Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
If there will be no additional iMac then why in the world does this still say iMac 24"? When the 24" is removed, then I will believe there will be only one iMac.
View attachment 1971694
I think that this is simply a carry-over from when the choices included the 27", and because the 24" and 27" had different designs. I wouldn't be surprised if they remove the 24" at some point. And it's also notable that the MacBook Pro shows the two sizes only in the illustration and not by stating 14" and 16".
 
Last edited:
MR obviously do not understand what end of life means.

Stuff gets out into the EoL bin all the time. A lot of it gets replaced with newer products. This is not an indication that it will or will not get replaced with something Apple Silicon related.

Also we all know Apple does not speculate on to tell us their future product lineups until they are ready to at Apple keynote events. This includes what is not going to happen in the future. Is MR that naive not to understand this as well?

All this statement is saying is the current 27 inch Intel based iMac line is EoL. That's all.
Of cause the rumour mongers try to spin this into everything it is not - making up stuff.

The TLDR here is - Apple EoL'd 27 inch Intel iMacs and has said nothing and hinted at nothing regarding any possible future replacement of them or discontinuation of the concept from their lineup.
But Apple has given us information about their future product plans.

For instance, they announced the iMac Pro won't continue.

They also gave us a sneak peek of the new Mac Pro some years ago.

When it serves their interest, Apple has shown itself willing to give a look forward.

Apple usually doesn't care to comment on most rumors. But they chose to do so here. Why?

Because they don't want people waiting for a machine that won't come.

Also, take it for what it's worth, but many longtime, valued professional Apple commentators seem quite convinced that the 27-inch iMac is dead.
 
For instance, they announced the iMac Pro won't continue.
When did Apple specifically say the iMac Pro will not be continued?
All we know is the intel 27 inch iMac being EOL'd has allegedly been told to a couple of websites by Apple. Apple has not publicly stated this.
 
Say farewell to the 27" iMac.


But keep an eye out on a future 28" or 29" iMac.



Roflcopter-1.gif
 
  • Haha
Reactions: phillytim
It's obviously still coming. People who think otherwise are completely out of touch. That 27-inch segment is way too big on both sides of the PC and Mac market to ignore.

More importantly, this whole integrated desktop form factor is what Apple does best. No one else can make an 11.5mm thin high performance computer.
Doesn't solve my problem. I have a 2013 27" iMac that needs replacing now, and I've been holding out until this annoucement. It looks like a Mac Studio is going to be the way to go, but i'm not buying the monitor to match (I'll just buy a 27" monitor from elsewhere).

If a 27" iMac comes along in a year or so, I'm going to be disappointed. But, who knows?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PacificDiver
For me, size is everything. :)

Yes it's great to have a high resolution screen, but at my age I actually want to be able to read it too, so the 27" iMac has always been the go-to solution. Not so much a 24" one and I'd hate to have to pay twice as much for similar functionality.
 
Doesn't solve my problem. I have a 2013 27" iMac that needs replacing now, and I've been holding out until this annoucement. It looks like a Mac Studio is going to be the way to go, but i'm not buying the monitor to match (I'll just buy a 27" monitor from elsewhere).

If a 27" iMac comes along in a year or so, I'm going to be disappointed. But, who knows?
Plenty of inventory on Amazon
 
  • Like
Reactions: pshufd
I wouldn't necessarily say we'll never have a larger high-end iMac again. After all, I remember how even before the iMac Pro came out, the 27" slim unibody iMac was VERY popular with prosumers and even professional users, especially when they came out with the Retina version in 2014. With quad-core (and even greater) i7 and i9 processors, RAM that's easily upgradeable, discrete graphics, I/O ports providing numerous external expansion possibilities (especially once Thunderbolt got popular) and a big beautiful 27" display. This is why they were a favorite with graphic designers and video editors, especially after the cylinder Mac Pro came out and alienated quite a few pro users. And then come 2017 Apple took advantage of that and released the iMac Pro.
In a way, the Mac Studio and its' display are sort of like Apple's variant of the iMac Pro for those who want a headless desktop, and there are indeed people that prefer such a desktop (like me). But I wouldn't be surprised if some time later this year or next year they come out with a new bigger-screen iMac with the Pro or Max or even Ultra chips, and they just call it the "iMac Pro" to differentiate it from the 24" M1 iMac.
 
