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

[Warped9]

A large appeal of the original iMac was it was not a chunk of ugly beige or black plastic on your desk with another ugly chunk of plastic under the desk. It wasn’t something you preferred to keep out of sight. And I think that has remained an appeal of the iMac through the years although the 2009-2019 design looked very much like some kind of monitor.

The current iMac brings back that appealing aesthetic particularly with the colour options. That said a Mac Mini or Mac Studio is a far cry from the ugly boxes of yore or the still available desktop towers that are still cheap looking boxes of plastic you hide under your desk. The Mini and Studio are largely unobtrusive units that don’t take much desk space.

An iMac, or any AIO desktop, is something that appeals to you or doesn’t. It’s meant to be more than simply utilitarian. But very very few AIOs are as nice looking as the iMac.

 

[robinp]

This is a weird take. You could have waited just 2 years and got a 5K iMac in 2014 with ~460nits brightness.

Yeah, the Studio Display isn’t that impressive really considering it came 8 years after they were building fairly similar displays into iMacs.

So, yeah, if you insist on waiting 10 years rather than buying one of the numerous other iterations that occurred in the interim that met your needs, then I’m afraid it kind of feels like it is on you.

The remarkable thing really is that the iMac went for so long hardly unchanged.

 

[InnocenceMyth]

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

Yet another one of your comments on this post that dismisses anyone’s usage that differs from yours.

SMEs with thin margins wouldn't do multi monitor setups.

Belt tightening, especially in this economy, would eskew such luxuries.

Eschew.

 

[Mark.g4]

A large appeal of the original iMac was it was not a chunk of ugly beige or black plastic on your desk with another ugly chunk of plastic under the desk. It wasn’t something you preferred to keep out of sight. And I think that has remained an appeal of the iMac through the years although the 2009-2019 design looked very much like some kind of monitor.

The current iMac brings back that appealing aesthetic particularly with the colour options. That said a Mac Mini or Mac Studio is a far cry from the ugly boxes of yore or the still available desktop towers that are still cheap looking boxes of plastic you hide under your desk. The Mini and Studio are largely unobtrusive units that don’t take much desk space.

An iMac, or any AIO desktop, is something that appeals to you or doesn’t. It’s meant to be more than simply utilitarian. But very very few AIOs are as nice looking as the iMac.

I agree with you.
I love iMac especially those from the 2009-2011 period, because they were beautiful, the software was far ahead of the competition and then it was the right compromise between design and the possibility of upgrading and repairing the iMac.
The glass was magnetic and you could easily disassemble the computer, there was also an extra port to add a second HDD and maybe make them work in RAID O...
There was the remote control, infrared, optical out, analog out, lots of ports, good speakers...
I treasure my 2010 and would never sell it for any reason to day.

 

[satcomer]

To me the iMac is dead in Silicon era and now is just a kitchen computer! To me the Mac Studio is new iMac in computer power! Then you get your own display!

 

[Mark.g4]

To me the iMac is dead in Silicon era and now is just a kitchen computer! To me the Mac Studio is new iMac in computer power! Then you get your own display!

I don't like this design, the monitor even for a basic model is too small, they should have made it at least 25 and 28 or 32" for bigger iMac.
then there is no possibility of using a VESA connection unless you order the precise model during the purchase phase and then the rear doors are incomplete.
So a mac mini with a good monitor is better.
imho

 

[kitsunesoba]

As someone who for over a decade exclusively used iMacs as their personal machines (2000-2012), the issue I face with them today is the inability to share their display with e.g. a work laptop or secondary Windows box. I just don't live in a single-machine world any more, and my desk only has room for so many displays.

If they introduced an M-series 27"/32" iMac with a modern equivalent to the Target Display Mode feature that pre-retina 27" iMacs had so it could double as the main monitor for the company laptop during work hours, I'd buy it in a heartbeat, but until then something like an MBP or Mac Studio is a better fit.

 

[Student of Life]

It's interesting that one could get the Mac Studio display and an M2 Mac mini together for under 2k looking at the Apple refurbished section.

With that said, I still prefer an all in one iMac build. Simplicity, space, it actually comes with matching keyboard and mouse etc. I can wait for a 27 inch iMac.

 

[Zest28]

To me the iMac is dead in Silicon era and now is just a kitchen computer! To me the Mac Studio is new iMac in computer power! Then you get your own display!

It is not. The Mac Studio + Apple Studio Display is the iMac Pro, not the regular iMac’s. The iMac Pro started at $5000, while being slower than the Mac Studio and the 16” M1 Max MacBook Pro.

The regular 21.5 and 27 iMac have been replaced by a single 24” iMac. And honestly, the M1/M2 24” iMac is all what most people need.

 

[Longplays]

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.

I agree.

Apple states that Macs get replaced every 4 years while Intel states PCs get replaced every 5-6 years.

