Gurman: Apple Still Working on 'Pro' iMac With Larger Screen

[Lounge vibes 05]

In this case it may be justified, but Apple has so completely worn out the 'pro' moniker that I don't even know what the heck that means to them anymore.

Just as it always has been, “Pro” is simply a marketing term for “better than the basic one.”
The MacBook Pro is bigger, faster, made out of more premium materials then the Air or the old MacBook.
The iPad Pro is bigger, faster, better than the iPad, Mini or Air.
The iMac Pro was faster than the iMac.
The iPhone 13Pro is better than the 13.
The AirPods Pro have more features than the AirPods.
That’s all it means

 

[everlast3434]

Apple really needs to launch an updated iMac in TWO SIZES. This Studio thing is NOT a replacement IMO.

 

[JerryDon]

On the other hand: they have shipped so many great 'Mac' products recently, I don't really care about the marketing names.

Yeah, it seems like the marketing names are a bit meaningless these days. . . They need to start over . . .

 

[Spectrum]

Price wise, the Mac Studio and separate Studio monitor are so massively more expensive than the outgoing 27 inch iMac. It is a completely different product sector. (More like the iMac Pro range).

Outgoing 27 iMac (starting under £2000)
Mac Studio + Display (starting over £3500)

I am clueless why thy dropped the regular 27 inch iMac (other than to force a few people into getting the Mac Studio—or a mac mini with separate display).

 

[progx]

I think there will be a larger screen iMac, but I doubt it will be a “pro” exclusive model. If they make the M2 Pro available to the Mac mini, you can bet there will be an option for the iMac.

Still not sure if they’ll do 27 inches, it could be 32. What hangs me up about the latter screen size, it borders on obnoxious for the consumer, or entry prosumer, for their desk.
Personally, I’d love a 32 inch iMac, but I know 27 inch users who would hate it.

Would 30 inches be possibility?

 

[theluggage]

Just as it always has been, “Pro” is simply a marketing term for “better than the basic one.”

Absolutely, but Apple's self-inflicted problem now is that they've used "pro" for both Mac models and processor models.

...so we have a 13" MacBook Pro that has a "less-than-pro" processor, 14/16" MBPs for which the "pro" processor is entry level, a forthcoming Mac Pro that will certainly have a "better-than-pro" processor - and if they produced a 24" iMac or Mac Mini with a M1/M2 Pro processor, what would they call it...?

I mean, it's still all irrelevant marketing that doesn't affect what the products can or can't do, but it's still a bit of a fail for Apple not to have sat down and come up with a set of 5-6 sensible denominations for their new chips. Preferably not based on the iPhone model where there's simply a new chip for the new phone every September, but taking into account half-a-dozen computer models on different upgrade cycles permuted with 4-5 significantly different SoCs that are also on different upgrade cycles. Intel did better with i3/i5/i7/i9 (though it's far from perfect).

 

[skitidetdu]

Actually, there were. Right after the Mac Studio came out, there were a flurry of rumors saying no iMac Pro or big-screen iMac. The idea was you either want the M1 iMac or a M1-something Mac Studio + external display.

Hm ok I seemed to have missed that. So many rumors flying around it is hard to keep up 😅

 

[azentropy]

A high end iMac "Pro" doesn’t make sense with the Mac Studio + Mac Studio Display filling that spot nicely.
What is really needed IMO is just a larger “entry level" iMac for people who would just like a larger screen in an all-in-one design for what the 27” iMac used to start at (~$1799).
I’d also like to see a 24” iMac in Silver or SG with black bezels.

 

[DMG35]

In fact, the supposed "iMac Pro" is not going to be the natural replacement of the space gray iMac Pro, but the "big" version of the iMac, with the Mx Pro and Mx Max processors (I don't think that, for cooling, it will be able to mount the Ultra). A desktop version of the MacBook Pro, really.

However, if the Mac mini comes out with the M2 and M2 Pro, more or less that "semi-professional" gap in the desktop arena would be filled.

Currently in desktop there is a huge jump between the entry level with the M1 (iMac 24" and Mac mini) and the M1 Max (Mac Studio). So a "Pro" iMac with a larger screen, and with the Mx Pro and Max, would also fill that part of the gap that exists right now.

Now if you want something in between, you only have the MacBook Pro, what we want something desktop we have nothing in that gap that, at the moment, it is not known if it will be the Mac mini M2 Pro + Studio Display or there will also be an iMac 27/30" "Pro".

