Death of 27" iMac is a good thing.

[arvinsim]

peeps is it only me or anyone else seeing the border of the studio display has the some width as the iMac 24/ will be the same for the future 27 imac that will be standing on the side of an studio display with same looks.

I work as a freelance video editor and the imac is my absolute weapon of choice over any Mac. Why?:
-it is powerful enough to handle any 4K offline edit (most actual films get still edited with 1080 proxies anyways)
-it has enough connectivity to be a part of a full scale editing suite in my studio
-I can take it with me in its own packaging in a really uncomplicated way. And I am able to carry one of the best displays on the market with a work capable computer.
This last bit is actually part of my freelance routine: I take it on longer jobs out of town to edit on other projects at that time. I take it to grannys house to work in summer from there. I even did one day edit jobs on location if the pay is right and take my own equipment.

And I’m for sure not the only one. Most offline editing suites which are apple based use the specced out imac. This might change definitely with the Mac studio, because it’s ultimately cheaper to just upgrade the little box. But that’s really only the case for fixed workplaces. Which I sadly/luckily don’t have. And I’m pretty sure with covid there are many like me.

So my hopes for next gear in studio is:
-iMac 27 with m1 ultra or whatever
-studio display (who knows maybe the pro version comes

Sorry for the long text I’m really not used to forum discussions and just making it worse myself haha

// oh and yesterday on twitter rightfully notes the gap of 2000usd between the mac studios. 3000€ Was the price of my last iMac specced out (but ram and ssd) so I guess sadly I’ll be having to pay 4000€ This time for more ram but there will be an option 3000€ entry level iMac

Now I want a 24" iMac with M1 Pro/Max

 

[brojan]

Because as others have said, it disconnects the upgrade paths. I keep my monitors for a very long time but upgrade computers every year or two years.

Plus for me personally, I have a real big problem about non-matching monitors and I typically have 2 or 3 monitor setup. So with no equivalent 27" monitor that completely matches the iMac design (chin and all) is a big problem. The second reason for me is that looking at 60Hz all day causes my eyes to really hurt. Simply using 120 or 144 refresh rate has completely removed my eye strain issue. I can immediately tell if a monitor is on 60Hz even at the desktop. This is also the only reason I got the iPhone 13 Pro for the high refresh rate.

Yes but that’s exactly how every other system is. It’s literally how it’s always been. Disconnecting the upgrade paths is… not breaking any standards?? It is the standard? The iMac is for a separate group who isn’t your own, so I don’t understand why people who don’t want an iMac tell people who do, why they shouldn’t want one either, and the obvious reasons why. Obviously I can replace the monitor or box separately…

It’s as if the “revolutionary” concept here is a monitor that looks like a mac (fits in with the esthetic). It doesn’t even have >60hz refresh or mini LED or anything next gen.

 

[bluespark]

The problem is that the display panel in the Studio Display seems to be little different from the one used in the iMac since 2017, and even that was just a "brighter" version of the 2015 display. It's already overdue to be replaced by something better. Five years will almost certainly see the availability of mini-LED displays, maybe micro-LED, possibly higher resolutions, possibly higher refresh rates. So, yeah, it's still going to be a perfectly good display after 5 years, but yeah, you'll most likely want a new one before then. Just like any new Mac you buy today will probably be a perfectly usable system in 5 years - just not cutting edge.

Sure, but that's much better than having that screen be inextricably locked to a similarly-dated computer. If I want mini-LED or whatever (spoiler alert: I won't), then I can move the Studio Display to a spare room and give it a whole new life there. Maybe that doesn't work for everyone, but it's much better to have the option.

 

[Ethosik]

Yes but that’s exactly how every other system is. It’s literally how it’s always been. Disconnecting the upgrade paths is… not breaking any standards?? It is the standard? The iMac is for a separate group who isn’t your own, so I don’t understand why people who don’t want an iMac tell people who do, why they shouldn’t want one either, and the obvious reasons why. Obviously I can replace the monitor or box separately…

It’s as if the “revolutionary” concept here is a monitor that looks like a mac (fits in with the esthetic). It doesn’t even have >60hz refresh or mini LED or anything next gen.

But that’s the thing. My choice before with Intel was the horrible Mac mini or the outrageously expensive Mac Pro. Now there’s a mid ground choice for my use case. Gating a high end “desktop” to an all in one and that’s the only choice has always irritated me with Apple.

