I am confused...

[Joe Dohn]

Check again!

I have. There's a huge library of applications for Intel systems. While we have advanced to emulate Intel systems with ARM processors, the performance penalty is still around 20%-30%.

Outside of the Mac world, there's no sign people are developing ARM-only ports of AAA software.
Make me up when we have an ARM-only version of Photoshop and Office. Then we talk.

Also, in the meanwhile, both AMD and Intel are making strides.
If they get to 6-10 hours battery life in laptops, all those concerns about replacing X86 with ARM will quickly fade. All we need is for Intel to move into smaller processors, which WILL happen eventually.

 

[robbietop]

I have. There's a huge library of applications for Intel systems. While we have advanced to emulate Intel systems with ARM processors, the performance penalty is still around 20%-30%.

Outside of the Mac world, there's no sign people are developing ARM-only ports of AAA software.
Make me up when we have an ARM-only version of Photoshop and Office. Then we talk.

Also, in the meanwhile, both AMD and Intel are making strides.
If they get to 6-10 hours battery life in laptops, all those concerns about replacing X86 with ARM will quickly fade. All we need is for Intel to move into smaller processors, which WILL happen eventually.

LOL, you are assuming a lot of a company that has continually proven Moore's law can be broken. Apple continually proves Moore's law with its ARM chips and if Intel doesn't abandon x86-64 for ARM64 in the next decade, it will see its business fade into mere rack server territory where power efficiency doesn't actually matter.

Intel has a hard time admitting it has engineered itself into a dead end with x86-64. There is nowhere else to take the design, no matter how small you can make it. Making it smaller does not solve the power efficiency issues, the overheating, the over-dependence on RAM for power, and an unreliable roadmap that is continuously violated.

When will these smaller chips show up? "Two years from two years from now, probably, maybe, more than likely, actually, sorry, we had a design issue and had to start over" They waste so much time in committee designing the chip and talking about it that by the time it reaches market, it's outclassed day one by Apple's $999 MacBook Air 8GB RAM.

Just license ARM FRAND and design something new. Microsoft has already telegraphed that they are dead serious about moving away from x86-64 with serious work on Windows 11 ARM64. The Surface Pro uses the Microsoft/Qualcomm SQ-1 SoC, which is ARMv8.

And Intel is making bumbling mistakes with ARC, Core, and handling remaining customers after Apple said "Bye Felicia"

BTW, Apple left Intel and made their own chip out of necessity because Intel couldn't stick to their release schedule and Macs went years without spec bumps or updates. Apple got tired of waiting for a bumbling fool tinkering with size and RAM rather than you know....EFFICIENCY. Most computer users don't care at all about clock speed, or RAM size or whatever. They want good BATTERY LIFE. It's amazing how Intel is JUST NOW FIGURING THAT OUT. Whoopdee ****ing dooooo, you have 48 TFlops, but your laptop lasts 45 minutes on battery. What good is a 10 inch dick if you orgasm after 3 minutes and fall asleep? The girl gonna find a man that can last longer, and customers will buy a laptop that can go 5 feet away from a wall.

As for AMD, they are a secondary PC market. Their main market is the Jaguar processor for 8th Gen Sony and Microsoft gaming consoles, and Zen2 for 9th gen. AMD could give two ****s about PC gaming, their real talent is showing in console CPU/GPU/APU design. I mean ****, I am not an Xbox fan in the slightest but the Series X is as much a beast as PS5. AMD could give two ****s about a dying desktop market that is mostly gamers anyways. Speaking of PC gaming, what does it say about Intel when the last time anybody asked them to make a console processor was Xbox OG? 360 and PS3 used IBM PowerPC Cell. Xbox One and PS4 used AMD, as does Series and PS5. Why is Intel not the top dog of the console world if they are soooooo amazing?

Most desktops in the office these days are low end Celeron Thin Clients, not Top of the Line Core i9, if it is a desktop at all and not a M1 Mac or Core i3 HP/Dell paperweight.

Google has designed their own ARM processor. And at this point, everyone wants to copy Apple and make their own in house power efficient ARM design.