But if your use case remains unchanged for longer than that then what is the incentive to replace sooner?

For such use case the end of the road ends up being after the last Security Update.

 

[Longplays]

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.

To expound...

Base model 2020 iMac 27" Core i5-10500 with keyboard & mouse was $1,799 vs the $1,599 Studio Display 27" without M2 chip, keyboard or mouse.

For the option of separation you need to spend $599 Mac mini M2 5nm, $199 Magic Keyboard With Touch ID & Numeric Keypad, $99 Magic Mouse. That's nearly $900 added parts on top of the $1,599 display so you can keep it separate.

Price diff is ~$700.

If it was AIO it would be... ~$500 cheaper? If Apple restores Target Display Mode by 2023 iMac 27" replacement and keep that feature available for the next 2 decade then it would make for a fine display matched with a 2033 Mac mini M7 0.5nm. A 0.5nm M7 in 2033 would probably have the raw performance of a 5nm M2 Ultra 2-die but sipping less than 30W.

 

[Longplays]

Yet another one of your comments on this post that dismisses anyone’s usage that differs from yours.

The thread is about my specific use case that others may share. I even pointed it out in the original comment.

The title of this thread is about it.

 

[Mark.g4]

500$ mini m1
500$ LG 32" UN880 4K with ergonomic arm and usb3.0 hub
150$ Logitech kit MX master keyboard + mouse
200$ for small monitor speaker or 2.1 setup

Total 1350$ for a beautiful, complete and ergonomic Mac setup.... no way for new iMac if you have the the space on your desk.

 

[B-Mc-C]

I don’t think the display resolution is going to continue doubling every decade. We are not going to have any need for 10K and then 20K resolution on a 27” display because anything beyond retina is not discernible to the human eye. The only remaining improvement I anticipate will be transition to OLED displays. I went with the studio because while I love the simplicity and reduced cables of the iMac, the ability to add a 2nd or 3rd matching monitor in the future would be nice.

 

[Longplays]

500$ mini m1
500$ LG 32" UN880 4K with ergonomic arm and usb3.0 hub
150$ Logitech kit MX master keyboard + mouse
200$ for small monitor speaker or 2.1 setup

Total 1350$ for a beautiful, complete and ergonomic Mac setup.... no way for new iMac if you have the the space on your desk.

Not an AIO. The display isn't at par with Apple's.

 

[Mark.g4]

yes you are right, I also specified that you need more space for this workstation on desk.
We are talking about a 32" 4k monitor with 100sRGB color coverage and 95%P3, HDR10.
With built-in speakers (not very good) an integrated usb3.0 hub, usb-c with 60w power delivery, 2 hdmi, mini audio jack in and out, with a beautiful ergonomic arm and an optimized and hidden cable management.
It is an excellent panel and if it is calibrated with a colorimeter it is also very good for photo and video editing.
The image quality will not be like that of an imac 23.8, but it is very good and above all you have 32" to work on, it is really another monitor, very, very comfortable and above all it allows you to orientate the monitor in any direction in an ergonomic way which is the most important thing in a workstation and is an aspect that comes before video quality.

So that's why I agree with Apple when they say that a mac mini with an external monitor is better.
the new imac is too consumer oriented...
The first thing that those who work look at are ergonomics and it is incredible how they were also able to eliminate the possibility of inserting a VESA mount.
Instead the old iMacs were much more oriented to professionals too.

 

[John099]

The examples I was giving were corporations and large instututions. Again, do you have anything to support your contention that dual-monitor setups are outliers there? All I'm hearing are unsupported claims. Take a look at the Reddit thread I linked from their SYSADMIN forum.

In my large tech company the majority of people have 2 or more monitors, it's a small expense for the bump in productivity it provides. It's a no-brainer. If all you're doing is email 1 monitor is all you need, but any serious work 2 or more monitors is a game changer and companies know this. With that said they are productivity monitors, nothing fancy.

 

[Mark.g4]

I would like to add an important aspect on ergonomics, because in many civil states, ergonomics is regulated by laws on the video terminal worker, because incorrect ergonomics is the cause of illness, so to work even for a few hours it is important to be positioned correctly at the desk .
Here's what happens with the new iMac.
You are forced to put something underneath, because especially for taller people, the monitor is too low, but the serious thing is having removed the possibility of installing a vesa mount after the purchase. It's something that doesn't make sense, because needs can change.

This is instead a LG32" 4k ergo, with an integrated ergonomic arm: big difference here.

the new iMac is a consumer computer, limited in many things, some very important, despite being a very powerful, performing and aesthetically beautiful machine.
But ergonomics are always important, whether I'm working or watching my favorite movies when relaxing at home.
Previously, on older iMacs, you could install this after purchase:

now you have to decide during the purchase phase if you want the aluminum foot or the vesa mout and then you can't change anymore.
To me that is nonsense, even on a consmer computer.
Many consumer and cheap monitors have the vesa mount...

