I am confused...

[Gudi]

Does Apple make more money if I buy a Mac mini and a third party screen, than by selling me a 27" iMac?

Yes! When Steve Balmer introduced the first generation of Surface tablets in 2012, the ARM-based Surface RT and the INTEL-based Surface Pro lived side-by-side. It wasn't a full-fledged transition to a newer better ARM technology, but a mishmash of competing incompatible standards. As a result the ARM-based tablet failed in the market and Microsoft made another bold step towards bankruptcy.

Apple knows how to make a transition, how to prepare it, how to make it a smooth switch and how to completely drop the old way of doing things like a hot potato. The 27" iMac had to be discontinued this year and the Studio Display only exists to be able to kill it and put something in its place until a large iMac with Apple Silicon is ready to take its spot in the shinning light of greatness.

Nobody cares if you actually buy the overpriced Studio Display or a much cheaper LG UltraFine 5K. The more important part (which made Apple the richest company in history) is that even the last fool gets, that the Intel era is over once and for all. The old has been replaced by the new, and Apple will be damed to allow it back in any way or from. It's been discontinued to die! Because it must die.

 

[Literate]

My 4k Dell monitor won't use RGB and ends up using YPbPr which makes the colours look terrible. Also I can't update the firmware from MacOS, nor can I use the Dell software that lets me change the settings.

I had a similar problem when using HDMI with one of my monitors. Absolutely maddening. After switching over to DisplayPort, all is well (and I'm then able to achieve 4K@144Hz, as opposed to a mere 60Hz w/ HDMI).

Of course, "just use DP 🤪" isn't really a helpful solution (personally I'd another device occupying that port, and it's neither universally present nor a guaranteed fix)...

 

[aevan]

I think the profit is in the fact that you try to use the third party screen with your MacMini, then you find out that macOS support for 3rd party screens is terrible and broken, and then finally you give up and spend $1600+ on the Studio Display.

First time I hear macOS support for 3rd party screens is terrible and broken. And I’ve been using Macs for a while.

 

[aevan]

I had a similar problem when using HDMI with one of my monitors. Absolutely maddening. After switching over to DisplayPort, all is well (and I'm then able to achieve 4K@144Hz, as opposed to a mere 60Hz w/ HDMI).

Of course, "just use DP 🤪" isn't really a helpful solution (personally I'd another device occupying that port, and it's neither universally present nor a guaranteed fix)...

That has nothing to do with macOS and everything to do with the fact Macs don’t have HDMI 2.1 ports. But you do have DisplayPort, as you said.

 

[Spock]

I was referring to someone saying that a Mac Studio + Studio display is a replacement for an iMac 27".

That's why i said at double the price of a base model iMac 27".

The Mac Studio and Studio Display is a replacement for the high end 27 inch iMac and the iMac Pro. The benefit is that you are no longer stuck with a perfectly good 5k display attached to a useless computer when the iMac is out of date. And the 27 inch iMac with similar specs as the studio were just as expensive as the Studio combo. For what you are getting, $3600 is not bad.

 

[theorist9]

It’s entirely possible that an inexpensive source of 5K panels dried up and creating a new 5K 27” iMac would be too expensive to sell in enough quantities to be profitable.

With current MMG (multi-model on glass) panel production techniques, LCD plants can mix and match panel sizes on a single mother glass. [Gen 10.5 motherglasses are 337 cm x 294 cm = 133" x 116".] Thus Apple could produce 27" 5k panels on the same production line it's currently using for the 4.5k panels on the 24" iMac (both are 218 ppi) and, in so doing, improve its economies of scale.

 

[jmho]

First time I hear macOS support for 3rd party screens is terrible and broken. And I’ve been using Macs for a while.

Just go out to the first page of this very forum's index and there are loads of threads about monitor issues, and this isn't even the accessories forum.

Maybe solved the flickering issues on the external screens
M1 Air ghosting, flickering with external display
M2 MacBook Air + LG G2 TV HDR Question
HDCP Doesn't Work With External Monitors on MBP M1 Max
M1 MacBook Air: External display not recognized after waking from sleep
Mac mini: 4k @ 120hz?
Mac Mini M1 - Iiyama 5K screen

I'm sure it's possible to find 3rd party screens that work well on Mac, but it's definitely also possible to end up having a total nightmare.

