Have We Seen the Last of the 27-inch iMac?

[Le0M]

If Apple wanted to release a 27" iMac they would have done so when they announced the 24" one. Scaling up a product takes very little engineering.
My guess is that releasing a bigger iMac is not in their plans.

 

[Martyimac]

Lots of personal opinions here as expected so here is mine.

I have never favored AIO's but ended up with a 27" iMac after my tcMP died. Now, I can go back to a separate desktop/monitor setup. Is the Mac Studio overkill for me? Yes, BUT, it's the "mini" I've been waiting for. And that monitor is not a bad price for what you get. But the real bottom line is this, overkill or not I want it, and I can afford it. That's why they are both on order with expected delivery dates of April 1-8.

 

[Le0M]

show us that Apple confirmed that NO bigger imacs will come in the future (not just the 27 size)
they just confirmed that the 27" size imac has reached end of life...
The game is in the words
Apple made more money from the bigger imacs for decades...so if Apple wanted to shut down they wouldnt made the 24"

Apple did not make more money from the 27". They sold very few of them compared to the smaller size one.

 

[opeter]

I think we wont see a M1 Pro in the Mac mini/Macbook Air/24" iMac.

Apple, since it is developing processors inhouse, can now simply draw a line, to distinguish consumer products from professional products. And that is exactly what is happening.

 

[uptownnyc]

The 27" iMac was perfect for anyone who does professional work but doesn't have a ton of money. As much as I like the new Studio Mac it's not affordable at all. In Canada, the low-end version is $2,500 not including the monitor which is almost as much as the machine. Sorry Apple, I don't have $4,500 and I think there are a lot of people in the same situation. I could buy the 24" iMac but the specs are not good enough either. Maybe they should think about updating the present iMac to have at least a M1 Pro with 32 GB of ram. Until then I'm out.

I agree - there is a gap. Probably the best fit for this would be either an M1 Mini (or M2 whenever that arrives) and a stand-alone non-Apple monitor.

 

[opeter]

All in ones just make a lot of sense for some folks still - including me. My wish list:
- 32"
- Near bezeless, edge-to-edge display
- No Chin
- Nice adjustable stand

Slap the "Pro" name on it and take my money!

Calculate with at least 5,990 $ for what you wish.

 

[stocklen]

I know of many, personal and business who would not go back to 24 after running a 27 in for 10 years or so.

A decent spec 27 would cost maybe 2k a few years ago, not 3.5k.

Welcome to Apple pricing and marketing.

IF they introduced a 30" iMac theres no way it would be less that 2.5K frankly.

And, I fit into your category... I have used 27" iMacs for 10 years or so but found no issues at all adjusting to the 24.

Remember, for years we had the 21", and the 27". Quite a big difference of course and many oped for the 27.
Now, its 24". Its not like going from 27" down to 21"....

But each to their own.

My point is that the 24" is more than enough for a lot or people .. and even many who thought that 27 was the be all and end all... but seemingly if you want an all-in-one then its 24 or nothing. Sorry about that - blame apple not me. If you want bigger then its separates going forward for now.

You are still quoting 3.5K as the 'replacement' iMac price... it isnt. The 27 to the 21.5 is NOT as big a leap as the M1max version of the studio to the 24" iMac. More realistically as I said its the studio display coupled with the Mac Mini which isnt 3.5K.

 

[lkrupp]

If you are waiting for a non-pro consumer level iMac you already have it in the 24” model. If there’s a larger iMac in the cards it will not be not be consumer level, it will be pro level. The larger iMac is dead for non-pro users.

 

[Blackstick]

I'm a 27" iMac user, got a 2017 with 32GB of RAM and it remains a fantastic Mac. I was hoping for an M1 Pro in a 27" (or even 30") form to join the existing 24", but that seems less likely right now. Seems to me Apple would prefer to channel casual iMac users into the 24", and those wanting more, can pay a lot more, which... does suck for me.

Anyways, since my 2017 5K is running nicely, I'll likely hang until the Fall of 2023 to see what happens by then.