Try finding one with a 5700XT GPU for a reasonable price. This is a *favored* 27" iMac, and now becoming hard to find. Some on Apple refurb store.
Lots of low spec 27" iMacs, sure
It looks like I managed to jump into the last car on the fly, having ordered 27" with 5700XT in January...
 
Try finding one with a 5700XT GPU for a reasonable price. This is a *favored* 27" iMac, and now becoming hard to find. Some on Apple refurb store.
Lots of low spec 27" iMacs, sure
I remember people saying AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT 16GB on the 27" iMac is overkill. It's never overkill to future-proof your investment and get the joy of buttery smooth experience.

Plus, with 5700XT, you can play most AAA games in 1440p in Boot Camp on high settings. This means even when Apple stops supporting Intel Macs, you still have a high-end PC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voyageur
Thats what I did, though I came to the conclusion that there probably wouldn't be an affordable 27" replacement forthcoming a while ago and took the plunge.

The reality is that the M1 is SO powerful (we are tending to forget this with all the attention on the way-overpowered for average consumer Pro, Max, and Ultra variants) that its all you could need for a long time to come.

The 24 is great - and you really wont notice the loss of 3" of screen.

My other thought was that given Apples pricing.... IF they ever did release a '30" iMac' it would almost certainly be a replacement for the deceased iMacPRO and not be aimed at consumers any more AND have a +£2,000 price tag to match.

Seems to me that the studio and studio display are definitely aimed at the pro market and replacing the iMac Pro for sure.

Enjoy your 24" iMac... you'll love it :)
Lots of colour choice - my only complaint is that most of us have an iMac against a wall so never really get to appreciate the colour choice once its out the box and on the desk.
After thinking about this further, I'm going to wait until I make a decision on what I'll get as a replacement for my 27" iMac.

There is no rush, my current iMac is trouble-free, and one objective is to have a new computer with Apple silicon that will maintain compatibility with the newest software features. That is a 'nice to have' motivation rather than a 'must have' or immediate need. And this could very well be the last computer I purchase, wanting it to last into retirement and for as many years as possible.

The 24" is surely a good choice and powerful enough for my needs, although I'd like to get a larger internal SSD so that I can keep all of my music files right on the computer. The maximum storage currently offered in the 24" is 2TB SSD. And you can't get more than 16GB RAM (I know, it's almost certainly sufficient).

I can adjust to a separate desktop and display and the new 27" monitor looks very nice. The affordable choice is to pair it with a Mac mini, but that has the same limitations as the 24" iMac - 16GB RAM and 2 TB SSD.

The Mac Studio looks fantastic and the very cheapest Studio would be just fine for my needs, it comes with 32GB RAM as standard and I can get up to 8TB SSD if I really want to splurge. I'd probably get 4TB. But - do I want to spend that much?

If I get separate computer and monitor then I could get a second display at some point, something I've thought about a lot during this work-from-home period.

I started a new thread a few days ago, including a poll (first time I've tried setting one of those up myself). I don't know if you noticed it. Not getting a lot of activity but one interesting observation is that of the forum members who have voted, the great majority are for a separate computer and monitor votes. I'll eventually decide what to do for myself, but it's interesting to see the variety of opinions:

 
After thinking about this further, I'm going to wait until I make a decision on what I'll get as a replacement for my 27" iMac.

There is no rush, my current iMac is trouble-free, and one objective is to have a new computer with Apple silicon that will maintain compatibility with the newest software features. That is a 'nice to have' motivation rather than a 'must have' or immediate need. And this could very well be the last computer I purchase, wanting it to last into retirement and for as many years as possible.

The 24" is surely a good choice and powerful enough for my needs, although I'd like to get a larger internal SSD so that I can keep all of my music files right on the computer. The maximum storage currently offered in the 24" is 2TB SSD. And you can't get more than 16GB RAM (I know, it's almost certainly sufficient).

I can adjust to a separate desktop and display and the new 27" monitor looks very nice. The affordable choice is to pair it with a Mac mini, but that has the same limitations as the 24" iMac - 16GB RAM and 2 TB SSD.