 

[theluggage]

Sure, but that's much better than having that screen be inextricably locked to a similarly-dated computer.

That describes a 2017 iMac today. 5 year old panel in a 5 year old computer.
...but when your Mac Studio is 5 year-old tech, your Studio Display will be 10-year-old tech.

Heck, I prefer the idea of a separate computer and display - but people are acting like they're obliged to take an axe to their iMac after 5 years, which is like Logan's Run in dog years... and the alternative is paying $1600 for an old display that used to have a notional cost of maybe $800 when it was built into an iMac.

 

[jz0309]

I think it will take thru 2023 to really see Apples new Mac lineup which may include a larger iMac … all speculation for now

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Because as others have said, it disconnects the upgrade paths. I keep my monitors for a very long time but upgrade computers every year or two years.

Plus for me personally, I have a real big problem about non-matching monitors and I typically have 2 or 3 monitor setup. So with no equivalent 27" monitor that completely matches the iMac design (chin and all) is a big problem. The second reason for me is that looking at 60Hz all day causes my eyes to really hurt. Simply using 120 or 144 refresh rate has completely removed my eye strain issue. I can immediately tell if a monitor is on 60Hz even at the desktop. This is also the only reason I got the iPhone 13 Pro for the high refresh rate.

Yet laptops are far more popular than desktops, and laptops are 100% AIO. I don't see anyone crying they couldn't use Target Display Mode on their old MacBook Pro (display perfectly good, the rest of the internals inadequate to their needs).

I'm an iMac fan. Display of a size that suits my needs and eyesight; very clean desktop footprint; one less external cable to come unplugged/fail; one less item requiring a separate mains power outlet; no harder to service than a laptop.

Bear in mind I spent over 25 years in recording studios and broadcast facilities. Interconnecting (and repairing) gear comes as second nature to me. Once you've designed and wired-up a six-studio broadcast facility, computers are child's play.

AIO is a choice. Those who prefer separate CPU and display can certainly get that. What they usually don't mention is that this "flexibility" comes at a higher price - purchasing a second chassis/enclosure and power supply. I priced the Studio Display and M1 mini... no way I'll pay that just for the sake of a 27-inch display and "flexibility" - and a 27-inch display of similar quality from another maker (plus speakers, camera, and microphone) is still no bargain. I'd rather downsize to a 24-inch iMac.

(added) Further, I don't replace my CPUs every 2-3 years. I'm currently still using a late 2013 iMac.

I'm reminded of the Hi-Fi enthusiasts who would buy separate FM tuner, pre-amp, and power amp from a single manufacturer (of course, they were supposed to mix-and-match from multiple manufacturers). Those same manufacturers also sold receivers that bundled the FM tuner, pre-amp, and power amp into one box. The internals were built to the same high standards in either case. Three power plugs, far more shelf space, interconnect wiring between the three... for what?

In theory I could be using the display in my 20-inch 2008 iMac in target display, but I want Retina/HD quality. I could use my 27-inch Late 2013 iMac as a second display (once I retire it), but it's not going to look so great next to a 5K. My Retina 27-inch iMac at work is dual-display with an LG 5k display. It's like having matching left and right speakers for stereo - if I'm editing photos I want to have the flexibility to do the work on either display, in the same quality.

Altogether, the AIO vs. separates argument here is identical to the aforementioned Hi-Fi situation. I'm convinced that attitudes forged in the pages of High Fidelity magazine simply migrated to computing. "Connoisseurs" advertise their status by preferring separates.

 

[profcutter]

Yet laptops are far more popular than desktops, and laptops are 100% AIO. I don't see anyone crying they couldn't use Target Display Mode on their old MacBook Pro (display perfectly good, the rest of the internals inadequate to their needs).

I'm an iMac fan. Display of a size that suits my needs and eyesight; very clean desktop footprint; one less external cable to come unplugged/fail; one less item requiring a separate mains power outlet; no harder to service than a laptop.

Bear in mind I spent over 25 years in recording studios and broadcast facilities. Interconnecting (and repairing) gear comes as second nature to me. Once you've designed and wired-up a six-studio broadcast facility, computers are child's play.

AIO is a choice. Those who prefer separate CPU and display can certainly get that. What they usually don't mention is that this "flexibility" comes at a higher price - purchasing a second chassis/enclosure and power supply. I priced the Studio Display and M1 mini... no way I'll pay that just for the sake of a 27-inch display and "flexibility" - and a 27-inch display of similar quality from another maker (plus speakers, camera, and microphone) is still no bargain. I'd rather downsize to a 24-inch iMac.

