The display will be of less quality. It probably won't have local dimming. It won't be capable of 1600 nits of brightness. It won't be 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio. The list goes on. You can do a 6K display with P3 color for a lot less than the XDR.
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.
Credible Leaker Says New iMac to Feature 'Really Big' Display Larger Than Current 27-inch Model
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly.
People look at Apple's prices and are shocked that a computer can cost $12,000 or whatever.
But there is a bigger cost that companies have to pay for... the human to operate that computer. Their salary.
Sure... if you're a solo entrepreneur the cost of hardware can be ridiculous.
But companies pay FAR more for their employees. And insurance, benefits, etc.
So yes... the hardware can be peanuts compared to everything else a company has to pay for.
I don't know anything about making screens. A few questions on top of my head as I thought the exact same...
- Could reduced brightness be a cost-saving item?
- Could reduced contrast ratio be a cost-saving item?
- Could a simpler back-panel and hinge be a cost-saving item?
- Could increased volumes provide better margins?
True but at the same time I can't help but think why go all the trouble to develop such a high-quality screen if it's to release an iMac later on that does 98% the job. Sure, some need the absolute best, but the vast majority of creatives will be more than happy to buy a 6K iMac at half the price of the XDR. My gut tells me that half the demand for the XDR is coming from a 'want' rather than a 'need', and it's understandable as it's such a nice screen and there is no close alternative.
I doubt the XDR display is selling very well. It is just outrageously priced for most uses. I have a hard time paying even $1000 for a display. I need decent brightness and color accuracy but nothing like the XDR provides. Paying $6000 with a stand is just nuts for almost everyone. There is no way that that I believe that a 6K iMac cannibalizes any appreciable number of XDR sales.
As I'm learning a lot of what makes the Pro XDR display so expensive is not the 6k panel, but many of these other things.
Apple can likely come up with a cheaper 6k panel for the iMac.
How many watts does the XDR use? I want a new display that has just one USB C cable for power and 6K video.
I saw an HP ENVY 13" notebook. and fell in lust for it. 'It was gold!' It has most of the features I'd need in a Windoze book, and was smallish, but not tiny. And it only had 8g RAM. *WHAT!!!* And No Way To Upgrade. HP apparently made a 32g version, with a 1t SSD, but it's on like permanent back order. So, yeah, I don't know who started it, but the 'you are stuck with what you bought' trend is going strong. I was literally (figuratively) a millimicron (nanometre) from making that thing mine. )It had the 11th generation 'core' chip, called by some other name"(
*sigh* Right to repair is good. People need to fight for Right To Upgrade too! They are similar, but different.
Last edited:
I bought a HDD to USB adapter. Holds two drives. Supposed to be 'the best on the market'. Came highly recommended. A few years later, the big new drive I stuck into it wasn't seen for its full capacity. *WHAT?* I tried again. Nope. Tried a smaller drive, worked okay. *HMM* *WTH* Then after googling around for a while, I found out that the expensive, highly recommended adapter, used a 'cheap chip' in it, that forever made the thing not recognize drives over a certain size. Oops... (And the thing is, it was a silent flaw. It was BUILT with that flaw, and marketed as A Wonderful Thing, with a HUGE flaw)
I had an Adaptec USB hub, obviously years ago, and ran into the same problem. It would not recognize certain drives. Adaptec, I'd assume, was a 'quality' manufacturer. Millions (billions?) of people depended on their SCSI boards, cables, terminators, etc, and other products for their business and personal systems. And they made a POC hub.
The point I'm trying to make is that lecturing people about 'cheap hubs' isn't productive. 'Quality' hubs often use 'cheap chips', and forever doom their owners to having to toss it and buy a new one. Using planer, or 'in vivo' ports are so much better. Usually loads more reliable, and far more convenient. Often the cable from the hub and the system is the weak link, literally. PeeCee companies don't usually add things that cost them money because they want to waste money, or out of 'the kindness of their hearts'. (They have no hearts, and some don't have brains either) They add things that cost them money because they WORK. They make their users lives 'easier'.
But anyway...
I mean, if USB hubs were all that and a loaf of bread, why do companies put in more than one, or two USB ports? Apple has needed to step it up for YEARS on providing ports for their users. Hubs are a rats nest. Hubs aren't elegant. Unpowered hubs are especially junky...
Where do you get the idea that $2k would be a reasonable price for an 32" 6k iMac? Let's forget what the computer part of the package will cost - or what spec it will come with.
And don't forget also that Apple pick a price point and stick to it for years - through several generations - and usually when that happens the intrinsic street value of the components drops over time while Apple's retail price doesn't budge.
