Y'all gonna be disappointed when the large all in one returns. iMac Studio will be priced like the iMac Pro.
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.
Have We Seen the Last of the 27-inch iMac?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mac mini M1 ($699) and the studio display ($1599) is probably the soliton for someone who was previously in the market for a 27” iMac. One thunderbolt cable gives you a 27” monitor with webcam and speakers. It is likely the same price as a 27” iMac.
I think Apple is in the middle of radically rethinking its own lineup, and I actually agree.
If they'll release a newly designed Mac Mini with an M2 and M2Pro, the lineup will be complete.
It kinda makes sense to not have an M1 Max mini, as people with the need for it are also interested in other features (better connectivity and cooling).
The only computer I'd not understand would be the M2 13" macbook pro, as the macbook air would offer similar performance in a new, colourful and cheaper design.
Remember that the iMac was originally intended as a consumer desktop, and the 24" is; I think that's the only iMac model that will be kept, however I 100% expect a 27" version of it in the next refresh.
I kinda like this return to form, as I never saw the iMac package as really adequate for high end components.
Even the "simpler" M1 Max Studio cooler is way too big to fit into a thin iMac.
So...
Yes, I think the high end iMac is dead pretty much.
On a last note I'm so glad to se Apple finally giving the professional market the attention it deserves!
I haven't seen Apple in such a great shape in more than 10 years.
If they'll release a newly designed Mac Mini with an M2 and M2Pro, the lineup will be complete.
It kinda makes sense to not have an M1 Max mini, as people with the need for it are also interested in other features (better connectivity and cooling).
The only computer I'd not understand would be the M2 13" macbook pro, as the macbook air would offer similar performance in a new, colourful and cheaper design.
Remember that the iMac was originally intended as a consumer desktop, and the 24" is; I think that's the only iMac model that will be kept, however I 100% expect a 27" version of it in the next refresh.
I kinda like this return to form, as I never saw the iMac package as really adequate for high end components.
Even the "simpler" M1 Max Studio cooler is way too big to fit into a thin iMac.
So...
Yes, I think the high end iMac is dead pretty much.
On a last note I'm so glad to se Apple finally giving the professional market the attention it deserves!
I haven't seen Apple in such a great shape in more than 10 years.
Yes, and immensely more versatile, as you can switch the Mini each couple of years for a "little" price.
The 27 iMac is my go to machine and has been for most people I know for several replacement cycles. Sooo annoying. It was the best value computer out there for anyone who needed a decent size screen. Now you either accept 100% inflation and a stupid box on your desk or play the MacRumors waiting game (which I tend to do every 5 years) and risk crippling your business if struck by hard drive failure. 
Yes in my opinion it's gone. Retired along with the legendary 17" MacBook Pro. I think they'd rather be selling Studio gear to this market segment now.
long live 27" iMac ...
how about smaller cousin? 21.5/22" iMac?
most likely 24" iMac will be updated to include Pro/Max chips BTO in the next revision.
how about smaller cousin? 21.5/22" iMac?
most likely 24" iMac will be updated to include Pro/Max chips BTO in the next revision.
Exactly, I'm looking at upgrading every other year, resale on 2yr old mini will make this easy to do.
Initial entry point will be slightly more expensive, but long term cheaper to own, and the specs will never drift too far from current.
I was thinking the same. The old iMac lineup was 21” and 27”, so it would make sense for the new lineup to be 24” and 30”. But would they make them pro models, or would they simply make them a larger version of the colorful consumer model 24” in light of the new Studio being the entry level pro desktop? Interesting times, these.
Well I've ordered a 2020 27" iMac from apple refurb.
i7, 1TB SSD, 5700GPU and 10Gb port for just about dead on £2k comes on Monday, which I think is a bit of a bargain to be honest, will just add a couple of memory dims for £120 to take me to 40Gb of memory.
Will be 3x times faster give or take my 2015 iMac, I can still do some light gaming or run windows easily and for everything else I've got an M1 Mini that I use more as a server for other things.
Should serve me for a while until a replacement and Apple / Windows / Gaming evolves into a reasonable place.
i7, 1TB SSD, 5700GPU and 10Gb port for just about dead on £2k comes on Monday, which I think is a bit of a bargain to be honest, will just add a couple of memory dims for £120 to take me to 40Gb of memory.
Will be 3x times faster give or take my 2015 iMac, I can still do some light gaming or run windows easily and for everything else I've got an M1 Mini that I use more as a server for other things.
