Hopefully Apple will make a new power cord and some outputs that are completely different than anything they have made before - that’s what I’m always on the hunt for - new ways to waste a lot of cash and make them rich at the same time! ?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Next iMac Pro: Everything We Know
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
USB-C/Thunderbolt ports won't make it thicker. The 24" iMac has those and it worked. ( they are off the main logic board. ).
The SD-card slot could be moved just like the headphone jack was. Actually would make more ergonomic sense to put it where can get to it while seated in front of the iMac. The primary problem there is the depth of the port's mechanics; not the height/diameter of the port. Edgewise-in there is depth because the screen is so big.
The only slippery slope would be the HDMI port. Apple could go with a type-C HDMI port. But yes the "thin as an iPad" motif won't work if keep the full size port. Techincally though don't need a full size port if thin is primary goal.
If Apple wants to drive off into the "thinness" swamp here there is wide latitude to do so. If flush out the thickness slightly (but still thinner than the XDR ) can put the HDMI port out on the left hand side.
The ports aren't the primary problem The 24" version puts the main computational logic board in the chin. If Apple gets rid of the chin, then that will drive getting off the 24" iMac's design trendline. If they have to put substantive logic witch substantive heat behind the lcd panel then they'll need some separation.
Even if keep the full chin of the current 27" enclosure it is probably a big stretch to cover the M1 Max. To do what they did with the 24" model they'd have to grow the chin bigger.
[ The M1 Pro or M1 Max wouldn't fit inside the 24" model because have that "in the chin" constraint. ]
Exactly match the 11.5mm of the 24" iMac? Probably more to the growing chin than the ports. But the MBP 14" is 15.5mm thick. Dump the lid/screen and they can claw back about 2mm. Get rid of the feet for another approximate 1mm. It would not be that far off to make the 27" iMac just as thick as the base with no feet or lid. That wouldn't be a "huge" jump up from 11.5mm. The "drama" would be putting the lcd panel near to some 80W heat source.
Ethernet could be a problem. It is taller still than the full size HDMI port.
The XDR has two fans to keep the minimal electronics from impacting the screen. An entire M1 Max complex running full tilt... that would be different than what the XDR is in terms of thickness.
Right. I was referring to the other ports. Obviously, the Pro will at least have the 24’s ports.
Yes.
I don’t think that’s the goal. The 24 already exists.
Tallness is irrelevant for an iMac; depth is the constraint that currently makes anything like HDMI impractical. (You said this yourself for SD, so I’m not sure why you bring up height here.)
And yet, it was important enough for you to come here, create an account, and post your own pointless message. Does this make you feel better?
A "pro" iMac needs to have four (4) thunderbolt ports and four (4) more USB ports. One thunderbolt port is going to be used for an extra monitor and the next thunderbolt port is going to be used for an external drive (or RAID). Another thunderbolt port will be used for an external thunderbolt box (pcie cards). Two USB ports will be used for a keyboard and a mouse.
For history of iMac Apple hasn't really separated the product baseline design by screen size. The larger screen one was just a proportionally larger version of the smaller screen.
Even the iMac Pro was stuffed into the same dimensions as the "regular" iMac ( with some minor , largely visibly hidden, adjustment to push more air flow throw the system. bigger vents that consumed "ram door" )
This presumption that they are no going to put the iMac 24" on radically different path than iMac 27" would be a leap. Perhaps "iMac Pro" is suppose to decouple the two products.
HDMI Type C socket is entirely practical. Even on the back of the thinned out iMac ( no bigger a depth constraint that type C USB. )
I also said there was a very simple solution to the SD card if keep the 24" like thin profile; just put it on the side. Same solution as the headphone jack ( which has just as awkward depth problem. ).
Ethernet won't fit if rotate the socket 90 degrees and put the socket on the side. It is "tall". ( rotated 90 degrees it would be to "wide" ; same issue just rotated 90 degrees ). Largely the same reason it got tossed from the MBP when Apple shrank the height. Rotate the bottom base of the headless MBP 90 to vertical , the issue doesn't go away.