Remember when people noted that the 5k 27" iMac cost roughly the same as what Dell were asking for their 27" 5k display at the time? It was effectively saying for early adopters that Apple were giving you a free Mac with your 27" display.
I expect that the value proposition will be the same with a 32" iMac only this time it's Apple themselves selling the display which the iMac will be compared against.
You can worry about the value proposition degrading over time - in this case Dell have stopped selling their UP2715K 5k monitor now.
Dell UK are selling a UP3218K 8K monitor for £3470.40 at the moment - list price £4350. A 280ppi display. Now, marketing wise Apple could get that panel and put it into the iMac on the basis that the 6k Pro XDR is more colour accurate, brighter, more dimming zones etc, and calibrated.
The 8k display needs 2 DP 1.4 cables to run but obviously Apple have previous in creating custom timing controllers for the iMac 5k. There's not enough bandwidth in a Thunderbolt 3 cable to support 8k - Apple would need to wait till Thunderbolt 5 to double the bandwidth for an external display.
Weird thing is, though, that 8k might only smoothly replicate a 4k display in real estate terms which is why Apple are pushing 6k - with extra screen real estate. And a powerful GPU with loads of VRAM would be needed.
Make no mistake though - an iMac with this high resolution and size screen is highly likely to come fully loaded. What person in their right mind is going to buy a skeleton model 6k 32" iMac with 8Gb RAM and 256Gb SSD?
You can clearly expect it to be coming to 1Tb SSD and 32Gb RAM minimum and that's before we consider what CPU/GPU combo Apple are going to put in it. They won't nickel and dime this machine and you can be sure that a 32" iMac will be specced up (and priced up) as an iMac Pro in my opinion.
At least Apple won't be having to pay the Intel tax so perhaps an M1X iMac Pro 32Gb/1Tb won't cost $5k but $4k wouldn't be far away from a well loaded Intel 27" 5k iMac.
Apple usually prices the base models competitively. Only the BTO models are more expensive than comparable PCs.
A typical $2k desktop PC has 32 GB RAM and 2 TB SSD. Assuming that the component shortage ends by the time the new iMacs are released, the GPU is at least as fast as a 32-core Apple GPU. The 32" iMac will have two advantages: the CPU will be faster than in a $2k PC, and the display will be 6k instead of 4k. Those might be worth paying $500 extra, but not much more.
The 27" iMac is the primary product Apple is offering to people who want a desktop Mac with a normal-sized display. Whichever product replaces it can't be much more expensive.
The previous Mac Pro started at $3,000... its successor now starts at $6,000
The current 27" 5K iMac starts at $1,800... its successor will start at ______?
Place your bets, folks...
The current 27" 5K iMac starts at $1,800... its successor will start at ______?
Place your bets, folks...
I can't agree with your pricing suggestions without more detail on tech specs of the hardware you are describing.
While Apple do generally like to keep price points broadly similar the fact that screen sizes are about to change could change the retail prices Apple are asking for.
On the assumption that Apple are about to narrow down the range from having a 21.5" iMac, 27" iMac, and 27" iMac Pro to what I think will be a 24" iMac and 32" iMac Pro it strikes me that there will be pruning of the SKUs as Apple's desktop share recedes and reducing the iMac desktop lines from 3 to 2 is a start.
Detailed specs are almost meaningless, because a non-upgradable all-in-one computer has to cater to a wide range of needs.
A "balanced" budget might allocate 20% for RAM+SSD, 20% for GPU, and 20% for monitor. A few months ago, you got 32 GB RAM and 2 TB SSD for under $400, if you didn't have any specific needs. Prices are a bit higher now, but they should go down.
Once the component shortage ends, $400 will buy a 3060 Ti. By raw specs, it's much faster than a 32-core Apple GPU would be, and it's a bit overkill for most non-gamers.
The $400 monitor is currently a 27" 4k one. A 32" 6k iMac would have an obvious advantage here, but the average buyer would not appreciate it that much. Very few people are interested in $1k+ monitors.
How about we see an actual event to actually get products out the door Tim?
I know but people here are claiming that the iMac is for the creative pros that can't afford a Mac Pro, claiming its too expensive so iMac makes a nice middle ground for them.
It also bears remembering the history of the iMac - it was Jony Ive's first significant contribution to Apple and arguably the poster child of Apple's design-led culture that has allowed it to thrive and prosper.
10 most revolutionary designs by Jony Ive for Apple
As Jony Ive steps down from Apple, we take a look back at his incredible list of industry-defining career highlights, from the the iMac, to the iPod, iPhone and Apple Watch.www.dezeen.com
As such, a mid-tier modular Mac simply makes little sense from Apple's perspective, however much the people here clamour for one.