It reduces coding complexity. Why waste time developing AMD64/x86-64 code and then having to turn around and develop an ARM code base for Mac/iOS? You could just have a basic code base that runs on ARM64 machines, regardless of whether they are a server, tablet, phone, or laptop.

Intel needs to pay attention. The world's most powerful technology company just up and left them without so much as a fight. Like the spouse that just leaves one day and never says a word. Apple just walked out the room, not even a parting shot. And Microsoft is slowly tiptoeing out the room.

Google doesn't use any Core, they use Celeron, AMD, or Qualcomm. And now that they've designed an in-house processor for their Pixel, it is not a stretch of the imagination to think they'll just up and use a beefed up version for the Chromebooks, kicking Intel and AMD to the curb.

 

[Gudi]

Outside of the Mac world, there's no sign people are developing ARM-only ports of AAA software.

There, that's your failure of thinking! Only because ARM dominates the mobile market, it's not a deadly competition for Intel's tripple-A business? That's what "big blue" IBM thought about these PC freaks not threatening their mainframe business. We'll always lead in computers as big as a house.

 

[Joe Dohn]

There, that's your failure of thinking! Only because ARM dominates the mobile market, it's not a deadly competition for Intel's tripple-A business? That's what "big blue" IBM thought about these PC freaks not threatening their mainframe business. We'll always lead in computers as big as a house.

If ARMs take over, it definitely will NOT be Apple, with their current price points.

And what I see is that even if Intel doesn't catch up, AMD is doing very well with their Ryzen processors.
I definitely do not see a future where Apple dominates the whole market.

 

[Spock]

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.

Comparing a car to a computer is a poor comparison. People won’t buy an unsupported iMac because it has a 5k display, the university I work at sells pallets of 2014 5k iMacs for next to nothing because they are obsolete and can no longer be in service due to lack of security updates. An 8 year old Toyota Corolla could haul a trunk load of obsolete iMacs because an 8 year old car is still useful, an 8 year old iMac is not. A 2014 5k iMac could still be useful if you could separate the display from the out dated computer, and now you are spending $1999 for a computer and not $3600 for everything.

 

[Joe Dohn]

Comparing a car to a computer is a poor comparison. People won’t buy an unsupported iMac because it has a 5k display, the university I work at sells pallets of 2014 5k iMacs for next to nothing because they are obsolete and can no longer be in service due to lack of security updates. An 8 year old Toyota Corolla could haul a trunk load of obsolete iMacs because an 8 year old car is still useful, an 8 year old iMac is not. A 2014 5k iMac could still be useful if you could separate the display from the out dated computer, and now you are spending $1999 for a computer and not $3600 for everything.

At least you can still install Windows on those Intel Macs. It'll be fun when M1 processors start to become vintage. They'll be cute paperweights (and MAYBE the possibility of installing Asahi Linux, IF it isn't discontinued).

 

[Gudi]

People won’t buy an unsupported iMac because it has a 5K display, the university I work at sells pallets of 2014 5K iMacs for next to nothing because they are obsolete and can no longer be in service due to lack of security updates.

Universities aren't people. They are institutions which swim in other people's money, they have no economic incentive to try making unsupported iMacs work. There are plenty of people, who would use an older iMac as their first 5K display.

An 8 year old Toyota Corolla could haul a trunk load of obsolete iMacs because an 8 year old car is still useful, an 8 year old iMac is not.

More nonsense!

 

[Ethosik]

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.

Agreed. I have been using non apple displays for 10 years now. I’m not sure why people claim it’s the worst thing ever. I have great eyes and it looks just fine. Better than Windows in some cases with its bad scaling on older software and UI elements being all blurry.

 

[Gudi]

And what I see is that even if Intel doesn't catch up, AMD is doing very well with their Ryzen processors.
I definitely do not see a future where Apple dominates the whole market.

They already do. iPhones are the new personal computers. You need to be compatible to what the vast majority of humans use for computing right now. Not old legacy crap.

 

[Ethosik]

At double+ the price. No thanks.

My 2019 i9 iMac was $5,000. My replacement Mac Studio was $2,600. Plenty of room for a monitor. It won’t cost $10,000 with the studio and monitor.