 

[Gudi]

The benefit is that you are no longer stuck with a perfectly good 5K display attached to a useless computer when the iMac is out of date.

Instead you're stuck with an old Mac Studio, which isn't fast enough for high-performance computing (HPC) anymore and doesn't even have a still good 5K display to offer. Good luck selling that to anyone! The appeal of older high technology is not the part which aged the quickest. You don't buy a 10-years-old Porsche motor for your Toyota Corolla chassis, but you might drive a 10-years-old Porsche and enjoy the whole ride. An older iMac is still desirable precisely because of that 5K display.

 

[maflynn]

The benefit is that you are no longer stuck with a perfectly good 5k display attached to a useless computer

This has always been a knock on the AIO designs. Maybe feature/scope creep entered into Apple's designs. The iMac originally and for much of its production life was more of a consumer product. 5k, happened, and then larger displays and people wanted to use them in more professional settings.

I'm not saying apple isn't or shouldn't produce a 27" iMac, I'd love to see one but I definitely can see the Studio + Studio display being the combo that in effect plugs the product hole that the 27" iMac left.

 

[EzisAA]

I'm in-between views when it comes to the 27" iMac. My first iMac was a base 2012 27" iMac, I'm not even close to a power user but I really enjoyed having a large screen. It lasted me until 2021 when I upgraded to the 24" iMac (even the M1 is overkill for my use). Now I find the 24" is the sweet spot and I prefer it over the 27" and 21.5" iMacs of the past.

I feel like for Apple now, anything larger than the 24" iMac is now targeting the true pro and power user crowds, hence the price. Seems like they save their larger screens for more powerful computers like the larger MBPs.

I've yet to meet someone who is a heavy Mac user who doesn't have either a 27" iMac (or a larger 3rd party) or a 16" MBP. Everyone I know who just needs a computer for a computer has either the 21.5" iMac or MBA. Although this is all anecdotal.

I agree, 24 inch is the perfect size - I use a MacBook Pro M1 with LG 23.7 4K monitor. For watching movies or edit video I prefer external monitor, but web browsing, photo edit on MacBook display.

And I still can pick up my mac with me.

 

[Gudi]

I agree, 24 inch is the perfect size - I use a MacBook Pro M1 with LG 23.7 4K monitor. For watching movies or edit video I prefer external monitor, but web browsing, photo edit on MacBook display.

Yes, but for watching movies with friends and family, I still need a 32-inch couch iMac.

 

[Isengardtom]

It would be nice if they introduce one again, but I feel people will be very disappointed at the price.
It’s not going to be under 2.000 USD for a base model given the studio display. A M1 Mac Mini + Studio display costs 2.800 EUR.

Other things to think about: Do you just want base M or Pro / Max / (Ultra) as well? - will drive up price even more



Personally I think my M1 iMac is probably the best computer I’ve ever owned and I’m very happy with this 24” form factor.

One thing I could see them do is add an MX pro chip option to the current iMac line, for people that want a bit more power.

 

[EzisAA]

Yes, but for watching movies with friends and family, I still need a 32-inch couch iMac.

You need try TV 😂 +55 inch

 

[Gudi]

You need try TV 😂 +55 inch

Yeah, but the long rumored TV got stuck in the warehouse. I don't know why Apple doesn't build it? 🤷

 

[EzisAA]

Yeah, but the long rumored TV got stuck in the warehouse. I don't know why Apple doesn't build it? 🤷

I am pretty happy with old eLED Sony 42 inch 1080p + Apple TV 4K (1.gen). Maybe someday i will be update tv, but now i more watching in 1/4 screen of my external monitor movies, when edit video 😃

 

[Gudi]

42 inch 1080p

I'd rather watch 24-inch 2520p from 5 feet away. Thanks! 😎

 

[EzisAA]

I don't know why Apple doesn't build it? 🤷

Because tv is like an iPads - people it's keep max long. But the same time it's pretty expensive! So tv box is less expensive and easy to update/replace to new.

And HDMI Ethernet cables make it easy - to controller with one remote.

 

[Gudi]

But the same time it's pretty expensive!

And Apple is all about making cheap throwaway items, got it.