The "short"/"tin" ports with depth can be simply put on the side. Even easier on a much bigger screen where the main logic board can be more centered in the middle farther from the edges. The SD card slot is "short"/"thin" so if rotate it 90 degrees on the side so vertical depth won't be problem.
Since Apple has to build power bricks with ethernet for the 24" model, they may push for economies of scale to push that kluge onto the iMac Pro too. That would be dubious for an upscale desktop, but if on a "magically thin" kick (and still trying to hide the ventilation to make it more "magical" ) it is a move they have a track record of following.
P.S. I'm not saying Apple should do it. Put they can if they want. HDMI has multiple sockets to choose from. And SD card is same problem class as the headphone jack.
I would like the HDMI port to connect my external monitor - it will free up a USB 3 port!
This will be a great workstation but it's not for me.
Personally I'd like a more svelte MBP with M1 Pro or M2 Pro in the former design.
Personally I'd like a more svelte MBP with M1 Pro or M2 Pro in the former design.
From the time machine (Mark Gurman, 2015):
9to5mac.com
LG publicly claims Apple will release 'iMac 8K' with 8K screen this year - 9to5Mac
Last week, Apple’s biggest display partner LG Display published an explainer on 8K (7,680 by 4,320 resolution) screens, claiming that the specification...
9to5mac.com
Forget FaceID, I hope we get an improved version by Apple of this. That would render the notch a lovely feature. Also should come in standalone display version to join MBP and iMac pro.
Stereoscopic 3D display
Acer-SpatialLabs-stereoscopic screen
I don't see why they need a separate model for it. Give the regular iMac an M1 Max option, and that's it. The existing iMac Pro is different because it needs to accommodate the Xeon processor, the entirely different mobo that comes with that, and the Vega GPU.
Last edited:
On a laptop, which you are likely to plug into a TV or projector on the go, I agree lacking HDMI is nuts. Apple was being annoying from 2016-2020, so I held onto my superior 2014 MBP.
But on a desktop, it's fairer for the answer to be a dongle or dock. iMacs never even had HDMI out. We got mini DP at best, still requiring an adaptor for most monitors.
Last edited:
You chose an interesting time to convert, considering that Macs actually have the best CPUs now, which you can't put into a custom build.
Agree. However we the “spoiled Apple display lookers” don’t enjoy going under 200ppi and then there’s not much offer out there, and surely not under 1.5k. I think people arguing against HDMI are these. Personally just wish Apple releases a standalone display to match MBP, iMac Pro Displays.
Right.
If the larger iMac is, as usual, largely the same as the smaller one but with a bigger screen, I think they would’ve launched it this year. The 24-inch iMac already exists as the new mainstream iMac. The bigger one now serves a different audience.
That’s my headcanon anyway.
Type C doesn’t solve any problem. If you need an adapter to connect to a screen, just make it another Thunderbolt port. The whole appeal of having a HDMI socket is that any HDMI cable will just work.
Yes, and I already agreed.
You’re right, they should consider that.
Not radically different, but for some reason the original 20" iMac G5 came with a higher-capacity HDD than the 17" one.
Pointless? I think not, a hell of a lot of people use multiple displays with iMacs and not having to use up a Thunderbolt port for that would be amazing. As it stands our iMac Pro’s st work have 1 of their 4 Thunderbolt ports taken up with a Thunderbolt to HDMI adapter, let alone what that does to its limited 2 busses. Having that be direct HDMI would be amazing.
Also video editors don’t use their internal drives. 512GB would be absolutely just fine for me, I’m hooked up to a work server and a storage server providing a combined half a petabyte, I don’t need internal space for anything other than my applications, 512GB would be plenty for that. If they wanna offer that I’ll gladly save the money on drive space and use it for more RAM instead.So it’s a good thing it won’t be a ‘HD’ isn’t it.
The real shame here is that you can’t upgrade the SSD yourself. SSDs are still expensive, but Apple’s upgrade prices are worse than expensive.
What kind of resolution can you drive with HDMI from an iMac Pro? Is it capped at 1 display @ 4K?