 

[Joe Dohn]

LOL, you are assuming a lot of a company that has continually proven Moore's law can be broken. Apple continually proves Moore's law with its ARM chips and if Intel doesn't abandon x86-64 for ARM64 in the next decade, it will see its business fade into mere rack server territory where power efficiency doesn't actually matter.

Intel has a hard time admitting it has engineered itself into a dead end with x86-64. There is nowhere else to take the design, no matter how small you can make it. Making it smaller does not solve the power efficiency issues, the overheating, the over-dependence on RAM for power, and an unreliable roadmap that is continuously violated.

When will these smaller chips show up? "Two years from two years from now, probably, maybe, more than likely, actually, sorry, we had a design issue and had to start over" They waste so much time in committee designing the chip and talking about it that by the time it reaches market, it's outclassed day one by Apple's $999 MacBook Air 8GB RAM.

Just license ARM FRAND and design something new. Microsoft has already telegraphed that they are dead serious about moving away from x86-64 with serious work on Windows 11 ARM64. The Surface Pro uses the Microsoft/Qualcomm SQ-1 SoC, which is ARMv8.

And Intel is making bumbling mistakes with ARC, Core, and handling remaining customers after Apple said "Bye Felicia"

BTW, Apple left Intel and made their own chip out of necessity because Intel couldn't stick to their release schedule and Macs went years without spec bumps or updates. Apple got tired of waiting for a bumbling fool tinkering with size and RAM rather than you know....EFFICIENCY. Most computer users don't care at all about clock speed, or RAM size or whatever. They want good BATTERY LIFE. It's amazing how Intel is JUST NOW FIGURING THAT OUT. Whoopdee ****ing dooooo, you have 48 TFlops, but your laptop lasts 45 minutes on battery. What good is a 10 inch dick if you orgasm after 3 minutes and fall asleep? The girl gonna find a man that can last longer, and customers will buy a laptop that can go 5 feet away from a wall.

As for AMD, they are a secondary PC market. Their main market is the Jaguar processor for 8th Gen Sony and Microsoft gaming consoles, and Zen2 for 9th gen. AMD could give two ****s about PC gaming, their real talent is showing in console CPU/GPU/APU design. I mean ****, I am not an Xbox fan in the slightest but the Series X is as much a beast as PS5. AMD could give two ****s about a dying desktop market that is mostly gamers anyways. Speaking of PC gaming, what does it say about Intel when the last time anybody asked them to make a console processor was Xbox OG? 360 and PS3 used IBM PowerPC Cell. Xbox One and PS4 used AMD, as does Series and PS5. Why is Intel not the top dog of the console world if they are soooooo amazing?

Wow, someone is angry!
But it doesn't matter how you slice it, Apple is too expensive for regular consumers and only popular in the US.
If the future you want becomes reality, Linux will take over in the form of Android (even if a heavily modified fork), Steam Deck and modified consoles. Apple is only more popular in the US, and even so because it is more afordable.

 

[robbietop]

If ARMs take over, it definitely will NOT be Apple, with their current price points.

And what I see is that even if Intel doesn't catch up, AMD is doing very well with their Ryzen processors.
I definitely do not see a future where Apple dominates the whole market.

Dude, if you think Ryzen will outsell MacBooks, that's great for you. AMD's main market is Zen2 for console gaming, where most of their talent is being spent.
The PC market has been contracting for over a decade, as people opt for iPads and Smartphones over laptops and desktops. Why spend $1500 on a top of the line gaming PC when my Xbox Series X/PlayStation5 does the same thing for half the cost and I don't have to wait a year sometimes for the PC port? Console gaming is eating PC gaming's lunch, and PC gaming is the only industry keeping Desktop PCs and their powerful expensive processors alive.

And with Remote Play or GamePass, I can game on my phone. Why waste any money on a desktop when the phone costs the same, but also makes phone calls and can fit in my pocket?

 

[Joe Dohn]

Dude, if you think Ryzen will outsell MacBooks, that's great for you. AMD's main market is Zen2 for console gaming, where most of their talent is being spent.

