If you replace your iMac every decade then a separate Mac + display is useless to you

[Warped9]

The biggest pain I had with my 2012 27" iMac was when I had to take it to the Apple Store for a repair. If I recall it had something to do with the power supply. The screen wise fine. Anyway, the store was in the middle of a mall, and I had to haul that thing from the parking lot and halfway through the mall to get to the store. I then had to replay that scenario in reverse when I had to pick it up after repairs a couple days later. Besides its size, the weight distribution of that machine makes it awkward to carry.

I loved my iMac, but will never buy an AIO ever again. It's just too big and bulky for my taste. Since then, I converted to a Mac Mini, and now a Mac Studio, both attached to a pair of 27" monitors, the same monitors which I will probably continue to use for years to come.

A current iMac 24 is surprisingly lightweight compared to what it replaces. My 2011 21.5 is distinctly heavier than the current iMac 24. That said an Apple Studio Display feels heavier than the iMac 24, but maybe not as heavy as my 2011 iMac.

It has been said that one of the concerns over the current iMac is its light weight could make it vulnerable to easily knock over or off a desk. The older iMacs were less prone to that risk because of their weight. Remember the awkward weight of the G3 iMacs and G4 eMacs. At least the G3s had a handle.

The general trend with AIOs, like laptops, is toward being lighter overall.

 

[Longplays]

The general trend with AIOs, like laptops, is toward being lighter overall.

Cheaper logistics cost. The more $2k devices you can ship on a pallet the more money you make.

Another incentive for me to upgrade is change industrial design of the iMac. The last Intel iMac's redesign occurred in 2012. The 1st iMac M1 came out in 2021. I expect that design to around year 2030.

It is simialar to buying a car every new redesign.

 

[Warped9]

You see something of the reverse in automobiles. We got rid of the two-ton land yachts of the 1960s-70s, but have replaced them with absurdly sized pickups and SUVs. Smaller cars have also gotten distinctly heavier than their equivalents of thirty plus years ago.

 

[Longplays]

You see something of the reverse in automobiles. We got rid of the two-ton land yachts of the 1960s-70s, but have replaced them with absurdly sized pickups and SUVs. Smaller cars have also gotten distinctly heavier than their equivalents of thirty plus years ago.

I was referring to product design aesthetics and not regulatory or market research.

 

[snak-atak]

A current iMac 24 is surprisingly lightweight compared to what it replaces. My 2011 21.5 is distinctly heavier than the current iMac 24. That said an Apple Studio Display feels heavier than the iMac 24, but maybe not as heavy as my 2011 iMac.

It has been said that one of the concerns over the current iMac is its light weight could make it vulnerable to easily knock over or off a desk. The older iMacs were less prone to that risk because of their weight. Remember the awkward weight of the G3 iMacs and G4 eMacs. At least the G3s had a handle.

The general trend with AIOs, like laptops, is toward being lighter overall.

Just my preference, but for me no matter how lightweight it is, I‘d rather not have to carry a bit 27” AIO through a crowded mall ever again. The Mac Studio may be bulkier than a Mac Mini, but its still a lot easier to transport than an AIO.

 

[Warped9]

Can’t argue a 27in. iMac is friggin’ heavy. I’ve carried them out from the store to the parking lot or in from parking lot into the store. They’re heavy and awkward. A current or recent 27in. HP AIO is lighter, but then much of its chassis is plastic rather than metal.

In extent thats one of the praises the Apple Studio Display gets—it’s solidly constructed whereas the vast majority of monitors on the market, even high end ones, come off as flimsy plastic.

 

[Longplays]

Fellas, how often do you move your iMacs around? Unless I clean my room my iMac stays put.

 

[Mark.g4]

When Apple announced the 2021 Studio Display 27" & 2021 Mac Studio they neglected to include the replacement of the 2020 iMac 27". That iMac is now 34 months old.

Apple & many others said that you are better off with a separate 27" display + Mac Studio/mini as the monitor wouldn't be "wasted" if you upgrade.

Now there are users out there that replace every refresh but there are others who'd only replace way longer than that like say after the final macOS Security Update was released. This typically occurs nearly 10 years after that Mac was 1st shipped.

