Complete 'Apple Studio' Package With Highest-End Mac Studio, Studio Display, and Accessories Costs Nearly $11,000

[Steve121178]

Apple doesn’t want working class people using their computers.

They are making it hard. Most people I know who have bought new hardware have gone the PC route. Apple is just too damn expensive these days.

Even the 24" iMac is hardly a spontaneous purchase. Back in the day £1200 wasn't too bad but once you add a few CTO options on the 24" and Apple Care it's over £2000!

 

[H2SO4]

People complaining about the pricing on this are not people using it for anything that requires it.

This is bargain pricing. Build anything similar power in pc land and compare.

Please pipe down with that rubbish. There are likely lots of small outfits who are doing the same kind of work that is just as important to them that either cannot obtain or justify that level of expense.
Why do people parrot that kind of crap?

 

[MacATDBB]

Jony Ive has clearly left the building. That's not a bad thing, although we seem to have gone now with the MBP and Studio in the opposite direction.

 

[chucker23n1]

Please pipe down with that rubbish. There are likely lots of small outfits who are doing the same kind of work that is just as important to them that either cannot obtain or justify that level of expense.

Very few people need an $11,000 setup from Apple. The $1,300 iMac or even the $1,000 Air is plenty even for medium use cases.

Even if you do need the performance of the M1 Ultra (which is true for a very small number of people), that starts $3,800, not $11,000. It's only when you add a lot of internal storage that things go south. Or when you add their display. Which, granted, is very pricey. But do you need that display? Probably not.

Why do people parrot that kind of crap?

I don't know. Why do people throw the $11,000 number around? It only serves to incite meaningless arguments. "Oh man, I was gonna spend $1500 on my next computer, but instead, Apple wants $11000 from me" is not an actual scenario anyone is going to encounter.

 

[theluggage]

Those people are underestimating the value and power that the Mac mini + new Studio Display bring to the table.

With the Mac Studio - I've already said that the price is OK by Apple standards.

The problem is, it is OK for a M1 Max machine, and there's nothing who would have been quite happy with M1 Pro in a Mini or iMac format. There's no value in being forced to buy more power than you need.

And, sorry, all the new Studio Display brings to the table is a 5-year-old panel costing $1600 that used to be bundled into iMacs starting at $1800.

...OK it's got speakers and microphones that will probably turn out to be very impressive considering they're buried in a thin'n'crispy display but I bet they won't beat the proper mics and studio monitor speakers that creatives have in their, you know, studios. Dolby Atmos? You don't mix surround sound using a 2 speaker 'virtual surround' system...

Now you don't have to throw away the screen (or computer) once things go south for one or the other.

Which is what (at least in my case) I've wanted since forever.

I completely agree - if there'd been a $2000-$3000 powerful desktop Mac in mid 2017, I wouldn't have bought my iMac (I even flirted with the idea of a Trashcan, but Apple still wanted full price for 2013 tech even after they'd announced it was a dead end...). But, the saving grace of the iMac was that you got, at the time, about the best display on the market at a bargain price.

Problem is 4-5 years later, that panel is about to be obsoleted by MiniLED, maybe even MicroLED within the lifetime of the Mac Studio. If they'd bundled it in a new iMac at similar prices to before then OK - it's still a very decent display - but not at a whopping $1600 stand-alone when even the $1300 LG Ultrafine was overdue a price cut due to its age.

I don't think it is a deal breaker for me - part of the point of moving away from iMac was to get to choose my own displays and I'm certainly seriously pondering the M1 Max Mac Studio.

Even in base form the M1 Mini is formidable. Perhaps this WWDC or fall we'll get Pro and Max options for it.

The M1 Max Studio is the M1 Max Mini: Imagine an M1 Pro Mini at the same price as the current i5 Mini ($1100) add $600 for 32GB RAM, $400 for the Pro->Max upgrade (see MBP14 pricing) and you get $2100.

An M1 Pro Mini would have been an instant buy for me. If I do buy a Studio and they later release an M1 Pro Mini, I will be sorely vexed...

 

[chucker23n1]

With the Mac Studio - I've already said that the price is OK by Apple standards.

The problem is, it is OK for a M1 Max machine, and there's nothing who would have been quite happy with M1 Pro in a Mini or iMac format.

Yeah, there's a bit of a gap in the $1000 to $2000 area right now. I imagine some people would like either a Mac mini configured all the way up to 32 GB RAM, which doesn't exist and which would presumably be $1299. Or a Mac Studio configured down to just an M1 Pro and 1GigE, which also doesn't exist and would presumably be $1399. (Assuming 512 GB SSD here, to have comparable configs.)

I expect we'll see a Mac mini with M2 this year, though. And I wouldn't be surprised if they increase the RAM ceiling on that one to 32 GB. At that point, it's not a big gap — you could spend another $700 to get the M1 Max instead of M2, 10 GigE, and more ports (though I wouldn't be surprised if the M2 is able to add some ports back). Or you could, y'know, not.