I don't know what will outsell Macbooks. I'm just saying there's no way, if things stay where they are, that we'll see a future where ARM Macbooks will take over the market. We will see anyone else there BUT Apple.

Especially so considering Apple's lack of flexibility, price, and practices that discourage reselling of old products.

 

[Spock]

Universities aren't people. They are institutions which swim in other people's money, they have no economic incentive to try making unsupported iMacs work. There are plenty of people, who would use an older iMac as their first 5K display.

More nonsense!

But you can’t use an iMac 5k as an external display unless you use it with the 2014 computer hardware.. That’s the point I’m trying to make. You could install Windows on it I guess, or OpenCore and install Ventura on it but you are still locked into an 8 year old Intel system. How much work is it worth? Do you want to depend on a hacked system or Windows for work? And the fact that we can’t run an operating system with no security updates or hardware support is why we get rid of obsolete machines at my uni, do you think students can learn on outdated machines? And we certainly can’t support hacked systems. I’m sure the cyber security students would love that.

 

[robbietop]

I don't know what will outsell Macbooks. I'm just saying there's no way, if things stay where they are, that we'll see a future where ARM Macbooks will take over the market. We will see anyone else there BUT Apple.

Especially so considering Apple's lack of flexibility, price, and practices that discourage reselling of old products.

Don't work in a technology field as an IT Admin or Sysadmin or in sales.

Dude, the only machines that got given to employees were cheap i3 laptops with Citrix that were more Thin Client than a computer. In schools, all they ship out are bargain bin Chromebooks with a web browser for an OS. The A4 could power them and its 10 years old.

As for sales, best selling laptops are again Bargain Bin Chromebooks with a web browser for an OS, or the gaming rigs that are overpriced and overheat (Intel mostly overheat). But the best selling in a single category are MacBooks. BestBuy now has a program where you can make monthly payments on a Mac and rent it if you want. And I say it's on a Mac because even though you can do it with any other machine, nobody wants a Windows PC much anymore.

You claim Apple has a flexibility, price, and resale problem but they are the wealthiest company in history with sales through the roof. The top four selling smartphones in the USA for years has been on average all Apple.

And judging by the fact that Apple is not rushing to a foldable phone, all the hutzpah about them from Samsung, etc is all talk and no sales. I mean, Google goes up there and claims they have revolutionized the Industry with the Pixel, and then 0.02 people buy them for every 100 consumers. Apple gets 48/100 sales, Samsung 30/100 in this quarter. Worse for Samsung last quarter.

Google is not even mentioned in graphs, lists or anything regarding sales, lumped in the Other category. The Pixel is a sales fart.

People DO NOT CARE about resale, tinkering, modularity, etc. If they did, the Essential Phone would be a market leader and MacBooks would not be outselling x86-64 machines. Android device makers made a huge deal about allowing people to side load on Android and having multiple app Stores. Data shows most people use the default App Store installed by the manufacturer (Samsung, Amazon, etc) or the default one provided by the software maker (Google Play Store, Apple App Store). And modularity is pretty much dead at this point as SD card slots disappear from Android handsets. Where's the headset jack Samsung mocked Apple over removing? Gone in Android for the most part.

People just do not care. They want shiny badges of honor to show they are keeping up with the Joneses, or something that functions and does the basics. And in the USA, teens overwhelmingly want iPhone.

US smartphone market share by vendor 2016-2024| Statista

Manufacturers’ market share of smartphone sales in the United States is led by Apple and Samsung, with a market share of ** percent and ** percent, respectively, as of the second quarter of 2024.

www.statista.com

Who are the teens suddenly choosing Android over iPhone?

It appeared as if Apple was completely taking over teen hearts and minds. Now, a small change.

www.zdnet.com

Some things appear inevitable.

From ZDNET, so it doesn't appear to hold any bias.

"Technology will take over your life.
One day, you'll be an actual robot.
And teens just don't want Android phones.

At least that's the impression given every six months by the Taking Stock With Teens survey performed by investment bank Piper Sandler.

Why, a mere year ago, I wondered whether we should venerate the last teen to buy an Android phone.


