Apple Says There Won't Be a 27-Inch iMac With Apple Silicon

[MacGizmo]

Tell that to Lenovo, HP, Dell and Asus. They're looking at creating every opportunity for a prosperous holiday revenue stream for themselves thanks to copying Steve Jobs genius all-in-one design!

The problem is that those A-I-O computers from other manufacturers are not equal. Most of them are using Intel Core i3, i5, or i7 processors (years out of date), lower amounts of RAM (and some not upgradeable), slower SSD drives, cheap plastic frame/body, and much, much lower resolution screens.

I mean seriously, a 27" screen with only 1920x1080 resolution??? And the ppi on those screens is horrible, rendering text and images extremely blurry. In some cases, the touch-screen is inexplicably inadequate (I've only tried a Dell and Lenovo version). The brightness on them is really low in comparison to Apple and many other brands' displays. The screens aren't just bad compared to Apple's iMac and Studio Displays, they're bad compared to every other $200-$300 screen on the market.

As some here have said, many people simply need to browse the web, email, use a word processor, and view an occasional PDF. And for those people, I would guess that an Apple product (any model) simply isn't in the budget – and the trade-offs that I personally would consider deal-breakers are not even a consideration for them.

I guess what I'm saying is that there certainly IS a market for these cheap A-I-O computers, it's just not a market that Apple wants to pursue. And they're computers that typical Apple users aren't, by and large, interested in due to those trade-offs.

 

[Bobby Smallwood]

The problem is that those A-I-O computers from other manufacturers are not equal. Most of them are using Intel Core i3, i5, or i7 processors (years out of date), lower amounts of RAM (and some not upgradeable), slower SSD drives, cheap plastic frame/body, and much, much lower resolution screens.

I mean seriously, a 27" screen with only 1920x1080 resolution??? And the ppi on those screens is horrible, rendering text and images extremely blurry. In some cases, the touch-screen is inexplicably inadequate (I've only tried a Dell and Lenovo version). The brightness on them is really low in comparison to Apple and many other brands' displays. The screens aren't just bad compared to Apple's iMac and Studio Displays, they're bad compared to every other $200-$300 screen on the market.

As some here have said, many people simply need to browse the web, email, use a word processor, and view an occasional PDF. And for those people, I would guess that an Apple product (any model) simply isn't in the budget – and the trade-offs that I personally would consider deal-breakers are not even a consideration for them.

I guess what I'm saying is that there certainly IS a market for these cheap A-I-O computers, it's just not a market that Apple wants to pursue. And they're computers that typical Apple users aren't, by and large, interested in due to those trade-offs.

 

[Fomalhaut]

Really? Have you tried a 4K display on a Mac? It doesn't work (scale) well. 1440p or 5K are the resolutions for sharpest display.

Apparently everyone here who keeps saying "buy your own monitor" know nothing about the poor scaling of macOS on a 4K display. +1 for Windows for designing an OS that looks great on any display resolution (including the very common, sharp 4K).

I use a 27” LG 4K display at a scaled resolution of 3008x1692, and it seems pretty sharp to me. Text is a bit sharper at a pixel-doubled 1920x1080, but a bit too big on a 27” panel. I would prefer a pixel doubled 2880x1440, i.e 5K, but there isn’t a lot of choice out there at at less than $700 especially if you don’t want an ultra wide. There are lots of nice 4K displays under this price.

Yes, macOs warns about a potential performance impact, but this for an M1 Max machine, and I can’t say I’ve noticed.

 

[bushman4]

The demand is there so a 30” or 32” iMac is still on the table

 

[Fomalhaut]

dmylrea said:
LOL! You can express your opinion all you want. I just stated a fact that is opposite your (false) opinion.

You stated "Why remove a product that was revenue positive?" doesn't sound like an opinion. You seem sure.
Ignored.

Ignored.

…well that reply really won the argument, didn’t it?

