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

[SpotOnT]

Which many want as well. We often get replied that a Mac + display is the solution... errr... no thank you.

Why no thank you?

If you want a 27 inch display, just buy a 27 inch display and a Mac Mini. If you don’t need a 27 inch display, get the 24 inch M1 iMac. Or get the 24 inch iMac and larger second monitor. There are so many options.

I really have never seen the appeal of the iMac and have never owned an iMac (and I have been using Macs since the 90’s).

 

[SpotOnT]

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

I agree.

Just to be clear though, I never said most users are using multiple displays. I said the number of users who use multiple displays is greater than the number of users who use their iMac as their primary computer for 10 or more years.

 

[theorist9]

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.

That depends on whether you are throwing it away or having it repaired. If your approach is to throw it away then, yes, there is a difference because you're also throwing away a perfectly good display.

But there should be no fundamental difference in repairability between an AS iMac and, say, a AS Mini in the case you describe, except for the inconvenience to the customer of having to lug the iMac to the Apple Store or authorized service center for repair. In either case, the ability of an Apple service center to repair a bad SSD is not affected whether or not the box also contains a display.

 

[theorist9]

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.

Depends on the person. If you're someone like me who needs ~3 x 27" (and is considering adding a 4th 27"), a single 32" isn't going to cut it. Indeed, even if I had a 38" (which would enable me to display more of my data at once, which would be great), I'd still need side displays for other windows. Plus I also need my main display to be Retina (for text sharpness), and there are no Retina displays >32" (yet). Some are happy with lower ppi; I'm not.

Here's my own take on this: I'm different from the OP; I upgrade about every 3-5 years (I've used/owned 2003, 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2019 Macs). And I personally wouldn't mind separates, which appears to be Apple's new strategy. However: That strategy is fine for prosumers, but it prices many Apple customers out of having an Apple 27" Retina display—because Apple's only 27" external is prosumer-priced.

I.e., now that we have the M2 Mini, I don't think the problem that there's no longer a 27" iMac per se. Rather, the problem is that the quality of user experience (good quality desktop CPU + great Apple 27" Retina display) that used to be accessible to its regular customers (through the 27" iMac) has become much less so.

Yes, there's the 27" 5k LG Ultrafine, but it's dated, and its QC isn't good. And there's the upoming 27" 5k Samsung Viewfinity S9, which may be less expensive, but it's matte, and many really like the 27" iMac's glossy coating, since it's sharper than matte, and avoids the "sparkling snowfield" effect you can get with matte coatings.

And yes, you can get a 27" 4k (163 ppi) for $500, which many are fine with. But there are also many whose eyes don't feel that way. That's not surprising—after all, Apple itself recognizes that MacOS needs a Retina display for optimum viewing, which is why all Mac displays are >=218 ppi.

 

[Longplays]

I really have never seen the appeal of the iMac and have never owned an iMac (and I have been using Macs since the 90’s).

It's like a TV, toaster or other thing. It is supposed be an appliance. Different use case.

 

[Longplays]

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.

5nm node was said to be impossible a decade or two ago.

And yet I'm AirPods that's more powerful than the computers that sent men to the moon.

The amount of RAM on your last Mac used to be the collective GB of storage of the Earth.

 

[theorist9]

I really have never seen the appeal of the iMac and have never owned an iMac (and I have been using Macs since the 90’s).

I can't speak to the older iMacs. But the appeal of the 5k 27" iMac (which was introduced in 2014) has always been its display.

 

[Smartuser]

I only replace my Macs every century.

 

[theorist9]

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

Maybe not among home users, but two to three displays has become pretty common in business settings in the US. What I've seen even among administrative (non-technical) workers is that the regular staff all have two displays and the managers have three. Of course, most of them are running Windows and are issued cheap 24" -27" 100 ppi displays.

 

[theorist9]

I only replace my Macs every century.

Don't they get stale?