Now, the display is another story… I really hope some third parties finally start making >200 ppi displays for three figures. (Or, Apple brings back better subpixel rendering support and/or non-integer scaling, but that ain't happening.) That's all I really want.

 

[theluggage]

I don't know. Why do people throw the $11,000 number around?

Several people here have already called out MacRumors for the troll-y $11,000 number - which includes $2400 for a 8TB SSD, the highest RAM available, and the hyper-expensive textured glass and the "Yes, Tim, it's still ridiculous at $400" stand. It's always been possible to get a $$how much!? figure by adding all the BTO options - a few people need that but it is irrelevant to the majority.

The problem is the total removal of the $2000-$3000 5k iMac options, the Studio Display's apparent lack of any sort of improved panel tech over those iMacs, and lack of a M1 Pro Mini to replace the i5/i7. You're now looking at $3600 + keyboard + mouse for a complete "all Apple" 5k system.

Yes, that might get you a lot more power than a ~$2500 iMac - even a hypothetical M1 Pro iMac - but (and this is what some people don't seem to get when they're playing 'Top Trumps' with specs) there is no value in being forced to buy more power than you need.

Still, if you need an M1 Max and are going to go bring-your-own-display-keyboard-and-mouse then the M1 Max Mac Studio is looking reasonable. The M1 Ultra version is something new - I wish I needed one.

 

[chucker23n1]

Several people here have already called out MacRumors for the troll-y $11,000 number - which includes $2400 for a 8TB SSD, the highest RAM available, and the hyper-expensive textured glass and the "Yes, Tim, it's still ridiculous at $400" stand. It's always been possible to get a $$how much!? figure by adding all the BTO options - a few people need that but it is irrelevant to the majority.

It reminds me of the early iPhone days when people told me "well, actually, the iPhone costs $2,000!", because they factored in their cellular contract over the course of two years. Which, OK, but either you need a cellphone or you don't.

If you need nano-texture glass, $300 isn't cheap, but I've seen far worse from Apple (say, the $1000 it costs to get the same option on the Pro XDR). If you need an 8 TB SSD (do you? really?), and you need it to be built in (really?), then, yeah, you're gonna have to suck it up. But you probably don't. Especially on a desktop. And so on.

There are BTO options you better do think about (the RAM, for example), but also ones where alternatives do exist.

The problem is the total removal of the $2000-$3000 5k iMac options, the Studio Display's apparent lack of any sort of improved panel tech over those iMacs, and lack of a M1 Pro Mini to replace the i5/i7. You're now looking at $3600 + keyboard + mouse for a complete "all Apple" 5k system.

If you want a desktop, that is, yes. And one that's beefier than the 24-inch iMac.

I kind of feel like this is a you get what you wish for, thing, though. People were asking for a "headless Mac" or "xMac" for almost two decades.

I think the performance gap between the mini and Studio will sort itself out later this year.

The display is a different story. Neither Microsoft nor Apple seems willing or able to spur third-party development of high-res external displays. I don't want an Apple display. I just want a display where text doesn't look awful. Any at all.

 

[svish]

Very costly for the high end versions.

 

[H2SO4]

Very few people need an $11,000 setup from Apple. The $1,300 iMac or even the $1,000 Air is plenty even for medium use cases.

Even if you do need the performance of the M1 Ultra (which is true for a very small number of people), that starts $3,800, not $11,000. It's only when you add a lot of internal storage that things go south. Or when you add their display. Which, granted, is very pricey. But do you need that display? Probably not.



I don't know. Why do people throw the $11,000 number around? It only serves to incite meaningless arguments. "Oh man, I was gonna spend $1500 on my next computer, but instead, Apple wants $11000 from me" is not an actual scenario anyone is going to encounter.

You make some good points.
I run a small company. As we speak I’m contracted to a much bigger firm for commissioning works.
They are using some test equipment called a Dewetron. Whilst I cannot afford to the six needed for the work being done doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t need it if and when the opportunity comes along, (theirs are fully specced out at over £50k a piece). Instead I typically have to turn some of the work down due to the outlay involved.
I don’t get this you’re not doing serious work if you can’t afford it attitude.

 

[chucker23n1]

I don’t get this you’re not doing serious work if you can’t afford it attitude.

I would phrase it as: yes, a lot of people won't be able to afford it, but OTOH, for a lot of people, this machine is very much overkill.

I wouldn't judge the "serious"ness of someone else's work. Lots of professions don't require a very fast CPU or GPU.

 

[AndyDiamond]

I'm just here to see all the comments from people complaining about the price of something they'll never need to purchase.

 

[H2SO4]

I would phrase it as: yes, a lot of people won't be able to afford it, but OTOH, for a lot of people, this machine is very much overkill.

I wouldn't judge the "serious"ness of someone else's work. Lots of professions don't require a very fast CPU or GPU.

Granted. It just seems like everybody gets all negative on you if you tell them you do need it.