 

[Jimmdean]

The simple answer is that someone at Apple probably messed up. Either supply chain issues, R&D deficiencies, or they simply thought the mac studio + cinema display would seem like a viable alternative to customers. Considering my local Costco still sells 27” intel imacs and I’ve never seen either new product there I’d say that decision was dead wrong. I’m sure Apple still sells a lot of those but I bet it pales in comparison to the 27” iMac numbers they moved through Best Buys and Costcos.

 

[EugW]

There are lots of 3rd party monitors that work just fine with Macs. The last Apple monitor I owned was a 30" Cinema Display; and it is more than likely the last one I will ever own. Currently my main monitor is a Ultrawide Dell @ 3840x1600.

The 30" Cinema Display has some issues with M1 Macs. So, I bought one of these MateViews:

We have two users with MacMini and the Huawei MateVIEW, it is the same width as a 27" iMac but vertically has screen where the chin is. The down side is it does not have a camera(bad for zoom), the speakers are poor not that matters in too much for business but it is not a retina display and has a matt finish.

The size is so much better than an iMac screen(I think Apple should adopt this ratio) but the lack of camera is a pain because we have so many online meetings. The screen is not as clear. We are not experiencing any issues with this setup.

If this is as good as it gets we will have to roll with it, but I would prefer a 27" iMac, I just can't see how Apple is better off driving me and users like me down this route.

The speakers are junk, so I use external speakers. Any third party webcam should work. Just be aware that the USB ports on the MateView function at USB 2 speeds so if you plug the webcam into the MateView, it should be a USB 2 model. If it's a USB 3 webcam, you should plug it directly into the Mac, or else into a USB 3 port on a hub.

BTW, ironically I get the 2304xXXXX resolution I want with the MateView, but I don't get that option with the 27" 5K iMac 2017 beside it for some strange reason. The only way to get that resolution on the iMac is to use SwitchResX, but that's kind of a kludgy solution.

2304x1536 on the Mateview looks very good, with my preferred bigger font sizes than 2560x1707 on the MateView (or 2560x1440 on the 5K iMac).

 

[darngooddesign]

Does Apple make more money if I buy a MacMini and a third party screen, than by selling me a 27" iMac? I am totally dumbfounded by the logic behind discontinuing the 27" iMac unless it is more profitable for them to sell a MacMini than the iMac.

Why do you think they wont release a new 27” iMac?

 

[robbietop]

The Mac mini is not the parity device for iMac 27, that's the Mac Studio. The Mac Studio eliminates the need for 27 iMac and iMac Pro.

Apple is telegraphing that desktops are legacy products. They are putting the desktop class processor M1 into a tablet, a low end laptop, Air.

The iMac has several lazy design flaws, a classic sign of a quick rubber-stamp intended to flush a product out to fill a hole.

Mac Pro still doesn't have an M processor, which based on what MKBHD and everyone else said about how useless Mac Pro is given the MacBook Pro M1 basically outclassed it, I am fearing the Mac Pro is on its last leg.

The Mac Pro is probably going to be released next year, with its final design. It will be spec bumped infrequently, and then quietly discontinued in a half decade as they start putting Mx Pro/Max into MacBooks and iPads.

iMac 27 no longer has a market, the iMac 24 does everything it could do and more, as does the MacBook Pro M1 Pro/Max and Mac Studio.

Why waste selling a product that didn't sell well for the years it was on sale? iMac 27 continually was undersold and Apple basically abandoned it for the iMac Pro.

 

[Joe Dohn]

Nobody cares if you actually buy the overpriced Studio Display or a much cheaper LG UltraFine 5K. The more important part (which made Apple the richest company in history) is that even the last fool gets, that the Intel era is over once and for all. The old has been replaced by the new, and Apple will be damed to allow it back in any way or from. It's been discontinued to die! Because it must die.

Last time I checked, Intel wasn't going away anytime soon. And Microsoft STILL offers x64 Surface tablets, you know.

 

[Gudi]

Last time I checked, Intel wasn't going away anytime soon.

Check again!

 

[darngooddesign]

Apple is telegraphing that desktops are legacy products. They are putting the desktop class processor M1 into a tablet, a low end laptop, Air.

They put a consumer-class chip in those products; the professional-class (#Pro, #Max, and #Ultra) chips are not going in them.