The Mac Studio looks fantastic and the very cheapest Studio would be just fine for my needs, it comes with 32GB RAM as standard and I can get up to 8TB SSD if I really want to splurge. I'd probably get 4TB. But - do I want to spend that much?

If I get separate computer and monitor then I could get a second display at some point, something I've thought about a lot during this work-from-home period.

I started a new thread a few days ago, including a poll (first time I've tried setting one of those up myself). I don't know if you noticed it. Not getting a lot of activity but one interesting observation is that of the forum members who have voted, the great majority are for a separate computer and monitor votes. I'll eventually decide what to do for myself, but it's interesting to see the variety of opinions:


My solution is to use an M1 Mac mini hooked up to a 4k monitor and 2009 iMac 27 using TDM, and two old 27-inch iMacs. You might consider just adding an M1 mini and a 4k 27 inch monitor next to your iMac.
 
After thinking about this further, I'm going to wait until I make a decision on what I'll get as a replacement for my 27" iMac.

There is no rush, my current iMac is trouble-free, and one objective is to have a new computer with Apple silicon that will maintain compatibility with the newest software features. That is a 'nice to have' motivation rather than a 'must have' or immediate need. And this could very well be the last computer I purchase, wanting it to last into retirement and for as many years as possible.

The 24" is surely a good choice and powerful enough for my needs, although I'd like to get a larger internal SSD so that I can keep all of my music files right on the computer. The maximum storage currently offered in the 24" is 2TB SSD. And you can't get more than 16GB RAM (I know, it's almost certainly sufficient).

I can adjust to a separate desktop and display and the new 27" monitor looks very nice. The affordable choice is to pair it with a Mac mini, but that has the same limitations as the 24" iMac - 16GB RAM and 2 TB SSD.

The Mac Studio looks fantastic and the very cheapest Studio would be just fine for my needs, it comes with 32GB RAM as standard and I can get up to 8TB SSD if I really want to splurge. I'd probably get 4TB. But - do I want to spend that much?

If I get separate computer and monitor then I could get a second display at some point, something I've thought about a lot during this work-from-home period.

I started a new thread a few days ago, including a poll (first time I've tried setting one of those up myself). I don't know if you noticed it. Not getting a lot of activity but one interesting observation is that of the forum members who have voted, the great majority are for a separate computer and monitor votes. I'll eventually decide what to do for myself, but it's interesting to see the variety of opinions:

I would go one step further...

In the age of Apple music/Amazon music/any other service ..... do you really need a colossal 2TB storage for 'music files' ? you must have millions of tracks!

My suggestion is save some money and purchase a USB-C SSD such as the Samsung T series drives and stick to the base internal storage as you dont need much more really.
 
I would go one step further...

In the age of Apple music/Amazon music/any other service ..... do you really need a colossal 2TB storage for 'music files' ? you must have millions of tracks!

My suggestion is save some money and purchase a USB-C SSD such as the Samsung T series drives and stick to the base internal storage as you dont need much more really.

He might make the stuff rather than using it. My son composes music on one of his MacBook Pros though he’s only mad a couple of dozen songs over the years.
 
He might make the stuff rather than using it. My son composes music on one of his MacBook Pros though he’s only mad a couple of dozen songs over the years.
yep he might indeed.

With repspect, that's up to him! He can fill the drive with whatever he likes. I was merely wondering who would have a 2 TB apple music library with all the streaming services available nowadays. but of course its quite valid.

My point being that paying an arm and a leg for an internal storage upgrade isnt necessary with the availability of cheaper thunderbolt drives.
 
I would go one step further...

In the age of Apple music/Amazon music/any other service ..... do you really need a colossal 2TB storage for 'music files' ? you must have millions of tracks!

My suggestion is save some money and purchase a USB-C SSD such as the Samsung T series drives and stick to the base internal storage as you dont need much more really.
Can second that this is a really good option. My wife got the iMac 24" with 512GB and I bought her a Samsung T drive that opens on boot to give her extra storage without having to pay the apple up charge. I think we can all agree that apple's pricing for storage is a bit of a stick up.
 
I would go one step further...

In the age of Apple music/Amazon music/any other service ..... do you really need a colossal 2TB storage for 'music files' ? you must have millions of tracks!

