I am confused...

[bobcomer]

They are putting the desktop class processor M1 into a tablet, a low end laptop, Air.

Actually they're putting mobile processors in their desktops. The Studio Ultra is the only "desktop" processor they have. (so far) Unless you count the current Mac Pro and iMac Pro, of course.

 

[bobcomer]

Check again!

LOL! x86/64 is still in WAY more PC's than the M series chips, and for good reason.

 

[Zest28]

So let's see how the 8-core GPU 24" iMac ($1500) is priced:
- 24" LG Ultrafine 4K = $700
- M1 Mac Mini (8-core GPU) = $700
- Total package = $1400 (thus $100 cheaper than the 24" iMac 8-core GPU option).

So we see from the 24" iMac that the iMac is more expensive than if you buy the monitor and computer seperately.

So I wish you all the best if you think a 27" iMac is going to be cheaper than buying it being separate.

The only way a 27" iMac could be cheaper is if they use the older LG Ultrafine 5K display (which has lower brightness, no HDR and worse contrast).

 

[profcutter]

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.

Which university? I’d love to pick up one of those machines and gut it to make a 5k monitor.

 

[Gudi]

LOL! x86/64 is still in WAY more PC's than the M series chips, and for good reason.

Go to any consumer electronics store and you'll find that the PC shelve has been replaced with a wall of iPhone cases and a test ground for robot vacuum cleaners.

 

[SpotOnT]

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 am sure many would love Apple to release a $500 monitor…..but has Apple ever sold a monitor for under $1,000?

I could see Apple selling a $1,000 monitor, but I don’t think they will ever release a $500 monitor.

 

[Zest28]

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.

Let's do some basic math here:
- 24" iMac 8-core GPU = $1500
- 24" LG Ultrafine. = $700
- 27" LG Ultrafine = $1300
- M1 Mac Mini 8-core GPU = $700

A 27" iMac (with the same LG Ultrafine Apple has used in the older 27" iMac) would be:
24" iMac + 27" LG Ultrafine - 24" LG Ultrafine = $1500 + $1300 - $700 = $2100

But if you would buy it separately:
27" LG Ultrafine + M1 Mac Mini = $1300 + $700 = $2000.

So to answer your question, buying it separately is cheaper if we keep all components the same. So nobody would buy the 27" iMac.

I used the LG Ultrafine here, as Apple tend to use these for the iMacs. The Apple Studio Display is based on a newer display that is brighter and supports HDR, so that comparison is unfair.

 

[maflynn]

LOL! x86/64 is still in WAY more PC's than the M series chips, and for good reason.

Indeed, once the Reality distortion field (RDF) dissipated, it was clear that many GPUa and x86 processors exceed what the M1 Pro/MAx/Ultra is capable of. What the M1 series is a powerful processor that is incredibly efficient power wise. Its also one of the best laptop processors in the market.

The 30 and 40 series nvidia GPUs are phenomenal, and Intel has regained the crown for best desktop processor - though with AMD's 3d cache, they'll probably take that back once the those are released.

 

[Ethosik]

Actually they're putting mobile processors in their desktops. The Studio Ultra is the only "desktop" processor they have. (so far) Unless you count the current Mac Pro and iMac Pro, of course.

Well even their baseline initial mobile processor beat out my i9 iMac.

 

[Literate]

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.

Please read the entirety of my post, including the text'd I'd originally quoted.

The core problem is macOS incorrectly using YPbPr rather than RGB, with no reasonable option around this (unless you're willing to disable SIP). This has nothing to do with a lack of HDMI 2.1. It's been an extremely longstanding issue with macOS (>10 yrs): https://www.mathewinkson.com/2013/0...x-the-picture-quality-of-an-external-monitor/

Using DisplayPort fixes the problem and has macOS use the correct colour mode.

As an added benefit, DisplayPort also unlocks higher refresh rates, but that's beside the point: HDMI shouldn't present a garbled mess regardless of refresh rate. I'd be happy to live with 4K@60Hz so long as colours were fine; that way the DP input might be freed up for my primary machine. (I prefer macOS but require Windows for work...)

 

[EugW]

I am sure many would love Apple to release a $500 monitor…..but has Apple ever sold a monitor for under $1,000?

I could see Apple selling a $1,000 monitor, but I don’t think they will ever release a $500 monitor.

Yes, Apple has sold several monitors for under $1000. In fact, the 27" Thunderbolt Display was $999.

 

[HiVolt]

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.

Apple doesn't manufacture or produce anything.

In this case, it would be the display supplier like Samsung or LG.

 

[Boil]

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.

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

Apple really needs to get the Mn Pro SoC in more than just the 14"/16" MBP laptops...!

Mn Pro Mac mini...
Mn Pro 27" iMac...

So let's see how the 8-core GPU 24" iMac ($1500) is priced:
- 24" LG Ultrafine 4K = $700
- M1 Mac Mini (8-core GPU) = $700
- Total package = $1400 (thus $100 cheaper than the 24" iMac 8-core GPU option).

The 24" 4K LG UltraFine display is not the same as the 24" 4.5K iMac display, and one could argue that the extra 0.5K of resolution is where the extra US$100 comes into the equation...

 

[bobcomer]

and PC gaming is the only industry keeping Desktop PCs and their powerful expensive processors alive.

You can't forget business. That's where the most software development goes to and where x86/64 rules... (and for people that work at home occasionally.