This is very strange because 20 years ago, with the imac G4 they had focused a lot on the ergonomics of the workstation (on a consumer machine) and on the possibility of positioning the screen correctly and it was a fantastic computer in those years, with all aspects taken care of.

 

[applefan69]

Not that you are "wrong". Not everyone needs the latest and greatest from their monitor. Once again you assume they are buying a new computer so they can do "graphics design" or some crap. Most people are just buying a new computer so they can continue to stay up to date on security features while they browse the web and check their email. The old monitor is just as good for that purpose.

 

[CWallace]

You are forced to put something underneath, because especially for taller people, the monitor is too low, but the serious thing is having removed the possibility of installing a vesa mount after the purchase. It's something that doesn't make sense, because needs can change.

Apple does allow owners of 24" iMac models purchased with the stand to swap the back out for the one with the VESA mount. This was confirmed by Apple to Jason Snell shortly after the M1 iMac launched. No mention of what the price is and I expect it is not something that can be done in-store at the Genius Bar, but at least it can be done, which was not the case for the 21.5" and 27" models.

 

[mcnallym]

In my large tech company the majority of people have 2 or more monitors, it's a small expense for the bump in productivity it provides. It's a no-brainer. If all you're doing is email 1 monitor is all you need, but any serious work 2 or more monitors is a game changer and companies know this. With that said they are productivity monitors, nothing fancy.

In the company that work at then all is 2 monitors in the office. And so people are aware then is logistics in the UK which is in no way a large margin business.

 

[Mark.g4]

Not that you are "wrong". Not everyone needs the latest and greatest from their monitor. Once again you assume they are buying a new computer so they can do "graphics design" or some crap. Most people are just buying a new computer so they can continue to stay up to date on security features while they browse the web and check their email. The old monitor is just as good for that purpose.

Yes, you are right, I agree with you.

Apple does allow owners of 24" iMac models purchased with the stand to swap the back out for the one with the VESA mount. This was confirmed by Apple to Jason Snell shortly after the M1 iMac launched. No mention of what the price is and I expect it is not something that can be done in-store at the Genius Bar, but at least it can be done, which was not the case for the 21.5" and 27" models.

You can only do it during the purchase phase, so when you order your imac you have to say that you want the vesa version.
But it's paradoxical, because (with old iMac) before you could choose and change directly at home, today all this is not possible.
Before anyone could install the vesa mount, it only took a few minutes.

on the new imac you have to disassemble the whole computer and considering that the monitor is glued and that you have to unplug all the cables, it's not an operation to be done in peace at home.
There's a big difference, so there's been a major setback.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

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.

Wrong. Your assumptions are flawed.
1) Not all monitors and CPU assemblies fail at the same time, let alone last for in excess of 10 years. I would guess that most do not. Whenever one component fails it is most efficient to still be able to use the working parts, even if just to give it away to someone who can use it.

2) Many folks have changes occur over the life of a box. E.g. one may want a different-sized display for any number of reasons; or the user may want a stronger computer while remaining totally satisfied with the display.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

The thread is about my specific use case that others may share. I even pointed it out in the original comment.

The title of this thread is about it.

The thing is, yours is not some "specific use case that others may share." Having a computer and display (all-in-one or not) last for 10+ years without hardware failures is not a reasonably planned-for "use case," it is just dumb luck. Treating it as a use case to plan for is flawed logic from the start.

 

[theorist9]

In my large tech company the majority of people have 2 or more monitors, it's a small expense for the bump in productivity it provides. It's a no-brainer. If all you're doing is email 1 monitor is all you need, but any serious work 2 or more monitors is a game changer and companies know this. With that said they are productivity monitors, nothing fancy.

Yeah, I'd expect there would be a net $ savings, which is why companies do it.

If an employee earns $20/hour = $30/hour with benefits, and saves just 10 minutes/day (= 0.17 hours/day) by not having to constantly switch which window is displayed, that's ~240 working days/year x 0.17 hours saved/day x $30/hour = $1200/year saved—far more than the cost of an extra $200 monitor (which is the kind of display people are typically supplied).

That's why the argument that "margins are too tight to afford an extra monitor" doesn't make sense unless you're a small business that doesn't employ people who are constantly on the computer—like, say, a mom-and-pop bodega. But once you get big enough to employee an office manager that spends all day doing payroll and accounts receivable (and you don't need to get very big before you need that), things are different.

Plus there's employee retention, which is affected by employee satisfaction, which is affected by whether the employees are given good tools for the job.

Ergonomically, though, I think dual monitors are suboptimal because the dividing line is in the center of your vision. I think the standard should be three displays: one good-quality (high-res) central monitor, and a pair of lower-quality monitors angled on either side. That doesn't take much more width than two monitors arrayed flat.