After a decade that display would be half the display resolution, half nits of brightness and color space of currently sold displays. Not to mention wear and tear would reduce the published nits.

Example:

2012 iMac 27" has a 2.5K resolution display at 300 nits of brightness with a non-P3 color space. The 2021 Studio Display has a 5K resolution at 600 nits of brightness with a P3 color space. If the 2012 "display" was separate from the "Mac" would you still continue using it for another decade?

It would be showing its age by now after an average daily use of ~8hrs/day for ~3,650 days.

Physically speaking back then miniDisplay port was used 10 years ago and was replaced shortly after by USB-C ports that is being used today. Will USB-C form factor be used by 2033 or 2043?

Yes, we can use dongles but the point is it is that old. Maybe after a decade's use an upgrade is in order? It would be like using VGA or DVI in 2023.

I think they are right.
Today they have everything welded inside and if you burn the SSD you have to throw away the imac too.
On the contrary, I can gladly use my old ACD 22" 2001 if desired, for office work or an old imac 27" 2010 as target display.
BUT imagine in 10 years an imac with 256gb of memory, memory skipped and you have to throw everything away.

 

[Warped9]

Fellas, how often do you move your iMacs around? Unless I clean my room my iMac stays put.

Truth. Once it’s in place it doesn’t go anywhere. A lightweight iMac 24, or Studio Display, would be next to zero risk of getting knocked over on my computer desk set against the wall.

 

[Longplays]

I think they are right.
Today they have everything welded inside and if you burn the SSD you have to throw away the imac too.
On the contrary, I can gladly use my old ACD 22" 2001 if desired, for office work or an old imac 27" 2010 as target display.
BUT imagine in 10 years an imac with 256gb of memory, memory skipped and you have to throw everything away.

In my mind I'd just sell it to someone who likes collecting relics.

Windows Security Updates is up to 122 months on average since Windows 95.

As a preventive maintenance measure I'd just sell Mac after a decade's use.

Let it be someone else's problem to repair & maintain.

And who wouldn't want fresh new hardware that was released that quarter?

I am looking forward to jumping from a 22nm Intel chip to a 5nm M2 Pro chip if an iMac 27" replacement were to be announced 2 days from now.

It is like moving to a 1080p LED TV in 2006 to a 4K OLED TV in 2016. If 8K streaming, blu-ray and gaming become a thing in 2026 I'd consider upgrading to a 8K microLED TV.

 

[Mark.g4]

Yes, I understand your point of view which is also mine. I still think that their reasoning is correct, because today everything is soldered especially the memory and this is a problem if one day you want to continue using old hardware. the 30" apple cinema display is still today a beautiful and very usable monitor for many jobs, yet it has many years behind it. again an old imac i7 16gb 2009 today it is still very usable for many things, especially if you have upgraded memory, cpu and gpu, but also the screen is very very enjoyable despite not being a wide gamut it is a 27" 2k which goes beyond the normal requests of many users. they advise to buy a separate monitor and for me they are right and that's what I did.... however I always hope for a new 27 or 32" imac but I don't know if I would buy it, because if everything is soldered it could have too many limits and at that point better a macbook or a mini with a good monitor.... however, they are points of view, everyone has their preferences and their way of working.

 

[Longplays]

Yes, I understand your point of view which is also mine. I still think that their reasoning is correct, because today everything is soldered especially the memory and this is a problem if one day you want to continue using old hardware. the 30" apple cinema display is still today a beautiful and very usable monitor for many jobs, yet it has many years behind it. again an old imac i7 16gb 2009 today it is still very usable for many things, especially if you have upgraded memory, cpu and gpu, but also the screen is very very enjoyable despite not being a wide gamut it is a 27" 2k which goes beyond the normal requests of many users. they advise to buy a separate monitor and for me they are right and that's what I did.... however I always hope for a new 27 or 32" imac but I don't know if I would buy it, because if everything is soldered it could have too many limits and at that point better a macbook or a mini with a good monitor.... however, they are points of view, everyone has their preferences and their way of working.