Don't get me wrong, I love the iMac. The original iMac is probably my favorite computer design if not favorite product design. Its just, life went on and is no longer has a place like VHS players. People are on the go now, they are even using iphone and ipads to replace their laptops so a place for an immobile desktop computer is very thing since those who really need one will go all the way to a PRO tower.
I would imagine education and businesses will be much cheaper to go with Mac Mini and a 3rd part display.
I suppose they could retool the existing case and just make it an edge to edge display ?
That‘d be c. 31 inches ?
That‘d be c. 31 inches ?
The first Retina 5K iMac was introduced in Late 2014 and cost $2499. It’s certainly possible that Apple will introduce a 32” 6K iMac at $2499 for the nano-textureless model w/ the nano-texture option $700-$1000 more. Apple isn’t going to move the iMac to $6000, but it could move to $2499/$3499 and reduce the cost of the Pro XDR down to $4K/$5K. Of course, Apple could merely reduce the number of zones and the maximum brightness down to a 600 nits sustained and 1000 nits maximum to reduce their costs and differentiate the iMac’s panel from the Pro XDR. Obviously, the 24” version is slotted to become the volume seller, even if the initial cost goes up at intro and then down over time as Apple has done over time with the iMac in the past.
And that monitor has been out what, two years? tech gets cheaper.
I’m thinking they simply overpriced the hell out of it to capitalize on
The person who is in for the $1,799 5k INTEL iMac will be shown the 4.6k 24" iMac and the value proposition will be adjusted to show that it's still a good deal. What Apple choose to offer for that money will be up to them.
Apple could create, say, 4 SKUs of a 24" 4.6K iMac and spec it advantageously because it could start with an 8Gb/256Gb/512Gb M1 base spec for a lower pair of SKUs and then upgrade to 16Gb/512Gb/1Tb M1X for an upper pair of SKUs. BTO from the Apple site would up the storage and RAM options
I doubt Apple will start to vary base clock speeds on the chipsets based on what we've seen so far unless their manufacturing starts to produce lower quality CPUs that are stable at lower speeds. So the differentiating points are likely to be amount of compute and graphics cores and the usual ram/storage hence the suggested SKUs as above.
Remember, as you try to fire up your flame throwers, even in the iMac Pro days when you could (with Intel) compare like with like - Apple never went with what a majority of subscribers would have chosen spec wise. Dual raid PCIe 3.0 4x SSD for fast performance, Workstation class Xeon CPU, ECC RAM, heavy gauge aluminium case, huge PSU, and more slots that you can shake a stick at.
So many hobbyists are busy speccing up their dream Macs with Adata SATA QVO SSD, cheapest possible slowest RAM, steel cases and then claiming Apple should sell it for that cheap. It's tiring. They never ever get what they want and only end up whinging more.
Let's start with your last point - a point which is common to many people in speculation threads - the PC builder who wants Apple to build a Mac to their exact specification and budget.
The $400 4k 27" monitor you quote is just what you want Apple to release because it would fit your personal budget. Problem is, I can find a lot of low brightness POS 4k TN 250 nit 75% sRGB garbage panels from no name brands, or I could spend 4 figures on an IPS 99-100% DCI-P3 sRGB 1000 nit photo accurate panel with hundreds of local dimming zones (like an ASUS ProART - link included).
And Apple still won't touch that Asus panel because it's not 218/219ppi.
You don't include too much detail but your $400 monitor budget gives you away. Have Apple released anything for you recently?
At least you understand that a 6k iMac would be a niche thing and that's why I am saying if such a thing was on the cards it's clearly going to replace the iMac Pro and not be some commodity unit that people think they can get for $1700 and put their own RAM and storage in.
You might have missed it, but the 27" retina 5k screen is in a $1k monitor and I reckon it sells well enough in an iMac for Apple to have kept using it. Would you rather Apple use a budget TN panel 23" 1080p screen to make it even more affordable? This is effectively why a detailed budget is important - because Apple will continue to use stuff that some of us don't feel are important in their own dream Apple spec.
$400 for any GPU is moot because Apple won't be using third party GPUs and any extrapolations based on articles that are taking benchmarks for the existing 8 GPU cores in the M1 and multiplying by 4 are similarly moot. The reason is Apple were never interested in getting the highest performance out of AMD or Nvidia. It was always about power efficiency and noise and it's clear that Apple will call it a day when they reach their own internal targets - eg it just has to be 'adequate' for the job at hand without breaking the TDP budget.