@dmylrea made a valid point about the difference between opinion and an statement quoted as fact. Unfortunately, Apple doesn’t release sales figures for individual Mac product lines, so we don’t know the details

 

[Abdichoudxyz]

The demand is there so a 30” or 32” iMac is still on the table

You say this, but is there any evidence to back up this assertion? Just because there's a few dozen on this forum who'd like a larger Mac AIO, doesn't mean there is a viable market for such. 30-32" displays are huge, way beyond what the vast majority of users actually want.

 

[picpicmac]

The problem is that those A-I-O computers from other manufacturers are not equal.

Took a stroll through my local Office Depot yesterday, and their computer section had a small row of AIOs, from HP, Lenovo, Dell.

I tried out the HP, then moved on.

All in all, I thought the best word to describe that selection: sad.

Now it being Office Depot the selection was a bit down-market, not the top of the line. And HP does offer more powerful and more expensive models. More expensive than the iMac and still somewhat kludgey.

 

[MacGizmo]

Took a stroll through my local Office Depot yesterday, and their computer section had a small row of AIOs, from HP, Lenovo, Dell.

I don't think there is any Windows-based PC worth its weight if you can see it in a franchise store. You really have to custom-build your own, or at least go directly through the manufacturer to add what you want. Even then, options can sometimes be limited, or so unlimited that you have to be a rocket scientist to figure it all out. And none of them are available as an A-I-O.

 

[JerryDon]

That’s disappointing but not a surprise. They want people to buy a Mac mini or Mac Studio and also buy a Studio display.

It's a crock! That's for damn sure - forcing the loyal iMac customers to a wimpy assed 23.5 ish screen size - Obviously Apple doesn't need my business (since 1984) - I'm pissed/disgusted - Thank goodness for OpenCore (my Late 2012 is still functioning on Sonoma). . .

 

[miscend]

Yeah it does. Considerably so. Since most people already got their own monitors it's considerably cheaper to just buy Mac Minis instead, and even then buying a M2 Mac Mini and a third party monitor is still cheaper than the iMac.

It's just the nature of the PC industry now. All in ones are considerably niche and hardly anyone makes them anymore. Don't get me wrong, I love the design of the iMac. It's absolutely stunning and there's no other computer with a design like it. But it's just not selling compared to the other the Macs.

The Intel Mac mini was not upgraded for 4 years at one point, and the design even for the AS variants has basically remained unchanged since the unibody 2010 model. So I assumed the Mac mini didn't do enough numbers to prioritise it and do regular design updates, like they did with MacBooks and iMacs.

 

[Abazigal]

The demand is there so a 30” or 32” iMac is still on the table

I doubt it.

Like I said before, the iMac made sense at a time when it was only real consumer desktop Mac available to users. The Mac mini was too small to properly house a dedicated graphics card, while the Mac Pro was (often) outdated and simply overkill for what people really needed. You got a large screen and fairly decent specs for the cost.

Today, the beauty of the M-series processors is that users get great performance without the need for much cooling, meaning Apple can fit them into way smaller form factors than previously required. An M2 Mac mini today probably runs rings around a 2017 5k iMac.

My guess is that Apple still saw a use case for the smaller iMac (perhaps for use in boutique shops or offices for the receptionist to use or even as a communal family computer). The introduction of the various colour schemes suggests that it's designed to be placed in locations where it can be readily seen by others. It's always been less of the spec, and more about the aesthetics and image you want to project.

Which is the direct opposite of what people want a larger iMac for (performance over looks).

So from a performance point of view, there really isn't a case to be made for a larger iMac to exist, because you can now have the same performance in a Mac mini or Mac Studio (something you didn't have before), plus the versatility of pairing it with the monitor of your choice. If people want one because they believe it will be cheaper than buying a separate Mac Studio and Studio display, then again, it feels like they are fighting the wrong war.

 

[rb2112]

I'm thinking of getting the BenQ PD3220U but my concern is about the 250 nits brightness. I believe iMac goes to 500 nits.

​

PD3200U states 350 nits and in my ?average lit room is fine at 38% brightness. One window, snowy out, lights on. Not sure how 250 nits would be from the PD3220. The hotkey puck makes switching between CAD and office easy, and I also easily switch between mac mini and PC. I guess it depends on your needs. Inside and non-HDR? Perfect. Anything else, who knows. Do you have the specs for your existing monitor to compare with?