I'm not really following your logic. Apple could in fact make a larger iMac, but a desktop version of the MacBook Pro would be an iMac Pro.

I don't think that Apple would EVER release a Mac mini Pro. It completely defeats the purpose of the Studio. The Studio is the pro version of the Mac mini.

For the rest of what you wrote I can't really decipher it. There is only a jump between the iMac 24" and Mac mini and Studio Mac because you are creating one. Apple could easily adapt the philosophy of - 24" iMac and Mac mini for consumers and more budget conscious people. Studio Mac with external display for those that want more power and a larger screen of their choice. Mac Pro for professionals. This idea that they HAVE to have some model in between doesn't make much sense to me. Its not saying they won't but I could easily see them keeping things the way they are now for a while.

 

[BKDad]

But now the LG5K is now displaying pink round all the edges.

This might help you. Can't beat the price.

https://www.jscreenfix.com/index.html

 

[boazjoe]

I don't understand why there won't be a 24" iMac with an M2 chip, replacing the M1, either later this year or early next. This should be a relatively easy thing to do requiring minimal engineering resources. They did this with the 13" MacBook Pro. Why wait for the M3?

It may be due to fact that they can't even make enough chip set now. Or it may just be stubbornness - don't want to do it, can't make me do it, only cause you want it.

 

[aidler]

The future of iMac is iPad Pro.

Then make the Studio Display a big iPad. The necessary hardware and a version of iOS is already in it.

 

[ElectricPotato]

Is the desktop market really big enough for a Mac Mini and a Mac Studio, for an iMac and an iMac Pro and also a Mac Pro?

Apple is surely sorting through sales data to see which mix maximizes profit. Pro models effectively don't exist due to price and lack of updates. That leaves:

Mini = entry desktop without display
iMac = entry desktop + integrated display
Studio (with fixed fan noise) = mainstream desktop

Three desktop models is a compact lineup. I see unique use cases for all three.

 

[RSB96]

I'm not really following your logic. Apple could in fact make a larger iMac, but a desktop version of the MacBook Pro would be an iMac Pro.

I don't think that Apple would EVER release a Mac mini Pro. It completely defeats the purpose of the Studio. The Studio is the pro version of the Mac mini.

For the rest of what you wrote I can't really decipher it. There is only a jump between the iMac 24" and Mac mini and Studio Mac because you are creating one. Apple could easily adapt the philosophy of - 24" iMac and Mac mini for consumers and more budget conscious people. Studio Mac with external display for those that want more power and a larger screen of their choice. Mac Pro for professionals. This idea that they HAVE to have some model in between doesn't make much sense to me. Its not saying they won't but I could easily see them keeping things the way they are now for a while.

Yes, there is a leap in desktop.

The "semi-professional" processor, the M1 Pro, is missing.

The M1 Pro I think for many people is fast and powerful enough for "demanding" tasks, without having to go to a much more powerful (and expensive) M1 Max. The M1, especially in GPU, falls short for certain people (myself included), and I think that processor on desktop would be valued by many people, either in a Mac mini (replacing the space gray Mac mini), or in a "Pro" iMac.

The 2017 iMac Pro had Intel Xeon processors, which are what the Mac Pro can carry. It was a transitional replacement between the "trash-can" Mac Pro and the current Mac Pro.

The "Pro" iMac referred to today, is not an all in one with an M1 Ultra, for example, which would be something similar to what we had in 2017. But to a larger and more powerful version, of the 24" iMac M1. With Apple Silicon, this iMac "Pro" would cover the desktop space of a MacBook Pro, with identical processors, but below the Mac Studio.

On the desktop, there is currently no "intermediate" computer between consumer and professional computers, because there is no such gap with the "M1 Pro", which is currently only available in one model (MacBook Pro). On the desktop, either with the "high-end" Mac mini (it won't be called Mac mini Pro, obviously, but it would replace the space gray Mac mini that came out some time ago to fill that "semi-professional" gap), or with the iMac "Pro" (it could be called Pro, but it doesn't necessarily have to be called that way either, being simply iMac 27" or 30", with more sober colors and it would already be, but in this one, from a marketing point of view, it would make sense to use the "Pro" name, since it would use the same processors as the MacBook "Pro").

But Apple has always had a "semi-pro" niche within its product line.