 

[bobcomer]

Go to any consumer electronics store and you'll find that the PC shelve has been replaced with a wall of iPhone cases and a test ground for robot vacuum cleaners.

LOL, I really don't care about consumer electronics stores, it's not where I get PC's. In the past when I did look there they were all so undergutted machines with a low price point, which is also not something I'd buy. For work we deal directly with the vendors, Lenovo being our preferred, though not the only vendor I deal with.

 

[bobcomer]

I am sure many would love Apple to release a $500 monitor…..but has Apple ever sold a monitor for under $1,000?

I could see Apple selling a $1,000 monitor, but I don’t think they will ever release a $500 monitor.

I wish they did release a $500 monitor!

 

[theorist9]

Apple doesn't manufacture or produce anything.

In this case, it would be the display supplier like Samsung or LG.

Since I was talking about production using Gen 10.5 LCD plants, which Apple obviously doesn't own, it should have been obvious that I meant "produce" as a shorthand for "arrange to be produced". I'm sorry you weren't able to understand that.

And note that I was referring to the production line for Apple's 4.5k 24" iMac panels. Apple is likely the only company that sources such panels, so Apple has already arrange for custom production. Hence it make sense that Apple could ask that line be reconfigured to produce both 24" and 27" panels:

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.

 

[bobcomer]

Indeed, once the Reality distortion field (RDF) dissipated, it was clear that many GPUa and x86 processors exceed what the M1 Pro/MAx/Ultra is capable of. What the M1 series is a powerful processor that is incredibly efficient power wise. Its also one of the best laptop processors in the market.

I agree with all of that. The trouble with the (Mac) Laptop game, at least where I work is it doesn't run Windows apps well, so it's not even considered. That's not true of all corporations of course, but for smaller, low margin industries with low IT development budgets, compatibility is a MAJOR influence. The biggest. That's where I work...

The 30 and 40 series nvidia GPUs are phenomenal, and Intel has regained the crown for best desktop processor - though with AMD's 3d cache, they'll probably take that back once the those are released.

Yep. I don't really need high end GPU's, but the future is very bright for Intel and AMD mid range CPU's.

Eventually x86/64 will get totally replaced, but not in my lifetime (I'm 63). I expect the processor that will replace it will be more generic than an Apple CPU and fast enough to emulate any legacy needs. Who that makes that CPU, who knows. It'll probably be RISC with a lot of firmware handling the emulation.

 

[bobcomer]

Well even their baseline initial mobile processor beat out my i9 iMac.

They don't beat a current i9 desktop.

 

[robbietop]

You can't forget business. That's where the most software development goes to and where x86/64 rules... (and for people that work at home occasionally.

Businesses mostly buy low end computers for basic thin client work or Citrix. They're not buying Xeon, unless they need servers, but that's not for an individual user.

 

[bobcomer]

Businesses mostly buy low end computers for basic thin client work or Citrix.

So I've seen mentioned in this thread multiple times, but it doesn't match my experience at all. While we do use Citrix for one of our corporate apps, we don't run thin clients, we run fully equipped Windows PC's and they are used as Windows PC's where all local stuff is done on the machine itself.

They're not buying Xeon, unless they need servers, but that's not for an individual user.

We only put Xeon's in servers as you suggest, desktops are either i7's or i5's, unless they need more computing power, and then we go with an i9. A Xeon is a server/workstation chip, not a "PC" chip. There's really no need to put one in a desktop. It's not faster than the cheaper i9.

 

[theorist9]

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.

I see the Studio+ASD as being more of a replacement for the iMac Pro. I think a Pro Mini (if they make one)+ASD would come closer to being a replacement for the 27" iMac.

 

[deannnnn]

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.

One guy has one problem with one screen: "Support for 3rd party screens is terrible and broken"

This is not common. I personally use my M1 Pro MBP with 3 different third party screens, each one in a different location with a different setup, 2 Dells and an LG, and have no problems whatsoever.

 

[Gudi]

LOL, I really don't care about consumer electronics stores, it's not where I get PC's. In the past when I did look there they were all so undergutted machines with a low price point, which is also not something I'd buy. For work we deal directly with the vendors, Lenovo being our preferred, though not the only vendor I deal with.

That's a corporate computer, not a personal one. Those are often horrible trash, because the buyer (manager) is disconnected from the user (worker). Lenovo is just the abandoned business machine devision from IBM after loosing the user market to Apple.

 

[jdb8167]

Since I was talking about production using Gen 10.5 LCD plants, which Apple obviously doesn't own, it should have been obvious that I meant "produce" as a shorthand for "arrange to be produced". I'm sorry you weren't able to understand that.

And note that I was referring to the production line for Apple's 4.5k 24" iMac panels. Apple is likely the only company that sources such panels, so Apple has already arrange for custom production. Hence it make sense that Apple could ask that line be reconfigured to produce both 24" and 27" panels:

Sure. But Apple is buying the panels. The price for a 5K panel might have gone up so much that isn't feasible to create a 27" 5K iMac for anything close to the previous prices. Apple wants the highest quality displays and almost no one else in the industry cares. You don't see any 200+ PPI large displays for desktop PCs except for the forementioned LGs. So, maybe Apple decided that a 24" 4.5K panel was cost effective and a 5K panel wasn't. We don't have enough information.