editing users than developers like myself.
My App compile times are still decent on my iMac but I'm sure they would be spectacular on even the lowest spec-ed M2 machine.

I think that is what many people are finding. If you don’t have a strong need for a lot of CPU/GPU cores, the M1 (and eventual M2) are so fast that the “low end” Apple Silicon is faster than the ”upgrade performance” we used to get on Intel boxes. My home M1 Air is definitely faster than my work i7 MBP.

 

[mjtomlin71]

You are ignoring if you have external devices that may already be on the desktop and the requirement now for longer cables and additional money?

I get that a lot of folks are not iMac fans but there is still a large segment of the market that are and Apple has dropped the ball and quite frankly in my opinion left many of us out to dry.

But then again Apple has never been known to listen to it’s customers. They’d rather set the bar and force them to conform to what they think is the way forward. Case in point, FireWire 800.

I have owned iMacs since the original Bondi Blue (I've owned AIOs since the Mac SE) and I have been waiting for a new larger iMac to replace my 2009 27" iMac. In the interim I bought an M1 mini to get by until I could. But now they've dropped it from their line up. So guess what I'm going to do? I'll just wait longer - the mini has been a great machine so far. And even though it's not a new 27" iMac - get this - it still works like a Mac! Ain't that great!

 

[Tagbert]

My guess is that 27" iMac was always a bargain for what you got and was "too good to be true". Basically Apple is saying you don't want to see the price of a 27" iMac so we are taking it away.

Also, people talk about the iMac 27” as being $1800 but that model was super low spec. Once you upgraded to a better processor, RAM and storage, the price was getting much closer to the price of a base spec Studio + Monitor.

 

[Realityck]

There is no way Apple can believe the Mac Studio + a $1600 27" display (total cost $3800 with keyboard) is a real replacement for the 27" iMac ($1800 starting price which is only $200 more than the new display by itself - think about that), which was the most popular desktop Mac. Apple will be forced to release a redesigned larger iMac to replace the popular 27" iMac, price needs to be in the $2-$3k range.

It isn’t a large iMac replacement any more then a $3500 16” M1 Max MBP is, its a another equivalent performance solution in the guise of separate components as the Mac Studio + Display. Apple is offering different solutions to users finally at least against M1 Max capable Macs. We probably haven’t seen everything yet. Like before it takes time for them to put that capability into less expensive macs, but it will eventually.

 

[Tagbert]

This is a bummer for me. I have a 2015 iMac 27 quad core i7 with 3TB drive, which I paid something like $3300 for back in the day. I was looking forward to the Apple Silicon version, and since I’ve created more data, was planning to purchase a 4TB drive. Now it would cost me roughly $5500 to purchase an Apple Studio with 4TB. The other option is a 16” MacBook Pro + monitor, which would also be in the mid $5000 range. No 4TB option on the Mac Mini. Apple may have left me behind, just not sure I can justify that kind of expense to suit my needs.

Unless you absolutely have to have that large of an SSD internally, you’d be better off getting a 2TB SSD and then getting an external 2TB SSD. Apple’s storage upgrade costs are brutal. Then you could use a Mac Mini, especially if they upgrade that to M2 soon.

 

[smulji]

Until Apple markets a sub-3k expandable desktop, they are spitting in the face of many professionals.

Keep dreaming

 

[Tagbert]

I can believe that maybe its not possible for them to fit in a cooling solution that's satisfactory in a thin iMac enclosure for the M1 Max or M1 Ultra. Especially as these chips will only get more and more powerful as the years go by.

That being said, they NEED to have an M1 Pro desktop solution. Whether that be in the Mac mini or 24" iMac. Because right now you have "consumer" devices and industry-grade "pro" devices with a $1000+ price gap. You could just say "get the Mac Studio" but there's a lot of industries where that power is probably overkill and its hard to justify paying extra for power you wont use. M1 Pro is definitely the sweet spot.

I don’t believe that the M1 Ultra was ever in the cards for an iMac, assuming that they were considering one. That is a very specialized chip. When they dropped the iMac Pro, it was clear that they had decided that the iMac was not going to be their powerhouse computer.

Any of the other M-series chips would certainly work inside any reasonable larger iMac case. They fit in the MBPs and are not a cooling problem.

 

[mjtomlin71]

My guess is that 27" iMac was always a bargain for what you got and was "too good to be true". Basically Apple is saying you don't want to see the price of a 27" iMac so we are taking it away.

It was a great bargain! Dell currently sells a display with the 4K version of basically the same IPS panel for $1,500.

 

[Realityck]

It won’t be from me. Going backwards from a 27” would be a serious downgrade. I owned a 24” before this and it is just not big enough especially for my eyes.

The DPI is the same 218 DPI it’s just 4.5K vs 5K. So you can’t blame it on your eyes. It allows a higher res that is the default on the 5k. It it would be a tad smaller when looked at. I owned both also.

 

[mjtomlin71]

It's NOT the same panel as the previous 27" iMac and LG UltraFine, if that's what you mean. It's 600 nits. Those previous two are 500 nits.

The LCD panel and the backlight are two different components. Apple could be using the same panel with a different, brighter backlight.

 

[mikeschr]

The fact that Apple said they had only one Mac to go, the Mac Pro, that cemented it

He didn't say they're never releasing another Apple Silicon Mac. The way I interpreted it was that they only have one category left, not that there won't be any other new models.

 

[02-serious-stent]

30+ inches screen will be too big for eye travel. Your eye will be fatigue, unless you sit further away.

Many YouTubers has compare the 27" vs 32" screen.

Funny. I am running dual 32s without an issue.

 

[rafark]

Right, because it would have been extremely valuable to accommodate the headphone jack on the back rather than on the side

It’s on the back of my 08 imac.