Entry (or consumer) models. MacBook/MacBook Air/MacBook Pro 13", Mac mini, 21.5"/24" iMac.
Semi-professional models: MacBook Pro 14"/16", Mac mini high-end and iMac 27".
Professional models. MacBook Pro 14"/16" high-end, Mac Studio, Mac Pro.

As of today, in this "semi-professional" gap there are two models missing, which can be covered by one model, either the Mac mini or the iMac, or both, but I think that this gap remains to be filled on the desktop, because today there are only "consumer" or "professional" models.

 

[aidler]

I feel your missing the point that Apple has just closed a gigantic gap between the Mini and MacPro that had existed eversince G4 times....

Apple won't go back to pre Jobs times with 267 overlapping Macs. I also don't think the will go back the 4 product square that Steve advocated in late G4 times.

Or in short for every new Mac line another one will be discontinued.

So what’s my solution for an all in one Mac with an 27” display + 16 MB RAM in the price range up to 2.000 $US max?

 

[dandeco]

I knew Apple would still be doing something like that. The Mac Studio and its' accompanying display are great and all, but a higher-end iMac with bigger screen is also ideal for multimedia or audio-video editing labs in colleges and the like. A couple of years ago such a lab at my college's Fine Arts building replaced their 2012 i7 Mac Minis with 27" Retina iMacs, since those have always been ideal for professional audio-video editors. Another editing lab in the building was going to go with 27" iMacs in the summer of 2017 (to replace their early 2009 aluminum 24" iMacs), but the college ended up going with the then-refreshed 21.5" Retina iMacs, since they brought back discrete graphics cards on those, and got the higher-end model configured with 3.4 GHz quad-core i5 processors, 16 GB of RAM, Radeon Pro 560 graphics cards with 4 GB of VRAM, and 256 GB SSDs (but the college does often stress that students should have their own external hard drives or SSDs for editing video projects on said iMacs, so it's not that much of an issue).
But I could easily see them eventually replacing those souped-up 21.5" iMacs with this higher-end pro-level iMac with larger screen, especially since the college's audio-video director knows how Apple Silicon Macs generally handle video editing even better than their Intel predecessors did (and I was even able to show him, using my M1 MacBook Air).

 

[gpat]

I feel your missing the point that Apple has just closed a gigantic gap between the Mini and MacPro that had existed eversince G4 times....

Apple won't go back to pre Jobs times with 267 overlapping Macs. I also don't think the will go back the 4 product square that Steve advocated in late G4 times.

Or in short for every new Mac line another one will be discontinued.

Actually under Jobs I can recall consumer desktop Macs being sold in 3 different sizes at least.

iMac G4 15" + 17" + eMac
iMac G4 15" + 17" + 20" + eMac
iMac G5 17" + 20" + Mac Mini
iMac Intel 17" + 20" + 24" + Mac Mini

Not even counting any professional or "prosumer" line.
Offering different screen sizes doesn't "overlap" with anything.
Need bigger, buy bigger.
Need cheaper, buy smaller.

The reason you aren't seeing a 27" iMac is that they're offering a bare monitor for the same price you could get the whole computer for. Exact same panel, as well.

 

[zorinlynx]

I got tired of waiting and finally ordered a Studio Display.

Sure it was expensive but now I'm going to have an excellent monitor for at least a decade or more, and will be able to just upgrade the Mac connected to it when necessary.

At first I'll be using a Macbook Pro work has issued me. I may buy an M2 Mac Mini when they come out, or maybe even a Mac Studio.

I'll be glad to have a separate monitor again and just be able to upgrade the computer like things used to be before the all-in-one obsession.

 

[Realityck]

In the latest edition of his Power On newsletter, Gurman suggested that Apple is working on at least two iMac models, likely using the "M3" series of chips. Gurman says that Apple will likely launch an updated 24-inch iMac featuring the standard M3 chip in 2023 and is continuing work on a high-end iMac model:

I hope this happens, the iMac needs to return to being a main source of Macintosh sales. Its air-in-one design is very popular for home and business usage as seen in numerous film and TV series worldwide.

 

[Mr.Brossard]

OK... Well... I'll keep my 2017 4.2 GHz Intel iMac, until this materializes. It's a great machine, with ports, even.

 

[Victor Mortimer]

It's too bad Apple has gotten truly stupid with prices.