Should serve me for a while until a replacement and Apple / Windows / Gaming evolves into a reasonable place.
When John Ternus said "just one more product to go: Mac Pro" this does not discount the idea of a new, larger iMac this year. After all, iMacs do have Apple Silicon, in the form of the 24" model. No Mac Pro SKU has any Apple Silicon yet, and so is the outlier in need of updating. I think rumours/rumors of the death of a larger iMac are exaggerated.
After all, the Mac mini hasn't been fully updated with Apple Silicon across the entire line up, but he didn't mention that as in need of updating. Our mistake is to think of the 24" and 27" as separate products rather than variations of the same product.
Of course, this didn't stop me spending a fortune on the Mac Studio a couple days ago! I was desperate to update my seven year-old iMac 27".
I agree with those here who say that the larger iMac is just too iconic to be dropped. I refuse to believe it could go. But then it would be a strange line up, with a consumer iMac 24" and a semi-professional Mac studio and a professional Mac Pro... and the iMac/Pro 32" as 'prosumer' I guess. But this is Apple! It doesn't mind cannibalising its own sales.
After all, the Mac mini hasn't been fully updated with Apple Silicon across the entire line up, but he didn't mention that as in need of updating. Our mistake is to think of the 24" and 27" as separate products rather than variations of the same product.
Of course, this didn't stop me spending a fortune on the Mac Studio a couple days ago! I was desperate to update my seven year-old iMac 27".
I agree with those here who say that the larger iMac is just too iconic to be dropped. I refuse to believe it could go. But then it would be a strange line up, with a consumer iMac 24" and a semi-professional Mac studio and a professional Mac Pro... and the iMac/Pro 32" as 'prosumer' I guess. But this is Apple! It doesn't mind cannibalising its own sales.
Apple will hold off any line up changes on the iMac / Studio for for at least 12 months just to see if the market is happy without the larger iMac.
To each its own I guess. Yeah at some point the 27” iMac used to be the go-to option if you want a performance Mac without splurging for the MacPro. It’s faster than Intel Mac Mini or any Macbooks (of the same generation), with a built-in top of the line display.
But with current Studio Display, and M1 Mac variations, you could get any form factor you want with no compromise at all, I think it’s a win-win for everybody.
The Mac Studio is rated for a maximum power consumption of 370 W, which incidentally is the same number as that of the iMac Pro (though the latter included the display). Maybe somebody can extract a power consumption of the M1 Ultra from Apple’s graphs and compare it with the Xeons used in the iMac Pro.
Also worth noting for all the "I don't know why anyone would go for an all in one" comments. The iMac defined Apple. It completely changed the course of history for the company and for competing computers, until the iPhone came along. There is next to no advantage financially speaking for consumers in separating screen from CPU unless you replace on a short time frame - eg 2 years - which most people don't do nowadays.
Apple are doing this to shorten the ever-lengthening replacement cycle, which they already do by not upgrading systems after a few years (currently about 6 years ?). In the portable market, batteries are the way to force people to upgrade - as we all know our batteries all improved a couple of years ago after the battery gate scandal was litigated. But desktops have no obvious replacement need - no batteries, screens don't break, they don't get stolen or lost or fall in toilets, and nowadays components like memory and even ports seem to last for ever. Eventually the screen starts to dim but for most people this is not a $2000 problem. As long as you fit new memory iMacs last a long time.
Most people use a desktop for email, writing and reading documents, and internet. A 7 year old machine does this just as well as a new machine.
Apple are doing this to shorten the ever-lengthening replacement cycle, which they already do by not upgrading systems after a few years (currently about 6 years ?). In the portable market, batteries are the way to force people to upgrade - as we all know our batteries all improved a couple of years ago after the battery gate scandal was litigated. But desktops have no obvious replacement need - no batteries, screens don't break, they don't get stolen or lost or fall in toilets, and nowadays components like memory and even ports seem to last for ever. Eventually the screen starts to dim but for most people this is not a $2000 problem. As long as you fit new memory iMacs last a long time.
Most people use a desktop for email, writing and reading documents, and internet. A 7 year old machine does this just as well as a new machine.
If you had the choice between a 27” iMac and a 27” Studio display + Mac Mini/Studio combo with the same specs but the iMac was $500-$1000 cheaper, which one would you choose?