 

[Bigalig2003]

I doubt it.

Like I said before, the iMac made sense at a time when it was only real consumer desktop Mac available to users. The Mac mini was too small to properly house a dedicated graphics card, while the Mac Pro was (often) outdated and simply overkill for what people really needed. You got a large screen and fairly decent specs for the cost.

Today, the beauty of the M-series processors is that users get great performance without the need for much cooling, meaning Apple can fit them into way smaller form factors than previously required. An M2 Mac mini today probably runs rings around a 2017 5k iMac.

My guess is that Apple still saw a use case for the smaller iMac (perhaps for use in boutique shops or offices for the receptionist to use or even as a communal family computer). The introduction of the various colour schemes suggests that it's designed to be placed in locations where it can be readily seen by others. It's always been less of the spec, and more about the aesthetics and image you want to project.

Which is the direct opposite of what people want a larger iMac for (performance over looks).

So from a performance point of view, there really isn't a case to be made for a larger iMac to exist, because you can now have the same performance in a Mac mini or Mac Studio (something you didn't have before), plus the versatility of pairing it with the monitor of your choice. If people want one because they believe it will be cheaper than buying a separate Mac Studio and Studio display, then again, it feels like they are fighting the wrong war.

I appreciate your points - but Im sorry from an aesthetics perspective the 27 inch iMac trumps anything Apple offers today in terms of looks even though a little dated (but not obviously performance) - we all know the M class of processors are great but why would I want 2 boxes on my desk instead of one? Performance - so what and it's certainly not about cost - despite Apple's flagging sales? Look I know design isn't one of Apple's strong points anymore (since Mr Ive left) but are you seriously suggesting there isn't a use case for a 27 inch iMac or larger? - to put it simply yes there is as I'm sure you can see from all the other many disappointed users on this forum.

 

[cmcbhi]

I appreciate your points - but Im sorry from an aesthetics perspective the 27 inch iMac trumps anything Apple offers today in terms of looks even though a little dated (but not obviously performance) - we all know the M class of processors are great but why would I want 2 boxes on my desk instead of one? Performance - so what and it's certainly not about cost - despite Apple's flagging sales? Look I know design isn't one of Apple's strong points anymore (since Mr Ive left) but are you seriously suggesting there isn't a use case for a 27 inch iMac or larger? - to put it simply yes there is as I'm sure you can see from all the other many disappointed users on this forum.

FWIW, 12 South makes the Backpack which would ler you mount the Studio or the Mini behind your monitor.

 

[Chuckeee]

I appreciate your points - but Im sorry from an aesthetics perspective the 27 inch iMac trumps anything Apple offers today in terms of looks even though a little dated …

You are entitled to that opinion but that is all it is. In my opinion the only aesthetically pleasing iMac design was the G4 iMac. All the iMac since then have just had the aesthetics of any slab flat monitor design that only allows for limited adjustability (just vertical tilt). A mini or studio box can be hidden, most flat panel monitors and most iMac share the same Aesthetic appeal

 

[Bigalig2003]

You are entitled to that opinion but that is all it is. In my opinion the only aesthetically pleasing iMac design was the G4 iMac. All the iMac since then have just had the aesthetics of any slab flat monitor design that only allows for limited adjustability (just vertical tilt). A mini or studio box can be hidden, most flat panel monitors and most iMac share the same Aesthetic appeal

Thanks and likewise - your are right of course about the flat slab monitor reference (albeit 5K as opposed to the 24) and Im aware there are cradles to hold a Mac mini on the back of a monitor but boy is that ugly (eye of the beholder I know) but at the moment Apple are content in alienating a portion of their loyal fanbase - again my opinion but just as valid - yes I could go out and buy a studio display and a Mac mini or studio but as I mentioned originally I have no intention of doing that - I had a Mac mini years ago with a 3rd party monitor so when I discovered the 27" iMacs it was great to have an all in one device that looked aesthetically pleasing and could be upgraded (limited). Oh well, I'll keep on using my underpowered 27" iMac until it ceases to exist and reflect that Apple has lost yet another sale - do they care - no of course not.