You can see now that Apple use GPU acceleration for stuff like video rendering, if it works for gamers then fine. But don't be fooled by Apple's apparent inability to use 'good' graphics. In the last 5 years Nvidia have spent 1.5-4Bn dollars a year on R&D. Apple could match that and have some expert chip designers and access to TSMC. Basically, Apple could match that and see what they turn out in GPU tech over the next 5 years - but you won't ever see the results of it in a PC because they won't sell separately. I'm ready to sit back and look at benchmarks for the GPU side of Apple's pro business but the more important thing with VR on the horizon is Metal and the software rather than ultimate horsepower on paper. That's a digression though - back to the discussion.
Your 'balanced' budget for a PC, even in the current day and age, is also confusing if you look at the expected bill of materials budget of the iMac. We can guess how much the CPU, RAM, motherboard, and SSD on an intel Mac costs, and a 27" panel to Apple's spec probably dwarfs all of it put together. And the custom machined aluminium case, how much does that cost?
Apple aren't going to be hit as bad during this current component shortage but they will have plans to mitigate - look at how impossible it is to get a PS5 at the moment, even phone shipments could be hit this year.
Already addressed the rest of this but the point is an ARM iMac is bound to be a relative bargain now because the price point on launch will stay roughly the same - notwithstanding exchange rate changes - and may even be underlined by external Dell monitors with similar panels on launch for roughly the same price as the base 24" 4.6k iMac just as it was for the 27" 5k panels back in the day.
We only need to wait till October at the latest so could sit tight for a while and see, but max brightness and reducing local dimming zones is certainly one way to cost reduce the panels but I still think 32" 6k is an iMac Pro panel size.
The iMac is Apple's bread and butter desktop, they're not going to make it unaffordable. It's going to be in the same ballpark as today's iMac, better spec'd too.
I'm expecting them to introduce 24" iMac models that are comparably priced to today's 21.5" models, same thing for the 30" or whatever exact size it turns out to be, that model will not be significantly more expensive than today's 27" iMac.
Frustrating to be waiting and not knowing the real details, or timing. But it won't be long.
It's coming.
I'm expecting them to introduce 24" iMac models that are comparably priced to today's 21.5" models, same thing for the 30" or whatever exact size it turns out to be, that model will not be significantly more expensive than today's 27" iMac.
Frustrating to be waiting and not knowing the real details, or timing. But it won't be long.
It's coming.
I think you missed the point.
I was talking about building a general-purpose $2000 computer for a wide variety of users. Because different users are going to value different things and use the computer for different purposes, it doesn't make sense to spend too much on any particular aspect of the computer.
Price and value are fundamentally different things. The 27" iMac screen may cost $1k, but the average user sees a display with a bit higher resolution that's worth much less. A gamer might put a $700 or $800 GPU into a $2k computer, but most users would not get sufficient value for that money. I would personally choose 64 GB RAM for a $2k desktop, but again most users would not get any value from the extra memory.
A $2k iMac competes with a wide range of $2k desktop PCs. The design and the convenience are worth something, but Apple's one-size-fits-all approach means the user often has to spend money on things they don't care about. If a "balanced" $2k desktop can offer 32 GB RAM and 2 TB SSD, Apple can't be competitive by selling much less in the $2k to $2.5k price range. And the new 24" iMac should not be the only replacement for the 27" iMac in that range, because the small display would be a serious downgrade by today's standards.
Apple's product range has always been a bit hit-and-miss for me.
Larger MBPs used to be good value for my money, but the touchbar generation changed that. I still have a 2017 MBP from work, but I would not have bought one myself. I just got an M1 MBA, because I'm supposed to start porting some software to Apple silicon. It's too early to say anything about it, but at least the keyboard is good, so maybe future MBPs will be better.
Early 27" iMacs were good. You got a large display, plenty of memory, an SSD, and a large HDD for a reasonable price. The Fusion Drive models were worse, and I wasn't really interested in iMacs until going SSD-only became reasonable. I might have been in the target audience for the iMac Pro, but I wasn't looking for a new desktop at that time. When I finally needed one, the 2020 iMac was a better deal.
I could get a Mac Pro, but I've never seen the point in buying one. I've always had access to sufficient computing power in data centers and cloud servers. A $4k to $5k desktop is convenient for running some moderately heavy stuff locally. Once the workload becomes too heavy for the desktop, it's likely that a single Mac Pro would also be insufficient.
I mentioned a $400 27" 4k monitor, because I recently bought one (LG 27UN850-W) to use with my iMac. It was very good value for money. I also have the LG 5k monitor at work, but I don't value it much above $600. And given that 5k displays haven't become more popular over the years, most people don't value them that high either.
Not a lie, just ongoing experience. You should click around this forum.