I agree. It used to be that the 27” iMac was pretty much the only non-gimped desktop Mac that didn’t cost a bomb. Beautiful screen, decent specs, reasonable price. Excellent blend of form and function overall (for me). My iMac is still working well and there’s still a few years before I consider what to upgrade to next.
Ok then! I've been ready to replace my late-2014 iMac 27" for a while. I want to be able to use the latest macOS features and upgrade to an Apple Silicon desktop computer.
The Studio Mac and new monitor all look great but are just more than I need or want to spend.
So 24" iMac it is! It will work just fine for me, and it's considerably more affordable as well. I would prefer the option of more RAM perhaps, but realistically it is not needed. Most difficult decision now is what color to select . . .
The Studio Mac and new monitor all look great but are just more than I need or want to spend.
So 24" iMac it is! It will work just fine for me, and it's considerably more affordable as well. I would prefer the option of more RAM perhaps, but realistically it is not needed. Most difficult decision now is what color to select . . .
Why would anybody need to upgrade their device because the battery is failing? Except for earbuds, having the battery replaced is much cheaper than buying a new device.
This leaves a pretty big hole in the lineup, IMO.
27” iMac was kinda perfect for folks like me. Great productivity machine for my day to day work (email, spreadsheets, photos, etc) but not overpowered. I simply can’t and won’t use a smaller display anymore; I need the real estate …. But that doesn’t mean I necessarily need Mac Pro level performance, either.
iMac 27” was what I considered the “long life” play for the typical home Mac. My wife and I each have one - hers is a 2015, mine is a 2016 - so we’re both approaching the time when I start considering a new machine. It’ll likely be a Mac Mini paired with a display. It’s going backwards - the AIO form factor was clean and a nice aesthetic. Now I have to have a separate box and display, like the PC schlubs. I’m thinking of the original iMac G3 “setup test” video where iMac was already online while the PC guy was still unboxing parts.
This is a bigger departure than it looks; it abandons a huge segment of the consumer market who appreciate simplicity and design, but still need a quality display. 24” iMac would be going backwards display wise, and that’s really a lousy thing to do.
27” iMac was kinda perfect for folks like me. Great productivity machine for my day to day work (email, spreadsheets, photos, etc) but not overpowered. I simply can’t and won’t use a smaller display anymore; I need the real estate …. But that doesn’t mean I necessarily need Mac Pro level performance, either.
iMac 27” was what I considered the “long life” play for the typical home Mac. My wife and I each have one - hers is a 2015, mine is a 2016 - so we’re both approaching the time when I start considering a new machine. It’ll likely be a Mac Mini paired with a display. It’s going backwards - the AIO form factor was clean and a nice aesthetic. Now I have to have a separate box and display, like the PC schlubs. I’m thinking of the original iMac G3 “setup test” video where iMac was already online while the PC guy was still unboxing parts.
This is a bigger departure than it looks; it abandons a huge segment of the consumer market who appreciate simplicity and design, but still need a quality display. 24” iMac would be going backwards display wise, and that’s really a lousy thing to do.
They did so by announcing on stage that the Apple Silicon transition is almost complete with just one more model to go: the Mac Pro. At the very least this is them pre-announcing that there will be an Apple Silicon version of the Mac Pro. But it could also be seen as them saying that there will be no Apple Silicon version of the 27” iMac.
Minus the Apple keyboard and mouse (or that other thing), that is 200+ €. But yes, I agree with you.
Of course, the best thing with the computers is, that you can use them with the cheapest PC keyboard and mouse you can find.
That's the thing, with Apple Silicon, Apple can go thin AND performance. The heat of desktop chips are intel's problem.
But you are correct that majority of people will go for a laptop. Apple has said it themselves long time ago that the sell more macbooks than their desktops. People want an all-in-one device. So laptop would be first, then an all-in-one like an iMac, than niche models like Mac Pro/Mac Studio.
This.
What is (was) the main benefit of an all-in-one? It was not having multiple things plugged in (monitor power, desktop power, monitor cable, speakers, microphone, webcam).
It wouldn't surprised me if the next Mac Mini can be powered via USB-Power Delivery. I believe the Studio Display can output 96 W of power which would be enough to power a Mac Mini. Thus the Sudio Display would be connected tot the power and then to the Mac Mini by 1 cable for a two cable setup and bingo: a 27" 'iMac' with the added benefit of being able to upgrade the compute power without having to pay again for the screen (or having to junk the computer if the screen dies).
Or it could be that there won't be an M1 27" iMac. But they can always add it later once they are refreshing their lineup with the M2.