 

[Bigalig2003]

FWIW, 12 South makes the Backpack which would ler you mount the Studio or the Mini behind your monitor.

Hi There - yes I have a 12 South back pack that I use to mount external drives on the back of my 27" iMac - good idea though but unless I can find a Mac solution with 128Gb Ram and 16Tb of disc space its a non-starter unforrtunately.

 

[Warped9]

It mostly comes down to money. Apple hasn’t released an updated 27in. iMac because they see a better path money wise by going with separate units: buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio with Studio Display or some third party monitor.

It isn’t that they can’t do it, but that they choose not to do it.

A Mac Mini with a Studio Display is about the same price wise a 27in. iMac. Opt for a Mac Studio and you get into iMac Pro territory price wise. In a broad sense they already have this market covered without investing in yet another design configuration. Sure it pisses a lot of people off, but evidently not enough to fill that small void in the customer base.

 

[bjjp2]

It mostly comes down to money. Apple hasn’t released an updated 27in. iMac because they see a better path money wise by going with separate units: buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio with Studio Display or some third party monitor.

It isn’t that they can’t do it, but that they choose not to do it.

A Mac Mini with a Studio Display is about the same price wise a 27in. iMac. Opt for a Mac Studio and you get into iMac Pro territory price wise. In a broad sense they already have this market covered without investing in yet another design configuration. Sure it pisses a lot of people off, but evidently not enough to fill that small void in the customer base.

My beloved 27" iMac is getting long in the tooth and I haven't really researched the monitor situation lately. Is the Studio Monitor as good or better than the monitor on the 27" iMac?

 

[Warped9]

My beloved 27" iMac is getting long in the tooth and I haven't really researched the monitor situation lately. Is the Studio Monitor as good or better than the monitor on the 27" iMac?

I believe it’s essentially the same panel, but without the actual computer inside.

 

[Student of Life]

It mostly comes down to money. Apple hasn’t released an updated 27in. iMac because they see a better path money wise by going with separate units: buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio with Studio Display or some third party monitor.

It isn’t that they can’t do it, but that they choose not to do it.

A Mac Mini with a Studio Display is about the same price wise a 27in. iMac. Opt for a Mac Studio and you get into iMac Pro territory price wise. In a broad sense they already have this market covered without investing in yet another design configuration. Sure it pisses a lot of people off, but evidently not enough to fill that small void in the customer base.

While they might on paper think they can get more money this way, the sales data that was posted earlier show a completely different picture. The Mac mini and the studio display are assuming the figures are correct the lowest selling items.

From a simple fundamental standpoint, if people bought an iMac Pro or 27 iMac for work reasons they already got a max studio or something along those lines because time is money, Apple got them a long time ago.

Just an assumption but the majority of 27 iMac buyers were not pro users. The non pros users want an 27 or higher iMac because they want the size. They got an iMac because they want an all in one. The iMac at 23.5 is not a size they want and since the 5k iMacs are still alive and kicking they wont downgrade to a smaller screen. Remember the 27 5k iMac where not cheap so the people waiting for a 27+ iMac have the disposable income to spend but they for the most part want nothing to do with a studio display + mini etc, it goes against what an iMac is as an all in one, it goes against its ethos.

At this point it’s not a matter of if, more of when a 27 or higher iMac comes out. It’s just a waiting game. Notice how the theme of the M3 chip was “it time to upgrade” implying a sizable % of mac user are on intel chips. Its just a waiting game at this point and those intel 27 5k iMacs are still alive and kicking, not to mention Mac sales are down so its just a matter of time.

 

[Warped9]

not to mention Mac sales are down

Computer sales as a whole are down, not just Macs.

 

[deconstruct60]

While they might on paper think they can get more money this way, the sales data that was posted earlier show a completely different picture. The Mac mini and the studio display are assuming the figures are correct the lowest selling items.