 

[HazardousT]

The DPI is the same 218 DPI it’s just 4.5K vs 5K. So you can’t blame it on your eyes. It allows a higher res that is the default on the 5k. It it would be a tad smaller when looked at. I owned both also.

It’s the size that matters to me at this point. I’m in my mid 50’s and anything smaller just isn’t good on my eyes after staring at it all day.

 

[Darth Tulhu]

Apple never made everyone happy.

We've been wanting this new Studio setup for decades.

But as always, Apple gives you something but takes something away.

So there will always be someone unhappy with their choices:

The upgradeable iMac G5 was replaced by a sealed intel iMac.

The highly upgradeable CMBPs replaced by sealed, un-upgradeable Retina MBPs.

The Mac Pro was replaced by the Trash(ed) Tube Can.

The iPhone lost the old connector, the headphone jack, and the home button (and gained the notch).

The MacBooks all lost their ports (save one type), MagSafe, and great-feeling & reliable keyboards.

The Thunderbolt Display is replaced with the SAD LG one.

And now the death of the 27" iMac/iMac Pro.

All that said, I feel Apple has been making the best moves they've done in a LONG time, and it's a sign that Jony Ive's Apple is dead.

Fat(ter) MBPs, a headless iMac/iMac Pro/Mac Pro Mini, the return of MagSafe, the return of supposedly-obsolete-yet-still-widely-in-use ports, the death of the Touch Bar and the return of function keys, the return of the Tube (or rather, Cube) ALONG WITH the return of the real Mac Pro (cheese grater and all)...

I LOVE this new Apple.

 

[magbarn]

Didn’t the iMac Pro start at $4,999?
That is probably the more reasonable comparison for the Mac Studio.

The 24” M1 iMac is a 4.5k display - exactly half way between the 4k and 5k intel iMacs. That is the replacement for both the 21” and 27” iMac.

It is a lovely machine. If I had my heart set on an iMac, I wouldn’t let that half k of resolution stop me from getting one.

It's not the resolution, it's the screen size. 24" is no substitute for 27", especially for middle aged eyes.

 

[mrhick01]

Same people that fell for the junk that Apple was peddling years ago with the base MacBook airs coming out with only 2gb of ram and apple said that macOS would somehow magically make it feel like 4gb.

There is an efficiency improvement when you have very fast memory and bandwidth with the CPU and GPU on a single chip versus memory on one bus, cpu and gpu on others...there's latency issues that are less of a problem than a Mac ecosystem...

Maybe saying an 8 GB Mac is the equivalent of a 16 GB PC is an overstatement, but the pure core speed of the M1s, it being a SOC with high bandwidth with a lesser penalty to page SSD memory...it's a well-integrated hardware system that punches above its proverbial weight...

 

[turbineseaplane]

All this talk of 24" and 27"

ha!

Here I am still on 30" -- My old eyes need all the physical size I can get at this point

 

[HazardousT]

It's not the resolution, it's the screen size. 24" is no substitute for 27", especially for middle aged eyes.

Thank you. I’m glad that someone else here gets it. My eyes at this age can’t take a 24” screen, it’s just not big enough and actually quite uncomfortable.

 

[mjtomlin71]

Huh? In the last decade, I have purchased two imac 27's. At msrp, combined they were still cheaper than a single studio combo. A nice side effect of that was I got a significant monitor upgrade each time (2013 qhd > 2017 5k/brighter).

If I buy a studio combo now, then upgrade just the mac in the future, I will have paid more than 3 imacs with no upgrade to the display.

Yeah the problem with this argument is "Studio combo". Apple made the damned computer part separate, so you don't have to buy their display. Why are so many people hung up on this?

I think all the complainers would feel much better if Apple had never released the Studio display and instead called these systems Mac mini Pro (and also included a smaller M1 Pro option). There would have been ZERO backlash if that happened. Oh, and kept the 27" Intel iMac, you know, to give them hope.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Why are so many people hung up on this?

Honestly, it'd be nice to have both options still

Hopefully we will again at some point

 

[spunkybart]

Hopefully, there will be another larger iMac at some point -- I do like the all-in-one machines.

The 24" iMac doesn't quite offer what I'm looking for, so I just priced the 'Studio' for kicks. Unfortunately, I found it to be prohibitively expensive - way more than I'd like to spend. I'm not ready to trade up yet from my "Late 2012" iMac, but when I do I might just buy a nice monitor to pair with a MacBook.

 

[Realityck]

It’s the size that matters to me at this point. I’m in my mid 50’s and anything smaller just isn’t good on my eyes after staring at it all day.

Fonts are the exact same size - 218 DPI (Dots per inch) just so you know. It’s a difference of 2560x1440 vs 2240x1260 default resolution. Have you looked at one up close. Both are retina displays. If this like you really need a 5k display that’s 30” then I see your point.

 

[HazardousT]

Fonts are the exact same size - 218 DPI (Dots per inch) just so you know. It’s a difference of 2560x1440 vs 2240x1260 default resolution. Have you looked at one up close. Both are retina displays.

Yes I‘ve owned both and it is NOT the same. At my age and staring at a computer screen all day that extra 3” is a HUGE difference.

 

[Student of Life]

Also, people talk about the iMac 27” as being $1800 but that model was super low spec. Once you upgraded to a better processor, RAM and storage, the price was getting much closer to the price of a base spec Studio + Monitor.

One could upgrade the memory thanks the easy to open expansion tray on the back. No need for overpriced memory upgrades from the apple store. Also one could get an external ssd drive cheaper. The 27 base model was still powerful and could handle most non pro needs. Seeing the same exact screen and a better camera costing more than a 27 iMac is one of those “I don’t know if I should laugh or cry movements”