Then, 88% of the 7,000 teens surveyed said they owned an iPhone. An overwhelming 90% said their next phone would be an iPhone."

Apple realized this generation was lost as Gen X and Millennials have weird obsessions with "Customization". They realized that blasting their logo with cool, popular music showing people happy with Apple Products is perfect for children and when they grow up, they won't give two ****s about Customization, Modularity, etc. They wanna be cool like the artists they follow. DJs don't use Windows PCs, they use MacBooks. Sitting right there in the club, for everyone to stare at. Rap artists use MacBooks. Musicians use Macs. All the cool artsy people that GenZ wants to be like use Macs and have iPhones.

MKBHD has said for years that the iPhone is almost hard to compare to anything other than Samsung.

And I have watched several family members who at one point had angry arguments with me about how Android is better now completely Apple (Watch, Mac, iPhone, iPad, iCloud, etc).

Apple is winning by delivering features that although Android beat them to it, Apple delivers it in a functional form that actually works and is not just a gimmick to differentiate themselves like birds trying to mate.

 

[973358]

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.

Chip shortages. I think they focus on the products that sell more. The 27inch or iMac Pro with Pro/Max chips should be back after the issue is fixed.

 

[Ethosik]

I think Apple wants you to buy a Mac Mini and a Studio Display.

Those two together have a 2.3k base price. Didn't the 27" iMac have a 2k base price? Considering inflation that sounds pretty comparable to me in terms of price.

Sure you loose the sleek all in one, but you gain some additional modularity for future upgrades.

Agreed. And I need more than one monitor, three ideally. I really don’t like iMacs. I’m tied to a screen with the computer. It’s just not a good idea for my needs. I like all my monitors to match. I’d like to upgrade computer and monitor independently. And even tied to $300 or $1,000 monitors from third parties, it still looks clear.

 

[Joe Dohn]

So what those 88% of the 7,000 US teens WANTED an iPhone? Wanting is different from purchasing.
Just because something is a status symbol, it doesn't mean it's doing well.
I'm sure that everyone wants a Ferrari or diamond rings, and yet you don't see them selling like hotcakes.
Because guess what: THEY'RE EXPENSIVE.

What you said only reinforces what I said too, that Apple is only strong in the US market.

If you consider the whole picture globally, the most popular brands worldwide are instead Lenovo, Dell and HP, with 60% of the global market: https://webtribunal.net/blog/laptop-market-share/#gref

By the way, Apple hasn't disclosed data since 2018, but by then, their laptop sales numbers had dropped from 9% to 6%, showing a 28% increase in 2021 (maybe due to M1?).

True, Apple makes a lot of money. But that is due to their ridiculously large margins on hardware and their App Store. If they rest on their laurels, their margin can quickly vanish.

Remember, IBM was huge once. It only takes a few years for everything to change.

 

[OneBar]

Did it run MacOS? I'd looked into the possibility of a hackintosh but the iMac is for my wife to use day in day out so it needs to be as close to no maintenance as possible. Downtime = loss of money. I bit the bullet and bought a 2020 iMac 27" with the 8-core i7 and slapped 128GB of RAM from OWC in there right away. With an 8-bay RAID enclosure hooked up, it's a powerhouse for photo editing.

For me personally, a desktop PC and a laptop Mac meets my needs while keeping cost down. For myself, the cost of computing over the last 5 years has been about $400-500 per year. Gonna have to upgrade the MBP eventually, but so far I've been one of the lucky ones with my 2016 15" MBP. Minor keyboard issues (my fault) were fixed when I had Apple replace the battery (+top case) last year, and besides the battery going out it's been perfect.

It did for about 6 months, yeah. Quite reliably, even. I just had more things I needed Windows for at home versus work so installed 7Pro on it.

Yeah I did graphic design on the RiMac at my last job. Had the 4790K, 32 Gb RAM, the 1 Tb fusion drive. Don't like all in ones but that sucker thrashed. It was an upgrade from a 2012 base model 27" that I absolutely destroyed to the point that it had to have the fan and HDD replaced because the fan failed and overheated the drive. My 2015 box is starting to show it's age and will be replaced next year so I imagine the RiMac would be starting to show some age as well but if I could have the same box with M2 and 64 Gb RAM with a 2 Tb M.2 I'd be happy. I think the $4000 price tag is a bit steep but it'd be a solid rig.