 

[Longplays]

Maybe not among home users, but two to three displays has become pretty common in business settings in the US. What I've seen even among administrative (non-technical) workers is that the regular staff all have two displays and the managers have three. Of course, most of them are running Windows and are issued cheap 24" -27" 100 ppi displays.

Depends on the industry as well.

Like say hospitality when they deploy iMacs to the guest's rooms or the hotel's internet cafe.

 

[theorist9]

Depends on the industry as well.

Like say hospitality when they deploy iMacs to the guest's rooms or the hotel's internet cafe.

If you wanted to see if the hospitality industry is different from what I described, you'd need to go into their corporate offices and see what kinds of monitor setups they provide their staff.

What you're illustrating is not a difference due to a difference in industry, but rather an entirely different use case. Of course they're not going to have multiple monitors in typical guest rooms or their internet cafe.

 

[Longplays]

If you wanted to see if the hospitality industry was different, you'd need to go into their corporate offices and see what kinds of monitor setups they provide their staff.

What you're illustrating is not a difference due to a difference in industry, but rather an entirely different use case. Of course they're not going to have multiple monitors in typical guest rooms or their internet cafe.

And only companies with a better margins would issue multiple monitor setups.

MR is largely users who work in tech or creatives that use Macs. So naturally the outliers become the norm.

 

[theorist9]

And only companies with a better margins would issue multiple monitor setups.

MR is largely users who work in tech or creatives that use Macs. So naturally the outliers become the norm.

Nope. I've seen multiple monitor setups in the administrative offices of state universities. And like I said, those are inexpensive setups--probably $150-$200 per display. No large margins required.

But it does illustrate there is a need for that much display real estate, even for regular non-technical staff. And it makes sense--those folks often work with multiple spreadsheets. Or they may be, say, checking data from a large spreadsheet against what's in their university's online purchasing program, where both the spreadsheet and the program each take up enough space to require their own display. The point is that multiple displays are hardly exotic. The tasks that need such setups can be pretty mundane.

 

[Quu]

I kept my 30" Apple Cinema Displays (I had 3) from 2007-2009 (I bought them between those years) to 2018 when I finally upgraded.

I loved the size and the image quality was really good as was the resolution being 2.5K on each one. I only upgraded at that point because the 27" panels were surpassing them. LED backlights, brightness, resolution and refresh rates were all improving.

I'm thinking about picking up a couple of Pro Display XDR 2's (when they release this model). But I'd have had my current 3 x 27" displays for at least 5 years or more by then.

I think people do keep displays for a very long time because the innovation there is not so big. There's less about a display to change than there is on say a Laptop with many different parts that can be improved.

So personally I do think uncoupling the display from the computer (when it comes to desktops) is the way to go. However, I don't think it needs to be a choice Apple make (combined or decoupled) they're big enough to serve both an iMac and a Studio setup.

I'm not the biggest fan of the studio display for a myriad of reasons that I won't get into but having it separate to the computer is a good thing in my opinion.

 

[John099]

Really the cost of apple's displays are an absurdity. Dell displays are awesome and reliable if you go with their professional line.

 

[John099]

I kept my 30" Apple Cinema Displays (I had 3) from 2007-2009 (I bought them between those years) to 2018 when I finally upgraded.

I loved the size and the image quality was really good as was the resolution being 2.5K on each one. I only upgraded at that point because the 27" panels were surpassing them. LED backlights, brightness, resolution and refresh rates were all improving.

I'm thinking about picking up a couple of Pro Display XDR 2's (when they release this model). But I'd have had my current 3 x 27" displays for at least 5 years or more by then.

I think people do keep displays for a very long time because the innovation there is not so big. There's less about a display to change than there is on say a Laptop with many different parts that can be improved.

So personally I do think uncoupling the display from the computer (when it comes to desktops) is the way to go. However, I don't think it needs to be a choice Apple make (combined or decoupled) they're big enough to serve both an iMac and a Studio setup.