(added) Further, I don't replace my CPUs every 2-3 years. I'm currently still using a late 2013 iMac.

I'm reminded of the Hi-Fi enthusiasts who would buy separate FM tuner, pre-amp, and power amp from a single manufacturer (of course, they were supposed to mix-and-match from multiple manufacturers). Those same manufacturers also sold receivers that bundled the FM tuner, pre-amp, and power amp into one box. The internals were built to the same high standards in either case. Three power plugs, far more shelf space, interconnect wiring between the three... for what?

In theory I could be using the display in my 20-inch 2008 iMac in target display, but I want Retina/HD quality. I could use my 27-inch Late 2013 iMac as a second display (once I retire it), but it's not going to look so great next to a 5K. My Retina 27-inch iMac at work is dual-display with an LG 5k display. It's like having matching left and right speakers for stereo - if I'm editing photos I want to have the flexibility to do the work on either display, in the same quality.

Altogether, the AIO vs. separates argument here is identical to the aforementioned Hi-Fi situation. I'm convinced that attitudes forged in the pages of High Fidelity magazine simply migrated to computing. "Connoisseurs" advertise their status by preferring separates.

There’s a difference with laptops, the screens may be good, but they don’t have the size or ergonomics of a massive desktop display. The idea is that you could buy an iMac 27, keep it as long as it worked for you, and then when you wanted to upgrade, you’d at least have the option of getting a new CPU box, be it a mini, a pro, or even a PC. That’s what we lost when they killed target mode. I’m also an iMac convert, at least for a dedicated work machine, but killing target mode was a bad idea. I do wish that apple would do a big iMac with target mode, but that seems less likely than ever.

 

[dfine1966]

The 27 inch iMac is not being cancelled. It will be out in 2023.

Here is a link to an article from Macworld. Stop worrying.

32-inch iMac Pro: What you need to know about the rumors

Apple no longer makes an iMac with a larger screen, but could Apple be planning to revive the larger model? Here's what we've heard.

www.macworld.com

 

[brojan]

WHY do people keep telling those of us who want an AIO solution that it’s better to separate it?? Sure, better for you.

Obviously I’m aware I can’t separate the screen from the computer. OBVIOUSLY.

But iMac fans understand what we appreciate about iMacs. I don’t care if I can’t upgrade one component after 5 years. I want to use it for 7-8 years. I’m not a pro. I do routine daily work on it. The footprint is nice. The simplicity is nice. The esthetics are nice. The single cable is nice. I’ve owned one since late 2013 and it’s now slowing down for my use case. I’d like to buy one for another 7-8 years.

If the studio display is lame and old after 7-8 years and the Mac mini lasts me 5 before I upgrade it, then I’m stuck with offset upgrade cycles.

Then I have to get a new display 2 years into my next Mac which is then to be replaced 3 years later. Etc etc.

 

[Ethosik]

Yet laptops are far more popular than desktops, and laptops are 100% AIO. I don't see anyone crying they couldn't use Target Display Mode on their old MacBook Pro (display perfectly good, the rest of the internals inadequate to their needs).

I'm an iMac fan. Display of a size that suits my needs and eyesight; very clean desktop footprint; one less external cable to come unplugged/fail; one less item requiring a separate mains power outlet; no harder to service than a laptop.

Bear in mind I spent over 25 years in recording studios and broadcast facilities. Interconnecting (and repairing) gear comes as second nature to me. Once you've designed and wired-up a six-studio broadcast facility, computers are child's play.

AIO is a choice. Those who prefer separate CPU and display can certainly get that. What they usually don't mention is that this "flexibility" comes at a higher price - purchasing a second chassis/enclosure and power supply. I priced the Studio Display and M1 mini... no way I'll pay that just for the sake of a 27-inch display and "flexibility" - and a 27-inch display of similar quality from another maker (plus speakers, camera, and microphone) is still no bargain. I'd rather downsize to a 24-inch iMac.

(added) Further, I don't replace my CPUs every 2-3 years. I'm currently still using a late 2013 iMac.

I'm reminded of the Hi-Fi enthusiasts who would buy separate FM tuner, pre-amp, and power amp from a single manufacturer (of course, they were supposed to mix-and-match from multiple manufacturers). Those same manufacturers also sold receivers that bundled the FM tuner, pre-amp, and power amp into one box. The internals were built to the same high standards in either case. Three power plugs, far more shelf space, interconnect wiring between the three... for what?