More than likely though, I'll end up with a base Mac Studio and throw two Dell 27" 4K panels on it... not ideal, I'd miss Apple's display, but I can't justify $1600+ for a single monitor.

As an aside... I worked in a flagship Apple Store from 2007-2014. After MacBook Air/Pro, 27" iMacs were our most popular desktop Mac of the time period. We'd sell 40-50 a week. As opposed to 3 or 4 Thunderbolt displays a week. So I don't think Apple is unaware of their installed base of 27" iMacs, and I don't think most of those customers will be paying close to $4000 for a studio+studio display combo.

 

[gevalt]

just a reminder to those who are complaining that the base price of the mac studio is too high
and in the next breath are asking for a new imac pro.

the base price of the 2017 imac pro was USD$5000
you'll be able to get the base mac studio and studio monitor for $3600

jus' sayin'

 

[mannyvel]

My wife is sad, she wants a 27 in one of the 24" colors.

 

[theluggage]

Your analogy only works when you think someone will buy the studio display and the mac mini - and that puts it more at £2,400.

The 5k Intel iMac started at $1800 for a "low end" i5 CPU that was still somewhat better than the $1100 i5 Mac Mini.

Virtually everything else got an Intel to Apple Silicon upgrade, with a massive performance boost, without changing the starting price by more than a couple of hundred bucks (...the Mac Mini got a $100 cut - the 14" MBP got an inch, plus the same CPU/GPU spec as the 16" for the same price as the old low-power i7 option of the 13").

The "5k iMac M1" equivalent got a $600 hike - and the next rung up (M1 Max Mac Studio + display) is $3600 - right at the top end of the old iMac range.

So, basically an M1 "iMac 27" costs £2,400... and an M1 iMac 24 costs £1,500.

So that's a $1100 difference for the same CPU/GPU.

The 27" i5 iMac started at $1800 - the 23.5" i3 iMac started at $1300.

That's a $500 difference with a significant CPU and GPU upgrade.

The inconvenient truth is that the new "5k iMac equivalent" represents a ~$600 price hike c.f. the Intel range, when everything else has kept roughly the same price points. Which might be understandable if they'd come up with a significantly improved display - but they haven't.

(Better speakers, mics and "centre stage" on the webcam are consumer-level features at odds with the "studio" branding - anybody involved in even 'prosumer' audio/video work is going to need proper studio monitors, external mics or cameras).

 

[richest]

IF they introduced a 30" iMac theres no way it would be less that 2.5K frankly.

That price point for a 30 would be ok provided the spec was reasonable.

 

[theluggage]

If Apple wanted to release a 27" iMac they would have done so when they announced the 24" one.

Moot, but the M1 Pro/Max SoCs hadn't been released then. The regular M1 couldn't have replaced the i9 and higher-end GPUs available in the 5k iMac range.

 

[richest]

but seemingly if you want an all-in-one then its 24 or nothing. Sorry about that - blame apple not me. If you want bigger then its separates going forward for now.

Unless the 30 in is coming out this summer?

 

[britboyj]

I'm glad I bought an iMac Pro when I did before they discontinued them. It's more than fast enough for everything I want to do. I need that screen real estate.

 

[servenvolley]

Here is something to think about: The new Studio Display IS now the Apple 27” iMac. It has everything the old 27”iMac has—speakers, camera, mic, great screen—except for the CPU and GPU. For those you need to buy a Mac mini or a Mac Studio. Then, when you need a new computer you don’t have to fork out $$$ for another screen. Makes good engineering sense for Apple, for their customers, and for the environment.

 

[richest]

Then, when you need a new computer you don’t have to fork out $$$ for another screen.

Can see that, but for a cost of 3.5k its to much.
Most people would agree with that imo.

 

[servenvolley]

Can see that, but for a cost of 3.5k its to much.
Most people would agree with that imo.