I'm not the biggest fan of the studio display for a myriad of reasons that I won't get into but having it separate to the computer is a good thing in my opinion.

Look at the Dell line, the cost/performance ratio beats apple by a long margin.

 

[Longplays]

Nope. I've seen multiple monitor setups in the administrative offices of state universities. And like I said, those are inexpensive setups--probably $150-$200 per display. No large margins required.

But it does illustrate there is a need for that much display real estate, even for regular non-technical staff. And it makes sense--those folks often work with multiple spreadsheets. Or they may be, say, checking data from a large spreadsheet against what's in their university's online purchasing program, where both the spreadsheet and the program each take up enough space to require their own display. The point is that multiple displays are hardly exotic. The tasks that need such setups can be pretty mundane.

Student debt is a big deal in the US. Even in state unis. ;-)

Scale the $150-200 per display up to every person who requests them and it will reflect itself on student tuition fees.

 

[Longplays]

Really the cost of apple's displays are an absurdity. Dell displays are awesome and reliable if you go with their professional line.

I went with their U2711 and U3818DW. Both had to go RMA. Also IQ is not identical to the iMacs I paired them with.

 

[theorist9]

Student debt is a big deal in the US. Even in state unis. ;-)

Scale the $150-200 per display up to every person who requests them and it will reflect itself on student tuition fees.

That has nothing to do with the issue we were discussing, which is whether or not multiple display setups are commonplace in US enterprise settings. You contend they're outliers, restricted to high-margin businesses. I provided a counterexample. Where the funds come from to support the counterexample (I suspect it's actually F&A on grants, rather than student tuition) is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It's nothing more than a red herring that distracts from the question. Just like how the monitor configs seen in hotel rooms and internet cafes is also a red herring.

 

[John099]

I went with their U2711 and U3818DW. Both had to go RMA. Also IQ is not identical to the iMacs I paired them with.

The only way to have a perfect match if to have the exact same monitors duplicated. You need to know what the specs are and find something comparable in the Dell or Samsung lineup.

 

[Longplays]

The only way to have a perfect match if to have the exact same monitors duplicated. You need to know what the specs are and find something comparable in the Dell or Samsung lineup.

Those to displays were the top-end IQ Dell displays for their time.

Although I do not imply that the IQ is not commensurate to the cost.

 

[John099]

Those to displays were the top-end IQ Dell displays for their time.

Although I do not imply that the IQ is not commensurate to the cost.

I see. I also think apple had the lead there for a while, but I don't think that is the case any longer. The new OLEDs from LG/Dell/Samsung are pretty awesome.

 

[Longplays]

That has nothing to do with the issue we were discussing, which is whether or not multiple display setups are commonplace in US enterprise settings. You contend they're outliers. I provided a counterexample. Where the funds come from to support the counterexample (I suspect it's actually F&A on grants, rather than student tuition) is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It's nothing more than a red herring that distracts from the question. Just like how the monitor configs seen in hotel rooms and internet cafes is also a red herring.

I am pointing out that multi display employee seats are only available for businesses that have the margins to support it.

You mention state unis also have this setup but then I point to the source of said funding.

Pardon the comparison but it is like saying people in their 40s range are non-casual computer gamers. This same age group complaining about low wages even when min wage was raised to $15.00/hr.

For min wage earners a gamer life isn't possible. You'd need to earn more for that to occur.

Within your industry or even your company it is the norm but elsewhere it isn't.

 

[Longplays]

I see. I also think apple had the lead there for a while, but I don't think that is the case any longer. The new OLEDs from LG/Dell/Samsung are pretty awesome.

Apple delayed AMOLED displays on the iPhone until 2017 as it did not attain the tech specs, reliability and cost per component Apple wanted.

This is likely the reason Apple's been delaying them on iPad Pros since 2018 and more recently the Macs. Unless of course MR is just churning out clickbait to make us want to talk our heads off.