Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I gave up on a 27" Apple silicon iMac ages ago. Instead I bought a studio display and I use it with my Macbook Pro. To be honest it has been a much better setup. Not only am I managing just one machine now instead of two, with everything in one place, but when it comes time to upgrade my computer, I can just do so and keep using the same display at my desk.

The USB ports on the ASD act like a docking station; I plug in my laptop with ONE cable and my peripherals instantly come online. It has been completely bullet proof so far. If I ever want a desktop machine again I can pick up a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and just plug it right in.

Seriously, I do miss the 27" iMac, but it's not like we don't have a good and more flexible alternative.
 
Kind of refreshing, honestly, to get a straight answer. I would consider myself a holdout, but if this is the case I can start considering my strategy to get a larger display than my iMac M1 has.
I'm thinking of getting the BenQ PD3220U but my concern is about the 250 nits brightness. I believe iMac goes to 500 nits.

 
  • Love
Reactions: _Mitchan1999
What is the issue here? I honestly don't understand. It is not as if the Mac mini or Mac Studio has an enormous footprint. If the Mac Pro were the only option, I get it. That thing is huge. But I'm trying to think of anyone who:
1. Needs more power than M3...AND...
2. Needs more screen real estate than the 24 inch...BUT...
3. Doesn't have the room for the Mac Studio...AND
4. Won't need to upgrade the processor/RAM/SSD before the monitor...AND...
5. Won't have the desire for the versatility and mobility of a MacBook Pro (even as a second screen).

It seems like a really small segment.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how much this all has to do with the current slump in Mac sales. It's helpful to remember that the Mac is a pretty small slice of the overall pie, and that desktop Macs are a slice of that slice. It's not that surprising that they're focusing on a "mainstream" 24" iMac and urging pros to go with the nice 5K display they sell.
 
I already have a Studio Display plus Mac Studio, so this news doesn’t affect me at all. I still have numerous old iMacs taking up space in my garage. I would be more likely to buy an iMac again only if they offer target display mode again. I understand why they didn’t before because they had to come up with a customized video controller since Thunderbolt 3 didn’t exist at the time. They should be able to do so now. If they don’t, I’ll just stick with my current setup and replace the computer or monitor whenever one of them gets too old or breaks. I like that my computer and monitor are separate since I don’t have to throw away a perfectly good monitor whenever I want to upgrade the computer portion.
 
  • Love
Reactions: _Mitchan1999
apple: upsell mac studio and studio display by eliminating 27 model
users: buys a PC
apple:

0551f506725ac1deeaa85d46f8b9a5fd.jpg
 
That is extremely disappointing. I want to replace my 2015 iMac and I don't want a mac studio or mac mini. Really really disappointing. I don't know what to do now. I may get the 14 MBP and pair it with a BenQ monitor. I will not get the overpriced studio display. WHY APPLE??????
Why are you opposed to a Mac mini? Find you a used studio display for under $1,000 and a $500 Mac mini that you can upgrade several times before needing to replace your display.
 
However, the original article explicitly states that the question was specifically concerning a 27" iMac with Apple Silicon, which leaves open the option of a 30" or 32" or even bigger iMac.
I think that Apple was so direct in its answer, because they simply stated the obvious. Did anyone actually expect them to deliver a 27" iMac with Apple Silicon after moving the 21" to 24"?
Other than that, the options to combine a Mac mini or a Mac Studio with a 27" display are actually great.
 
Last edited:
Good. My 27" iMac has served me well but now I need to separate the computer and display because the display is much less dated than the computer. It's unnecessarily complicated compared to if they were separate to begin with.
 
I think this means they can't make the thermals work on a larger iMac, and people aren't going to want just a larger screen with an M3. They can't make it that thin, they don't want to revisit the old design.
 
Jobs: "Why would anyone want an iPod with a color screen?"

Jobs when asked about an iPod that could play videos: "You know, one of the things that I say around Apple, I paraphrase Bill Clinton when he was running long ago when he said, 'It is the economy, stupid' — I say, 'It is the music, stupid. We have to stay focused on the fact that people are buying these devices to listen to music..."

Less than 6 months later, Apple revealed iPod Photo- the color screen iPod.

The next year, Apple rolled out fifth generation iPod with video playback.

In the iPhone introduction, Jobs made it perfectly clear that any developers wanting to offer third party apps for it should do so as web apps to run inside of Safari. There was absolutely no interest in dedicated third party apps for iPhone.

Later that year, Apple announced the SDK and the App Store rolled out the next year.

For YEARS, Apple ridiculed Phablets: where did "one handed use" come from? 3.5" was the "perfect" size screen... until 4" was deemed the new "perfect" size screen... until...

Jobs on the concept of an iPad mini: "This size isn't sufficient to create great tablet apps, in our opinion. It is meaningless, unless your tablet also includes sandpaper so that the user can sand down their fingers to around one-quarter of the present size. Apple's done extensive user-testing on touch interfaces over many years, and we really understand this stuff. There are clear limits of how close you can physically place elements on a touch screen before users cannot reliably tap, flick or pinch them. This is one of the key reasons we think the 10-inch screen size is the minimum size required to create great tablet apps.

2 years later, iPad mini was launched... without the sandpaper.

Shall I go on?

Todays statement- like a color screen iPod, video iPod, phablet phone, etc- appears to put an iMac 27" fully to bed (for now). But like the above examples, something stated in Nov, 2023 may be something released as little as months from now.

However, let's take them at their word for a different consideration. Since one could say that iMac 21" become iMac 24", if iMac 27" becomes iMac 30"-32" this statement about no new iMac 27" is still true. Even an iMac 28" screen would still make this statement true.

Apple has a long history of saying things that don't reveal upcoming product launch plans in the short-term interests of pushing what is for sale RIGHT NOW. Since an iMac "Bigger" not yet launched can't make them any money now, such statements go with the usual flow of supporting the current offerings that CAN make them money now.

Business as usual. I wouldn't be surprised to see an iMac "bigger" revealed in 2024. Else, someone needs to followup this statement asking if ANY iMac bigger than 24" will be released by Apple and see how they dance around that one.
 
Last edited:
Of course there won't be - because they'll most likely release a 32" 6K iMac Pro (effectively a Pro Display XDR with an M3 Pro/Max/Ultra inside.

It's not 27"... and that's what was asked.
Yeah, that linked story is remarkably fact-free, even for today's writers. Doesn't even include the specific question or response, but it certainly seems like the question was "Are you going to make an Apple Silicon 27" iMac?" and Apple's response was, "No. We're definitely not going to make a new 27" iMac, go buy the Studio Display if you want a 27" display."

Not that an Apple rep would have confirmed an unreleased product publicly anyway, even with a better question.
 
As a user I loved the 27" 1440P and 5K iMacs, but I cringed every time I sent one off for recycling. It's such a waste to throw away a perfectly good and beautiful display. I am so happy the Mac mini is a first class Mac so we can allow the replacement cycles of each component to make sense.
 
Honestly, when it comes to premium-grade screens, seperate devices make much more sense anyway. The computer ages so much faster than the screeen - it would be such a waste to throw away a premium screen after a few years, just because the computer inside it has become too slow. I found this back when I had a 2010 27" iMac, and the screens are even better/more expensive now.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.