 

[Ethosik]

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.

People also need to realign their thinking. Now to clarify there is always a need for better hardware. But prior to M1 anything I compared the top end Mac mini with the top end iMac in 2019. iMac obviously beat the crap out of the mini for obvious reasons. As I mentioned I really dislike iMacs and AIO in general. So my choices were bad Mac mini or horribly overpriced Mac Pro. No I’m between. So I’m locked to the iMac.

However, M1 Mac mini came out and it at around $1,000 beat the crap out of my 2019 i9 iMac which was $5,000. I immediately sold my iMac. And for what I do, the iMac just wasn’t as good as the Mac mini.

M1 Max 16” MacBook Pro made my work even better. M1 Ultra made my work better again. All while being less than my iMac cost. I replaced the Mac mini with a base Mac Studio and a minor upgrade.

I’m holding out to see what the Mac Pro would be like. I still have my 2010 Mac Pro in my workload but it’s time. Probably will replace with a Studio but we will see.

 

[macsound1]

Trying to guide the convo back to the iMac.

For me and my consulting business, I work with a company that has always purchased 27” iMacs almost exclusively.
The scope is - buy the “better” config and give them to the artists and editors. Every year those people would get new iMacs. They pass them to the managers and QC teams, who pass them to regular office workers. Finally then end up at hot desks, scanning stations, inventory, and mail room printers.

It worked really well for us because we could spec up the iMac so it’s worthwhile for the artists, like 64GB of ram, when the new displays came out in them, it was a huge boon for everyone, and it made for a simplistic and logical 5 year plan for all of these machines.

We don’t want to hand out external displays because then people’s desks and printer carts etc would be shrouded in cables, something we’ve loved not dealing with since 2006 or whenever the G5 iMac came out.

We can’t use the M1 iMac because it only supports 1 external display which causes issues when the machine is passed down to conference rooms and other setups that have 2 big wall mounted TVs.

Ultimately because of Covid, it’s been good timing, but we can’t leave those artists on 2019 iMacs forever, mostly because of the age of the last iMac in the line getting too far behind in our succession plan.

Fingers crossed they’re updating the 24” to support more ram and external displays, or what I really want, a 27” with an MxPro

 

[JouniS]

I don’t see Apple releasing a budget display. They might drop the price on the Studio Display, but I don’t see them coming out with a cheaper, more bare bones 27” monitor.

The way I see it, monitor price points are roughly $200 (budget), $500 (mid-range), $1000 (high end), $2000 (very high end), and $5000 (ultra high end). If Apple is in the business of selling mid-range $1000 laptops, a mid-range $500 monitor designed to work well with macOS would probably be close to what their actual customers want.

 

[macsound1]

The way I see it, monitor price points are roughly $200 (budget), $500 (mid-range), $1000 (high end), $2000 (very high end), and $5000 (ultra high end). If Apple is in the business of selling mid-range $1000 laptops, a mid-range $500 monitor designed to work well with macOS would probably be close to what their actual customers want.

I just wish they sold 3 different models like they used to. Same panel and features, just smaller is cheaper.
Like a 24”, 27”, and 32”
The 24” could maybe be $899, which is a far cry from affordable, but any cost savings would be appreciate d

 

[Spock]

Universities aren't people. They are institutions which swim in other people's money, they have no economic incentive to try making unsupported iMacs work. There are plenty of people, who would use an older iMac as their first 5K display.

More nonsense!

Another thing I would like to add is that I do agree with you to a certain point, as a long time Mac user and Apple collector, I would be willing to install OpenCore and and run Ventura on a 2014 iMac, but my posts are more referring to the people that won’t or can’t hack a system in that way.

 

[bobcomer]

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

Because TV is a VERY competitive market and Apple doesn't like to play in such markets -- they can't expect to have their normal markup, nobody will buy it.