It's not been that long since we had the option of a $800 low-end iMac that could still have RAM and hard drive upgrades later. Now the base model is $1300 and absolute garbage with soldered RAM, soldered storage, and for the first time since the iMac was introduced doesn't even have an ethernet port.

And going backward on screen sizes? Sure, the 21.5 existed, but most people were smart enough to see that the 27 had easier RAM upgrades for far less than Apple's highway robbery RAM prices, and so you could easily get the larger screen with a reasonable amount of RAM for less than a 21.5. Now there's only a 24. Pitiful.

 

[Bug-Creator]

ctually under Jobs I can recall consumer desktop Macs being sold in 3 different sizes at least.

iMac G4 15" + 17" + eMac
iMac G4 15" + 17" + 20" + eMac
iMac G5 17" + 20" + Mac Mini
iMac Intel 17" + 20" + 24" + Mac Mini

I never said SJ was consistent in those matters, but there was a time when it was iBook/iMac (consumer) and PowerBook/PowerMac (Pro).

As for your list, so? Today Apple offers 4 different desktops (not counting the Intel Minis as a separate line) and I don't think there was ever much overlap with 3 sizes of iMacs.

Apple could sell iMac in 4 sizes, a MacMini with MxPro AND a Studio with MxPro (aka no thermal throttling just as with the M1 MacBookPro and Air), a MacPro that goes down to M1Max but offers internal upgrades and so on.

But that is kinda what they did before Jobs came back.

 

[BrightDarkSky]

These rumors have gotten so menial, petty and out of hand that I'm surprised most even pay attention to them anymore.

Like others in these comments, my 2013 iMac is still pulling heavy work duty. It even has a real discrete graphics card unlike apples and cards but shhhhhhhh.. don't say anything about that I have my entire Adobe cloud running on it, and if I decided to go past Mojave and risk the performance decrease, I could run pretty much most software all up to date.

Apple is probably pulling its balding hair out trying to figure out what a iMac pro would even be. I'm still pissed that this damn laptop cost $3,000 plus, only Lord knows what the hell that iMac is going to cost.

Till this real info, who cares. Find the best software hardware and accessories for your Mac and enjoy. These rumors are straight up vaporware. Keep it

 

[Realityck]

I got tired of waiting and finally ordered a Studio Display.

Sure it was expensive but now I'm going to have an excellent monitor for at least a decade or more, and will be able to just upgrade the Mac connected to it when necessary.

At first I'll be using a Macbook Pro work has issued me. I may buy an M2 Mac Mini when they come out, or maybe even a Mac Studio.

I'll be glad to have a separate monitor again and just be able to upgrade the computer like things used to be before the all-in-one obsession.

I previously utilized the large dual G5 power Mac series that following year turned into Mac Pro Intel series the following year. Even though I thought the separate computer and display was great at first, a few years later it was hard to beat the economics of switching to a loaded Intel iMac with its built in 27” display for doing a lot of work.

I think Apple recognizes that a return of the larger IMac driven by more powerful AS processors would eclipse Mac Studio sales eventually and why it’s not offered at this time to allow that product to establish itself well.

 

[BrightDarkSky]

It's too bad Apple has gotten truly stupid with prices.

It's not been that long since we had the option of a $800 low-end iMac that could still have RAM and hard drive upgrades later. Now the base model is $1300 and absolute garbage with soldered RAM, soldered storage, and for the first time since the iMac was introduced doesn't even have an ethernet port.

And going backward on screen sizes? Sure, the 21.5 existed, but most people were smart enough to see that the 27 had easier RAM upgrades for far less than Apple's highway robbery RAM prices, and so you could easily get the larger screen with a reasonable amount of RAM for less than a 21.5. Now there's only a 24. Pitiful.

They could have easily made a 27-in version with the same old 5K screens from last time. But nope greedy Apple does greedy things. Let's just make it nice and thin slap some colors on it and watch the unfortunate Dum dums who thinks this is what they need.

Sad thing is it is a great computer at its core, but apples greed in terms of storage and RAM just destroys all of it.

From Gurman:


Sounds like bs to me. The Studio Display is 27" (the same the old 'big' iMac was). If you're a pro user for whom the missing 5" are mission critical you can get the XDR. And if this is so important for your work, you should be able to afford the price.

It sounds like you're saying if you're a pro user, just bend over and take it. You're probably Apple's favorite customer in here. Congratulations. What a well-informed consumer not really