 

[Shaunik]

We’ll have to wait but seems, we won’t be able to upgrade SSD or RAM ?

 

[SalisburySam]

I can only imagine how quickly the $11K Studio will handle TurboTax this year…

 

[DeepIn2U]

Ordered a full spec Studio for $8k and 3 studio displays for another $6900. Should be sweet but best part is you can always return. In within 14 days if it’s not hat you wanted after all. Can’t wait though.

Looking forward to seeing that set up

 

[MacBH928]

The prices is absolutely not bad, its about the equivalent , I would say, to a 1 month (or 2) income of any pro worker. IMO its worth more giving how much oney it can generate. Easily would be worth $20K will $833/m over 24 months. You can consider it business cost.

To put things into perspective , the most basic video editor charges about $25/hr . amounts to $5K/m on 8 hr-25day work month. Heck , 2 pro workers can use the same machine on two shifts a day and cost to each will be only $415/month.

As I posted on another thread:

I can not believe those who are complaining about the price of the Studio. $6,000 for all that performance is a bargain.

Back in 1988 when I started doing serious CAD work on military hospitals, I bought the first 486 computer released. It was a 486-25mhz, with a Rendition hi res graphics card, special hard drive and controller, and a 20" Monitor. It cost me $10,000, which adjusted for inflation is $23,765 in todays dollars. Intel released the 50mhz version of the 486, so I upgraded to that for $500. I needed every ounce of performance to handle the big composite floor plans I produced. I was self employed at the time, worked a part of Communication Consultants trio.

When you are in business, you buy the machinery necessary to do the job most efficiently.

I am surprised 25Mhz was the speed in 1988 , I had a 33Mhz in 1995 that you can push a turbo button to make it 66Mhz. The $500 price , even adjusted to inflation is pretty near the ballpark of today processors. i9 I slike $600 and GPUs are easily reaching $1-2K.

 

[Boris Bronson]

They are making it hard. Most people I know who have bought new hardware have gone the PC route. Apple is just too damn expensive these days.

Even the 24" iMac is hardly a spontaneous purchase. Back in the day £1200 wasn't too bad but once you add a few CTO options on the 24" and Apple Care it's over £2000!

Exactly. I’ve actually gone completely the other way now and just bought a gimped up Pi. I’ve got Visual Studio Code on it for lab work and I’m closing down my Apple app and rewriting it as a Progressive Web App.

Fair play to Apple, though. They’ve done well to create the inflation narrative to replace Moore’s Law and justify the increasing cash grabs.

 

[oldwatery]

I get that some are upset that a "pro" mini was not announced. It was the machine I was waiting for with much anticipation. But after a few choice swear words I settled down to really look at the new Studio (ignoring all the silly $11k rants from everyone including MR) and realized that even though I don't absolutely need the full power of a Max, it really is nice having the extra speed and power and as such represents a fair deal, all things considered. (The Pro chip adds about $500 to a basic computer so guessing a Mini with Pro chip would probably have started at $1399 base)
A fully loaded M1 Mini plus LG 5k monitor comes to about $2800. So a Pro mini would probably come in at around $3300 for a base model with monitor.
With the Studio display, I am at $3600. Now $800+ over a loaded M1 system aint exactly chump change but when you look at the amazing performance, increased specs and other additions to the base monitor it really does start to look like a fair price especially given the high level of build and support. So I will end up spending a few hundred extra than the vapor "pro" mini would probably have cost, but the specs and added value are enough for me to press the go button. But I do see a need for either a "Pro" Studio or "Pro" Mini to fill that hole.

 

[throAU]

Please pipe down with that rubbish. There are likely lots of small outfits who are doing the same kind of work that is just as important to them that either cannot obtain or justify that level of expense.
Why do people parrot that kind of crap?

Because those people for what this hardware is suitable for could use an M1 (not pro or max) for the most part and get better performance than anything in PC land for 1.5x the price.

Build something as fast for the jobs this is targeted at for less. You can't.

 

[Starflyer]

My M1 Mini outperforms my 2020 i7 iMac 27".

 

[subi257]

Apple directly compared the 28 core 2019 MacPro with the M1ultra to be faster, along with the top-of-the-line GPU.
Also:

M1 Ultra Outperforms 28-Core Intel Mac Pro in First Leaked Benchmark

The first benchmark for Apple's M1 Ultra chip popped up on Geekbench following today's event, confirming that the doubled-up M1 Max is indeed...

www.macrumors.com

So I would say that you can directly compare them, no problem.
Obviously the MacPro still has its advantages, but when it comes to performance, it is outclassed by a computer somewhere around 1/10 it’s price

That's still vague, they did not specific that it was compared to a full boat 7,1.....dual Radeon Pro W6800X Duo GPU's with 64GB RAM each, AfterBurner card 1.5TB RAM, etc.
plus, the 28 core CPU is not specifically the best....it depends on the applications you are running. If they are not fully multi threaded, then they will not be fast as they are not using all of the cores. In that case the 16 core is the better option.