That's only available on the 27" and they did do that in the iMac Pro
iMac Pro is not user upgradeable. So there is a precedent.
That's only available on the 27" and they did do that in the iMac Pro
At the research institute where I work, ultra-wide curved displays with sizes beyond 34" are growing like mushrooms. Some people have two of those, and having four 24" displays connected to one desktop computer is nothing extraordinary. Even the folks in administration use two 24" displays with their computers. I have three displays hooked up to my Trash can Mac Pro, 2 normal displays left and right and one ultra-wide in the middle.
The problem with the iMac design is that it was not made with multiple displays in mind. Yes, you can connect an external display to it, but it will always look and feel out of place. The other problem is: Apple only sells glossy displays. Technically, in public organizations in Germany, you are not even allowed to purchase glossy displays because of ergonomic work place regulations.
Frankly I wouldn't mind if the iMac went back to it's 2006 days when it was much thicker.
There's really no reason other than aesthetic for an all-in-one desktop to be so thin. The added depth means you could pack everything in there, plus remove the chin, and eliminate the thick bezels. The thermals will be better too.
Think 6K XDR type thick...but floating on a hinged stand.
And it doesn't run MacOS. Biggest dealbreaker. And the screen has a lower density than a 5K iMac. But you do have a point, a somewhat comparably specced iMac would be US $4,049but it comes from HP.
What I would like to see are those same Siri improvements retrofitted toward Homepod OG, and maybe drop the price of Homepod OG a tad.
....
- Gurman says there's a dedicated team at Apple tasked with "saving the HomePod" after lackluster sales. To that end, the rumored smaller, cheaper HomePod coming this year will also feature big improvements to Siri....
And it doesn't run MacOS. Biggest dealbreaker. And the screen has a lower density than a 5K iMac. But you do have a point, a somewhat comparably specced iMac would be US $4,049
Ridiculously higher prices are more of a deal breaker than Windows.
I beg to differ. I cannot stand windows, and all its stupid updating among other things. If I have to pay more to get a computer that runs MacOS, I am more than happy to do it.
Yeah, whatever.
We've been hearing about this new iMac for over 5 years now. Still nothing. Obviously it will come at some point, but they can't then turn around and say "We told you so!" as they've got it wrong year after year.
I'd be more interested in a 'pro-sumer' version of the Mac Pro over the iMac. Give us plebs something we can have some fun with that's moderately powerful instead of just a giant MacBook on a stick.
I beg to differ. I cannot stand windows, and all its stupid updating among other things. If I have to pay more to get a computer that runs MacOS, I am more than happy to do it.
I still find it less obtrusive than Windows. It makes a time machine backup, and when I come back the next morning, it is just as I left it. Windows has gotten better though, and I no longer have daily updates with it. I still detest that MS makes it so hard to disable the built-in ads and telemetry. MacOS, out of the box, is just better in its default state.Sadly the MacOS update process has gone downhill so far it's not really any better any more.
Right down to copying Windows habit of claiming something will take x minutes to install when x has no relation whatsoever to what it will actually take.