Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Reportedly Planning to Launch iMac With OLED Display

Annoying Apple is annoying. 27-inch iMac Studio or gtfo.

1fsh7mwiuytd1.jpeg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Porfiry, Lucifer_Ri and Trusteft
cicalinarrot said:
Daily reminder: don't fall for this. Don't buy iMacs in general.
It's gonna be a great display on a great computer at a great price.
Bound together forever so that when one becomes outdated or broken, the other one will be gone too.
It looks really good but please, resist that aesthetic urge and get a Mac Mini and a third party display instead.
Click to expand...
At least you can AirPlay to it now, that makes it a little better. I wish they would bring back Target Display mode.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eifelbube, spac3duck, drrich2 and 8 others
When the new iMac with Apple silicon first arrived, it was the last time I had money and strong desire to buy another Mac. Not having at least a 27" option just killed any chance of me buying one. (the colours sucked too)
Even if I had a ton of money now I wouldn't buy one even though I like the idea of an iMac. I need a 27" or better yet a 32" screen. If I can't have it on an iMac, I am definitely not going to get any other Apple computer to connect it to another monitor.
Shame.
Ok sure, it's not like Apple is going to lose money from me as I don't have the money to begin with, but my point remains.
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Disagree
Reactions: Lucifer_Ri, ttyRazor, johnmarki and 1 other person
DEMinSoCAL said:
That's no excuse for taking 3-4 years to do it when Samsung is giving Apple 220ppi samples later this year.
Click to expand...
Uh… developing samples and mass producing in the millions are too very, very different balls of wax.
That’s like saying “Apple isn’t expected to have fully augmented reality glasses available until late 2030s at the earliest, that’s no excuse when they can develop one in the lab with $20,000 worth of parts today”.
Apple was apparently was exploring samples of OLED displays for the iPhone and iPod touch as far back as 2009, and yet didn’t release the first one until 2017. That’s kind of how product development works.
DEMinSoCAL said:
And, a 220PPI display is about 4.5K. Apple could have gone standard 4K and most people buying a 24" iMac would think it's beautiful and wouldn't know the difference. Instead, as always, they choose the harder path of demanding 4.5K displays.
Click to expand...
4K at 24 inches is not retina resolution, Apple is obviously going to aim for retina resolution. On top of that the current iMac is already 4.5K. You are basically asking them to make an inferior product so you can have it now, now, now.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why the vast majority of us Mac rumors posters are not the ones making the big decisions for Apple.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Lukomaldini, _Mitchan1999, svanstrom and 6 others
As much as I like my iMac M4, the idea of ponying up for one with an OLED display that is permanently locked to the CPU and can’t be used with another Mac is... kinda weird. That has for a long time been the drawback with the iMac -- and it’s priced at a bit of a break to compensate -- but it’s way past time for them to reintroduce target display mode so you can plug in a Mini or something a few years down the road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drrich2
Lounge vibes 05 said:
Uh… developing samples and mass producing in the millions are too very, very different balls of wax.
That’s like saying “Apple isn’t expected to have fully augmented reality glasses available until late 2030s at the earliest, that’s no excuse when they can develop one in the lab with $20,000 worth of parts today”.
Apple was apparently was exploring samples of OLED displays for the iPhone and iPod touch as far back as 2009, and yet didn’t release the first one until 2017. That’s kind of how product development works.

4K at 24 inches is not retina resolution, Apple is obviously going to aim for retina resolution. On top of that the current iMac is already 4.5K. You are basically asking them to make an inferior product so you can have it now, now, now.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why the vast majority of us Mac rumors posters are not the ones making the big decisions for Apple.
Click to expand...
I'd hardly call a 4K 24" OLED display an "inferior product", but if you prefer, you can wait, wait, wait.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
  • Angry
Reactions: _Mitchan1999, citysnaps, racerhomie and 1 other person
benwiggy said:
I've got the 600-nit Studio Display, and 50% Brightness is about as much as my eyeballs can bear. What's the use case for representing things brighter than any real-world objects?
Click to expand...
Editing HDR photos and video, is the only thing I can think of.

DEMinSoCAL said:
I'd hardly call a 4K 24" OLED display an "inferior product", but if you prefer, you can wait, wait, wait.
Click to expand...
Not for nothing, but the iMac 24” display is higher than 4K to hit Apple’s pixel density standards for a desktop display. They call it “4.5K”.

Personally, I was feeling a little cramped stepping down from the 27” to the 24” iMac, but I’ve gotten accustomed to it. For general use I think it’s totally sufficient to work with two vertical things side by side.

That said, 24" does start to get less useful if you’re doing design work with a lot of controls. With something like Illustrator, or Photoshop or Final Cut, etc it can get a little tight.
 
Last edited:
Ctrlos said:
I don't care about the display size so long as they make it as thin as the iPad Pro.
Click to expand...
It's a desktop computer. It's already so thin it has to have an external power brick. It really doesn't need to be any thinner, and thinner means it'll have to have ports on the side, not the back, which won't look great unless you never plug anything into it (which defeats the purpose of a desktop machine).
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: ignatius345, _Mitchan1999 and Basic75
Happy_John said:
It's a desktop computer. It's already so thin it has to have an external power brick. It really doesn't need to be any thinner, and thinner means it'll have to have ports on the side, not the back, which won't look great unless you never plug anything into it (which defeats the purpose of a desktop machine).
Click to expand...

It's not going to be that thin as you wouldn't be able to have USB ports on the back.
 
WarmWinterHat said:
It's not going to be that thin as you wouldn't be able to have USB ports on the back.
Click to expand...
So, not significantly thinner than it is now, and not as thin as an iPad Pro.

I don't really see the point in making it any thinner than it already is. It's already thinner than a Studio Display. To be honest, I'd prefer it to be slightly thicker and have an internal PSU.

A bigger screen and beefier internals would also be far more compelling than shaving off a few more millmetres.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WarmWinterHat
cicalinarrot said:
Daily reminder: don't fall for this. Don't buy iMacs in general.
It's gonna be a great display on a great computer at a great price.
Bound together forever so that when one becomes outdated or broken, the other one will be gone too.
It looks really good but please, resist that aesthetic urge and get a Mac Mini and a third party display instead.
Click to expand...

There is a substantial amount of truth and common sense in your post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allen_Wentz, DEMinSoCAL, WarmWinterHat and 1 other person
I say this every time, but if you don't think you want an iMac because of the (lack) of features it offers, don't get one! It's not for you! It's for people who have no need for all the fancy things that a "Pro" machine offers or a larger screen.

That said, I don't believe this will happen before the Studio Display gets OLED.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back