All the old hardware are useful when the apps used are within the macOS versions that supports it.

So say if you are editing 1080p content then any Mac from 2005-20015 is optimized for that use case.

But if you were to start editing multiple streams of 4K resolution video on that old of hardware then you'd be yearning for Apple Silicon chips from 2020-onward.

If a 2020 iMac 27" replacement were to appear 2 days from now with a M2 Pro chip then the most taxing application I'd be using would be 2008-2015 Canon EOS EF RAW images.

With such powerful hardware it wouldn't even have any load time. Hell, if the 27" replacement came with a M2 chip I'd get it as it would outperform any Intel Mac.

 

[Unami]

I think a monitor lasts longer than that. I replaced my 2007 20" Samsung Monitor last year - gave it away, it's still in use. Granted, I could never do serious work on just one monitor, so it had been my second screen for some years. Imho an iMac you can't even use in target display mode is still more e-waste than buying a monitor and PC seperately. But 10 years still doesn't seems too wasteful.

OTOH, it's like those stupid printer/scanner combos - when one component fails, you have to repair/replace the whole thing.

 

[Unami]

All the old hardware are useful when the apps used are within the macOS versions that supports it.

So say if you are editing 1080p content then any Mac from 2005-20015 is optimized for that use case.

But if you were to start editing multiple streams of 4K resolution video on that old of hardware then you'd be yearning for Apple Silicon chips from 2020-onward.

If a 2020 iMac 27" replacement were to appear 2 days from now with a M2 Pro chip then the most taxing application I'd be using would be 2008-2015 Canon EOS EF RAW images.

With such powerful hardware it wouldn't even have any load time. Hell, if the 27" replacement came with a M2 chip I'd get it as it would outperform any Intel Mac.

It's also a thing if you have multiple devices and share files between them. A Final Cut library, once updated - e.g. used on a newer version of fcp - is not backwards compatible, even if the update just contained a few minor bugfixes. It's gotten better with iWork (do we still call it that?) documents, but there was a time when even opening a pages document in iCloud could make it unuseable on an ipad that didn't get the newer version. That's less a problem wirh other software makers - e.g. you can usually go at least 2 versions back with adobe projects (and then download that older software and then again go back 2 generations when saving)

 

[brilliantthings]

With the power of Apple Silicon you now have the option of driving a 27" monitor with a M1 MacBook Air. I have just bought a second-hand LG 4K 27" for $300 to replace an older version of the same monitor. I have never used a 5k display and I'm pretty sure my eyes aren't good enough to notice the difference.
I also have a second-hand iPhone SE 2 that I use for Continuity Camera.

A 27" iMac or Studio Display are very pretty and are a really nice idea. But for many of us they are unnecessary for the 27" Mac experience.

 

[Longplays]

I think a monitor lasts longer than that. I replaced my 2007 20" Samsung Monitor last year - gave it away, it's still in use. Granted, I could never do serious work on just one monitor, so it had been my second screen for some years. Imho an iMac you can't even use in target display mode is still more e-waste than buying a monitor and PC seperately. But 10 years still doesn't seems too wasteful.

OTOH, it's like those stupid printer/scanner combos - when one component fails, you have to repair/replace the whole thing.

There are many people who'd buy it.

Check out the PPC section of MR. Lotsa people still jockeying for pre-2006 hardware.

People like them help reduce e-waste.

 

[SpotOnT]

Ok…but I bet you the median user upgrades their computer every 4-5 years but only need to upgrade their monitor every 8-12 years….

I even bet more users have multiple displays than keep their iMac for 10 years…so then you saving even more monitors.

If you keep your iMac 10 years and if you only use one display than sure. But I still don’t think that is what most users do.

 

[Warped9]

I can almost guarantee most users are not using multiple displays at the same time.

 

[JamesMay82]

good point plus the studio display and decent spec mini or mini studio costs quite a bit more than what a 27 inch iMac should in theory cost.. although who knows in the current market.

In my early 20's I always wanted the latest spec machine and I would palm older models to my folks. since my 30's I've been holding onto tech longer I suppose from being sensible more than anything.