In theory I could be using the display in my 20-inch 2008 iMac in target display, but I want Retina/HD quality. I could use my 27-inch Late 2013 iMac as a second display (once I retire it), but it's not going to look so great next to a 5K. My Retina 27-inch iMac at work is dual-display with an LG 5k display. It's like having matching left and right speakers for stereo - if I'm editing photos I want to have the flexibility to do the work on either display, in the same quality.

Altogether, the AIO vs. separates argument here is identical to the aforementioned Hi-Fi situation. I'm convinced that attitudes forged in the pages of High Fidelity magazine simply migrated to computing. "Connoisseurs" advertise their status by preferring separates.

I can’t operate an iMac in clamshell mode. Which is what I do 99.9% of the time with all my laptops.

 

[blairh]

This is pretty shocking. I still think we see a 30" iMac at some point. Probably not till late 2023.

Or maybe Apple feels the 24" model is big enough to make everyone happy.

 

[dizmonk]

The value proposition would have been good if not for the expensive Studio Display.

I get it but I really don't understand why so many people are linking the two. I got the Mac Studio and a $400 monitor. A 5k or even 4k monitor is nice but to me, the computer is way more important than the monitor. I honestly don't get it. Why do people feel like they can't buy a lesser/cheaper monitor????

 

[ThunderSkunk]

We know when iMacs get old and slow down, they're usefulness is limited. Specifically because of their inability to be used as a secondary target display.

...your new Studio Display with never be obsolete...

Spending $1600 USD on a Studio Display is an investment...but it will likely last longer than any 27" iMac would have.

On the contrary. An iMac is a computer, and like any machine it still needs periodic cleaning. Dust builds up in the cooling system is the only thing that physically slows the computer down, and an occasional fresh reinstall of the OS and your apps keeps the software running smoothly. Apple makes this as difficult as possible, but you should still get a pizzacutter tool and some adhesive strips and blow the dust out of it once every couple years.

The new studio display is practically obsolete already. It's not an investment, its an expense, unless you usually invest in things guaranteed to lose money. And like Apples other standalone displays and current products, it will only last as long as Apple decides to support it, which is never forever anyway. I've got a 14yo base model iMac humming along just fine in a guest bedroom with zero maintenance. I bought one for my mother back then that I upgraded with an SSD that she still uses daily for everything in her entire household. I've got even more expensive Apple displays that don't work with new Macbooks or even an Apple TV to prove it. You can't upgrade an imac anymore, but that's a recent decision by Apple, just like discontinuing the 27. None of these decisions are necessary, they're just reflective of the current values of the richest company on earth.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Now I want a 24" iMac with M1 Pro/Max

I want an iPad with an M2 Ultra running OS X. Let me know when I can come down out of my tree.

 

[Abazigal]

I get it but I really don't understand why so many people are linking the two. I got the Mac Studio and a $400 monitor. A 5k or even 4k monitor is nice but to me, the computer is way more important than the monitor. I honestly don't get it. Why do people feel like they can't buy a lesser/cheaper monitor????

They can, but they likely don’t want to. Especially after having gotten used to the screen estate and clarity provided by Apple’s 5k displays.

You will also have to invest in a separate webcam and speakers, though I suppose you could reuse your existing keyboard and mouse. It’s just not as neat and integrated a solution as one might like.

 

[nastysailboat]

Terrible news. Mac mini isn't a replacement for those of us with two external monitors.

iMac has been a workhorse for me and I do not like the cost to replace it with the new Studio and 27" display.

Apple has made a mess of the various M1 chips. Many people use three monitors.

If you already have two monitors isn’t the Mac mini the perfect replacement? All the m1s blow the intel stuff out of the water.

 

[nastysailboat]

They can, but they likely don’t want to. Especially after having gotten used to the screen estate and clarity provided by Apple’s 5k displays.

You will also have to invest in a separate webcam and speakers, though I suppose you could reuse your existing keyboard and mouse. It’s just not as neat and integrated a solution as one might like.

Clearly they weren’t buying the 27 inch iMac if apple thought they didn’t need it any more

 

[nastysailboat]

This still doesn’t mean that a larger “iMac Pro” can’t be added back into their product line as a branch off the current 24” iMac.