My suggestion is save some money and purchase a USB-C SSD such as the Samsung T series drives and stick to the base internal storage as you dont need much more really.
Not millions of tracks at all! A couple of decimal points less, in fact, but the storage required is quite large since I've put all of my CDs into my Music library as Apple Lossless files, which are not small. This precedes using Apple Music and streaming, and if I was to start all over today I might not do it this way. But on the other hand I have a library of the CDs I selected myself, that was built up over many years, so I have a real attachment to this music. Presently it is on a separate drive from my iMac, slightly more than 1 TB just for the music files. And I back up (using Time Machine) on yet another separate drive.

My point in mentioning wanting enough storage on my computer to hold all of this music was influenced by learning that the internal SSDs being used by the Studio Mac are much higher speed, so in addition to having everything 'on board' it would all be accessed at the best speed.

I know, I know, this is all overkill and may not make a noticeable difference, but my own particular interest is to have the music files well handled. Others are into photos, videos, webcasting, whatever. I don't do those things.
 
Not millions of tracks at all! A couple of decimal points less, in fact, but the storage required is quite large since I've put all of my CDs into my Music library as Apple Lossless files, which are not small. This precedes using Apple Music and streaming, and if I was to start all over today I might not do it this way. But on the other hand I have a library of the CDs I selected myself, that was built up over many years, so I have a real attachment to this music. Presently it is on a separate drive from my iMac, slightly more than 1 TB just for the music files. And I back up (using Time Machine) on yet another separate drive.

My point in mentioning wanting enough storage on my computer to hold all of this music was influenced by learning that the internal SSDs being used by the Studio Mac are much higher speed, so in addition to having everything 'on board' it would all be accessed at the best speed.

I know, I know, this is all overkill and may not make a noticeable difference, but my own particular interest is to have the music files well handled. Others are into photos, videos, webcasting, whatever. I don't do those things.
You do You! thats perfectly OK.

Its just the economics of specing larger internal storage in the Mac, vs buying a much cheaper external SSD.

Anyway - its all valid.

I am.. or was you...... like most people I spent years building my own iTunes library ripping my CDs and adding them to my library ... which got large also and I moved it to an external drive for just this reason - it was cheaper, easier, safer, and crucially more portable when I upgraded or changed Macs to do it this way.

HOWEVER I also subscribe to iTunes Match... I thoroughly recommend this little known and obscure apple service but for £20 a year they upload all your songs to iCloud (just the ones that they cant recognise) and then you have FULL access to all your music even that which only resides on your hard drive from wherever you are in the world from any device. Its really worth the money to be honest. Look into that - it might be a revelation and a revolution to you!
 
You do You! thats perfectly OK.

Its just the economics of specing larger internal storage in the Mac, vs buying a much cheaper external SSD.

Anyway - its all valid.

I am.. or was you...... like most people I spent years building my own iTunes library ripping my CDs and adding them to my library ... which got large also and I moved it to an external drive for just this reason - it was cheaper, easier, safer, and crucially more portable when I upgraded or changed Macs to do it this way.

HOWEVER I also subscribe to iTunes Match... I thoroughly recommend this little known and obscure apple service but for £20 a year they upload all your songs to iCloud (just the ones that they cant recognise) and then you have FULL access to all your music even that which only resides on your hard drive from wherever you are in the world from any device. Its really worth the money to be honest. Look into that - it might be a revelation and a revolution to you!
You understand completely, and it sounds like we've gone down a very similar path (other than thinking of keeping it all on the Mac like I'm probably foolishly considering!).

I have subscribed to iTunes Match, and now with Apple Music I get the same benefits you describe (Music incorporates the features of Match, it's not necessary to have both). So you're right, I get access to all of my music no matter where I am or what device (Apple device, signed in to my account) I'm using. Pretty great, it is.

I no longer purchase CDs, not that I need any more music beyond what I already have, but also because Apple Music gives me access to tons of stuff - any time I hear of something new that sounds interesting, I can search for it on Music and almost always find it and can add or even download a copy to my own library. It's quite impressive. (Of course, I don't 'own' it like I do the music from my own CDs, and if and when I no longer subscribe to Apple Music, it will all disappear from my library).
 
Mark Gurman and others say a 27 inch silicon iMac is in the pipeline. I hope so. In the meantime I'm lucky enough to have a 27" maxed out (almost) iMac. That will keep me happy for a while.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.