My only niggle now that would make me consider the studio display is being able to switch out work and personal laptop/iPad to the monitor.

I hope they do release a 27 inch or 32 inch iMac.

 

[theorist9]

So I think what you're saying is that if there was a new 27" iMac today you would buy it and keep it for 10 years.
Otherwise a Studio Display and say Mac Studio could result in either the Mac or Display being replaced within 10 years.

Not really sure what your point is. Nobody is saying you must upgrade either component. If you want to keep either setup for 10 years, that is your choice.

I assume the OP's point is about cost and possibly looks. If you don't need the potential benefits of separates, then an AIO should be less expensive and cleaner-looking. IIRC, the starting price of the 2020 27" 5k iMac was $1900, which is only ~$300 more than the starting price of Studio Display alone.

When I've spoken with AppleCare reps, I've recently been asking them what computer Apple had issued them. The most common answer is a 27" 5k iMac. The reason is that it's the most economical way to get someone a desktop setup with a great display.

 

[theorist9]

Thank you for your added input.

My point of view does not cover that specific use case.

IIRC your 2019 iMac 27" shares nearly the same specs as the 2021 Studio Display.

By 2029-2031 I'd wager that the resolution, nits and color space will be marketably improved.

Of course, the reason this is an issue is that Apple chose not to include a TB video input in its recent iMacs, thus making it suboptimal* to continue use it as your main display if you do decide to upgrade the computer. If Apple did that, the iMac would continue to work as a great external monitor for someone who wants to upgrade their computer after, say, four or five years. Apple's current approach is not exactly green. But they don't, so when I replace my iMac in a year or two, I will also need buy an ASD or the equivalent.

[*Yes, you can drive it with AirPlay or Luna, but these compromise video quality and introduce lag, which defeats the whole point of having a good quality 5k display.]

 

[boss.king]

While I totally understand the frustration, I also think people who only replace their computers once a decade are not really the kind of customers Apple wants to prioritise. I say this as someone who generally likes to hold onto his tech for as long as I can reasonably use it.

 

[LeeW]

IIRC, the starting price of the 2020 27" 5k iMac was $1900, which is only ~$300 more than the starting price of Studio Display alone.

if a new 27" iMac is released soon it will cost significantly more than $1,900. If Rumors are to be believed the next larger iMac is going to be more comparable to the old iMac Pro than the old standard 27" so the price will be high.

Apple has a clear lineup today that is different from what it was in years gone by. We now have the Mac Mini which is way better and more popular than it ever was, the studio, Mac Pro plus all the MBA/MBPs and displays to go with each of them. Apple is always very careful with specs and pricing. That is they won't bring out a larger iMac that makes more sense on price alone which would make it a 'no-brainer' to go with one device over another. People do of course have preferences like the OP and us all.

 

[LeeW]

I can almost guarantee most users are not using multiple displays at the same time.

I don't think you can. Using multiple monitors is quite common. Although becoming less necessary given the wide availability of larger screens. 32/34/38" screens are so common now and not expensive that multiple displays are not really needed anymore.

 

[trusso]

After a decade that display would be half the display resolution, half nits of brightness and color space of currently sold displays. Not to mention wear and tear would reduce the published nits.

I highly doubt 12K or 16K displays are going to be a thing, even into the 2030s.

There's only so much resolution a display can display before further increases become imperceptible to human vision.
There's only so much size a display can increase before it becomes a television.

...the answer my friend, is blowin' in the wind... /s

But seriously, don't make predictions on the next ten years of tech based on the past ten or twenty years. Especially for stuff like this. You're prognosticating in a vacuum, failing to account for hard physical and biological limits. Even the USB-C form factor, although in one sense merely an interactive improvement of the standard, is pushing up against physical limits for the data and power terminals it carries. I would not be surprised if we settle into the USB-C connector for decades to come.

There will come a point - one may argue we've already passed it - where hardware gains are increasingly minuscule. Big hardware and software corporations (and vehicle manufacturers, etc.) have already realized this which is why a number of them are increasingly turning to subscription models.

But that's a whole 'nother topic.