The iMac Pro is never coming back. Apple made that as a machine to get the pros by while they waited for the new Mac Pro. Not as something to add to the line up. It’s a one and done machine.

 

[bobtem]

I have the one-and-gone iMac Pro, which I‘m hoping will become a collectors item, worth big bucks. Make me an offer…

 

[dizmonk]

They can, but they likely don’t want to. Especially after having gotten used to the screen estate and clarity provided by Apple’s 5k displays.

You will also have to invest in a separate webcam and speakers, though I suppose you could reuse your existing keyboard and mouse. It’s just not as neat and integrated a solution as one might like.

I get that.. but in my case, a monitor and webcam are costing me $500 not the $1500 the Studio Display would. I'm keeping the imac keyboard and trackpad and have a USB soundbar. I guess I don't understand the anger people have about the Studio Display.. I mean if you don't want to pay $1500 just get a cheaper display... I don't just understand the intensity. People here are pissed... and I don't get it.

 

[profcutter]

I think the frustration is that there’s no affordable 5k display, period. The iMac was a great solution to that problem, because you got the computer and the display starting at 1500 dollars or less. Now, the expectation is that you have to buy just the display for 1500, and then another 1500 or more for the cpu. That’s a pretty hefty price increase at the end of the day, especially considering it doesn’t seem that the Studio Display offers anything more at this time than a 27 inch IMac.

 

[satchmo]

I think the frustration is that there’s no affordable 5k display, period. The iMac was a great solution to that problem, because you got the computer and the display starting at 1500 dollars or less. Now, the expectation is that you have to buy just the display for 1500, and then another 1500 or more for the cpu. That’s a pretty hefty price increase at the end of the day, especially considering it doesn’t seem that the Studio Display offers anything more at this time than a 27 inch IMac.

But you don’t have to spend another $1500 to get an equivalent 27” iMac.

The M1 Mac mini starts at $700 and is pretty much on par with the previous Intel iMac 27”.

 

[profcutter]

But you don’t have to spend another $1500 to get an equivalent 27” iMac.

The M1 Mac mini starts at $700 and is pretty much on par with the previous Intel iMac 27”.

Ok that’s problematic for 2 reasons. One, you’re still starting at 2300 instead of 1500. Now, for 1500 with an iMac 27 inch, you got a great display, and up until 2020 you had the ability to upgrade storage, a feat which is impossible with apple silicon. Further, upgrading ram was a simple affair, just pop open the back door and put in the ram. Need a little more power? No problem, you could get the next model up, or even -gasp- replace the cpu! Up until 2020, the only thing you’re stuck with is the GPU.

Ok, apple silicon runs circles around an intel i5, no question. Here’s the thing: to be equivalent for many video workflows, 16gb of RAM is a laughable minimum, my work machine was 40gb. So now the mini won’t cut it, you’ve got to do the studio to even get 32 gigs of RAM. The price now starts spiraling, when before simply getting a low-end iMac did the trick, with options, of various difficulty, to keep the machine at the pace of your editing. That’s why people, ok maybe just me, bemoan the loss of the 27 inch iMac.

A low-end iMac 27, with 40 gigs ram, still doesn’t break the 2000’dollar barrier, but was great for moderate but not fancy 4K Final Cut editing with lots of layers and effects. An 8 gb mini? Nope. 16 Gb mini? Not really. Ok now you need a studio, and now you’re at almost twice the price of entry.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

I can’t operate an iMac in clamshell mode. Which is what I do 99.9% of the time with all my laptops.

Why would you need to operate an iMac in clamshell? The principle reason for operating a laptop in clamshell is that the user considers both the display and keyboard to be inadequate for desktop use. Clamshell Mac = Mac mini.

This has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make, which is that laptops are also AIOs. People who complain about the "inflexibility" of iMac do not complain about the same characteristics in laptops. They don't complain that the display of a laptop can likely outlast the usability of the rest of the unit. They don't complain that, unlike an iMac's keyboard and tracking device (which are "modular" and easily replaced), they can't easily replace the keyboard and trackpad of a laptop. They don't complain of the lack of Target Display Mode. All this is forgiven in a laptop. Basically, iMacs are being held to a double standard.

Like any other piece of computing hardware, iMac is a choice that suits some but does not suit others. It's inevitable that people feel compelled to explain why a particular product does not suit their needs, but in a thread where folks are semi-mourning the demise of a product they like, what's the point of telling them that they never should have liked it in the first place?