There was lots of echo chamber hype about the one CIRP report. It had the almost four year old Intel Mac Pro at 10+% of Mac sales... which does not pass the 'smell' test. ( those kind of unit numbers don't match Apple's revenues numbers. ) . How these indirect sampling forecasters get their data matters. ( sample badly and get bad data. )

In contrast, at this years Gruber WWDC show with top Apple execs, the chief of market expressed huge satisfaction with Mini sales (i.e., it is a 'hit' ; not a miss ). What would he 'know' ... just looks at Apple's aggregate numbers every week.

Similarly web retailers that display product 'popular' order ( Amazon and BH Photo) don't back up the super duper sales of iMac then. Or even now .

Amazon Desktop ( in general ... any Desktop).

Amazon Best Sellers: Best Desktop Computers

Discover the best Desktop Computers in Best Sellers. Find the top 100 most popular items in Amazon Electronics Best Sellers.

www.amazon.com

snapshot right now Mini #4 , #42 , and #46 and ... m-series iMac ... not on the list's first page.


BH Photo ( Mac desktop best sellers ) [ NOTE: there is a 'featured' ordering. BH not ordering by sales has little motivation as they already display the order you want to look at when you first get to the general overview page. ]

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/mac/ci/52975?sort=BEST_


Top 10 snapshot right now: Mini: #1-3, 6 , and 9-10
m3 iMac #7

The Mac Studio has more entries in the top 10 there than the iMac. That is with the MIni/Studio lagging behind on M2 ... once they also get M3 gen SoCs it very likely is not going to get any better.


These two have a limited sampling limitations also, but it more than sufficient to remove the 'gospel truth' label from that CIRP sampling. These two sources are from folk that actually SELL macs ( can simply count what shipped)
.. not take indirect surveys.

The disaffected large screen iMac and Mac Pro (box with slots) fan clubs have latched onto the quirky CIRP survey like a life preserver . I'd bet a small sum that survey results is generated a much higher number of clicks to their website than most others.

Just an assumption but the majority of 27 iMac buyers were not pro users. The non pros users want an 27 or higher iMac because they want the size. They got an iMac because they want an all in one.

This is a dubious assumption back in the Intel era. There were tons of 'howls' from folks for a dGPU option for the Mini. ( the MBP 15-16" has a better GPU.). There were tons of 'xMac' (go back to old mini tower prices and no screen) complaints that filled these forums also. Apple distinctly herded folks into the iMac. Even to the 27" from the 21.5 since the CPU/GPU combos in the 21.5 were limited also.

Similar with the "you want to easily update your RAM" crowd. Pretty much herded into also buying a larger screen (as the base price of the Mac Pro crept higher and higher and higher).


"non pros" are also typically more price sensitive. The 27" iMac was also substantially about getting a 'good' Mac Dekstop for less than $2K . ( the $1,799 entry price for the classic model). [ which is why still see the $1999 Studio sell reasonably well. And the Mini Pro sell even better than that. ] . If say the large screen iMac is coming back at class iMac Pro prices ...what and see how many "I love all-in-one so much I'll buy one" responses you'll get. It is not going to be the "majority". Folks are going to ask for the 'old price' back. Therefore, the price is a major factor.
And more than few folks were sold the notion that they were getting a 5K screen 'for free' ( hence a 'bargain'); which again is more about price than all-in-one as top priority.



In the current era , there are two huge problems for the large screen iMac. Decent 4K display are far more affordable than 5-10 years ago. There is also a more vibrant 3rd display market iterating on multiple panel technologies and resolutions than there was 10 years ago. The iGPU in Mini/MiniPro has hugely better (much tougher for Apple to segment the Mini into a less desirable tier by lowering the GPU performance). If need a large screen that docks with your USB-C laptop and connects to your desktop ( two birds with one stone/screen).... that is all 3rd party screen solutions.

The iMac at 23.5 is not a size they want and since the 5k iMacs are still alive and kicking they wont downgrade to a smaller screen. Remember the 27 5k iMac where not cheap so the people waiting for a 27+ iMac have the disposable income to spend but they for the most part want nothing to do with a studio display + mini etc, it goes against what an iMac is as an all in one, it goes against its ethos.