I understand but I just went to Apple site and a base Mac mini plus base Mac studio are 2300 dollars. Not too bad a price. I think that Apple is showing how much a new 27’ iMac would be in today’s expensive world by selling the Studio Display (which looks a lot like an updated iMac to me and it looked enough like an updated iMac to some of the people that make a living in the Apple rumor mill to fool them as well) by selling this display for 1500 dollars. It is essentially the same display with upgraded mic, speakers, camera.

 

[Spock]

I think that Apple is going back the way things were in the early 2000's with the consumer and Pro systems. The iMac became way more than it was originally designed to be. It was never made to be a fully "pro" machine with the iMac Pro being an obvious exception. The 27 inch iMac was the pro-sumer device and that has now been replaced by the Mac Studio, I think that is one of the reasons they didn't use pro in the name. Now, if they wanted to a pro-sumer AIO, I think a graphite iMac with black bezels and an M1 Pro option would be perfect.

 

[iLondoner]

This has left me nowhere to go. My 2012 27-in iMac with 3TB storage is still fine for what I need (large screen, loads of storage, don't need much power) but it's almost ten years old and it doesn't support the latest MacOS releases. So it needs refreshing, but with what? The Mac Studio plus Mac display would be OK if I needed such power, but I don't. It gives me no more display space than I already have and is silly money.
The only possible route is the Mac Mini coupled with a third party 32-in (or bigger) monitor. Net result is less money spent with Apple. But I have concerns about this route, so the reality is that I will do nothing and spend nothing.

 

[stocklen]

Unless the 30 in is coming out this summer?

But, two things:

1. Theres nothing to even suggest that it might be. yes you can interpret 'the last machine to update is the pro' meaning that its the last category not the last machine...
But think about it... why would they NOT have introduced a larger M1 iMac at the SAME time they did the 24"? Also why would we STILL be waiting and wondering 1 year later!?
Apple are VERY careful about the wording they use - and this, to me, seems like the death knell of the larger iMac. In fact, I think that it would be better for Apple to be open about it and say that there WONT be a bigger one - at least then everyone can stop waiting and speculating and get on with buying whats best for them now. Surely its a sales boost to Apple to say that....

2. Weve all seen this pattern over and over.... the summer wont see any releases.. it never does - occasionally we get new hardware in WWDC but not often - its all about software after all. Summer wont happen.

So as I say, personally I interpret the announcements and observations as that the iMac is now a one-size-fits-all solution like it or not. If you dont like it then they have provided separates now that will satisfy everyone at various price points.

The discontinuation of the iMac pro... followed by the 27" iMac with no 'replacement' forthcoming just tells me that its dead for now.

 

[stocklen]

This has left me nowhere to go. My 2012 27-in iMac with 3TB storage is still fine for what I need (large screen, loads of storage, don't need much power) but it's almost ten years old and it doesn't support the latest MacOS releases. So it needs refreshing, but with what? The Mac Studio plus Mac display would be OK if I needed such power, but I don't. It gives me no more display space than I already have and is silly money.
The only possible route is the Mac Mini coupled with a third party 32-in (or bigger) monitor. Net result is less money spent with Apple. But I have concerns about this route, so the reality is that I will do nothing and spend nothing.

your solution is perfectly good.

If you dont want to spend on Apples shiny new monitor you can get a 3rd party one for slightly less but frankly given the functionality of the studio monitor I think its an OK priced thing for what it is.

You really should update you machine for the reasons youve said and to be fair a mac mini would be a huge upgrade in every sense and you get a machine that will be supported for years to come.

Granted of course if it aint broke youve got nothing to fix... but that lack of software support would bother me...

 

[Trusteft]

If the M ultra need the extra cooling that we see in the mini studio, and the imac pro was supposed to come with the m ultra, then it is possible that any delay/cancellation is because of this. Obviously there is no room in an iMac, unless they go for either a much thicker design, or have the computer part in the base/stand of the 27inch imac.

So IMO we might see a 27 inch imac without the ultra when we see the next round of M2 based computers, though possibly without an ultra one.

 

[mrr]

I have a 27” iMac and I’m looking to upgrade it to a new M1 27” inch iMac.