There are a substantial number of folks in this category. What is dubious is that they are the 'Majority'. The key factor is the conjunctive "studio display + ____ " part. The number of folks who will pick a non Apple display if given an option when trying to stay on a reasonable disposable income budget probably is not the "Majority". There are other options (e.g., can get 43" , 50" inch screens if want 'bigger').

For example folks who went from iMac 27" at home and MBP on the road can go to just MBP + docked display it is more affordable option. Not loosing any substantive performance by going with the laptop. Don't have to sync data/state between the devices. etc. For a sub $2K Mac there is no performance hit by going the laptop route. That is probably going to lead to lower desktop sales.

At this point it’s not a matter of if, more of when a 27 or higher iMac comes out. It’s just a waiting game.

Go look at sales data above. It isn't certainly a 'when'. Additionally, Apple shifting to a metric over time that the Mac sold has to be carbon neutral for its entire lifecycle is going to be easier if it doesn't have a screen attached whose usefulness iterates on a much longer service lifetime. ( e.g., iMac 27" weight ~20 lbs . Mac Studio ~8 lbs. Guess which one burns up more jet fuel express shipping from China? If someone doesn't need a new monitor that is half the weight. If Apple sold two Mac studios over 10 years and just one Studio Display over the same time frame, that would be a carbon reduction. If sell a Mac Studio and then a Mini Pro to same display in 10 years save even more. ) [ Note: the 24" iPad-on-a-stick iMac chassis , puts that whole system on a substantive weight diet. ]


Furthermore, Apple seems to have wanted to shift to microLED screens that isn't working out like they hoped. Will OLED 27+ " panels get cheap enough and be viable for long enough ( Apple likely want to commit to same decade-like timeframe squatted on 5K screens. ), to spin the appearance of giving them away for 'free' on iMacs? If they don't know what tech they are going to be on long term , then not in the 'certainly' zone either.

As long as Apple keeps going deeper into the "invent our own display" (and avoiding economies of scale of sharing screen tech with other monitor makers), the chances on the large screen iMac get dimmer ; not brighter. AT least at the classic iMac 27" sub $2-2.2K price points (which is where hefty chunk of sales were.)



Apple has openly stated they don't have plans for one. That doesn't enhance the 'certainty' either. Apple explcitly designated the Mac Studio as the transition replacement for the Intel Mac 27". That doesn't enhance the 'certainty' either.


If Apple decides some large screen panel requires some captive audience to drive up better economies of scale numbers to get to profitability on the component cost. Perhaps we will see another large screen iMac. But "have to sell , because sold it before". That is probably overblown.

Notice how the theme of the M3 chip was “it time to upgrade” implying a sizable % of mac user are on intel chips. Its just a waiting game at this point and those intel 27 5k iMacs are still alive and kicking, not to mention Mac sales are down so its just a matter of time.

Apple has stated numerous times that they are not trying to sell everything to everybody. At one point Apple sold printers ... and now they don't. They sold mini-towers in the $1,500 range ... and now they don't. Serval intel mac models had dGPU in them. There are no dGPUs in any Mac in the current line up. ( from 2018-2021 there was lots of commentary from dGPU fans that Apple has 'got to' have dGPUs in the M-series era ... there is nothing. )

 

[Chuckeee]

quirky CIRP survey

Yes, finally a more logical update to that hard to believe/understand CIRP data. Been craving some more current (and logical) Apple desktop sales data. While the Amazon and B&H data is indirect, it is more current and appeals to be much more rationale.

 

[Warped9]

At this point it’s not a matter of if, more of when a 27 or higher iMac comes out.

Apple has already stated explicitly they’re not developing a 27in. iMac. It’s parsing words to take that to mean they could still be working on a larger than 27 iMac, given fuel by unsubstantiated rumours of Apple working on a 32in. iMac. But unless prices of 5 and 6k panels drop significantly a big iMac is increasingly unlikely.

If you need a big screen setup waiting for Apple to deliver it as an AIO could be a very long wait. On the other if you can tolerate Windows then I believe HP, Lenovo and Asus each have a 27in AIO desktop available.