iMac Pro doesn't make sense

[Jeff Rick]

Now that the M1Pro and M1Max chips support two 6k displays, it seems like an iMac Pro with an awesome display integrated with a top end machine doesn't make sense to me. Apple could just create a really nice companion display (all the ports, camera, speaker, design, etc) that is somewhat affordable (ie not the current 6k display) and let customers match it with a Mac mini on the low end, a Mac pro on the high end, and with laptops for most of us. Displays have a much longer shelf life than computers, particularly for high end machine usage. If they can be separated (and it seems like they can be now), what compelling advantage is there to keeping them together?

 

[bsamcash]

The all-in-one market, desktop with display market, and notebook with external display market don't always overlap.

 

[JMacHack]

That’s like saying the iMac itself didn’t make sense. Nothing new.

 

[mapleleafer]

Apple is in the business of making money, not sense. I would still be surprised, though, if Apple admits to making a bad decision of discontinuing the iMac Pro.

 

[glenthompson]

I really like my M1 iMac. If I needed more power/screen space I would like to have an iMac Pro instead of separate components. I don't need a full power laptop when traveling. My old MBA does just fine. I can grab it and go as opposed to having to disconnect everything if used as a desktop. BTDT and didn't care for the experience.

 

[Jeff Rick]

I still think the iMac makes sense on the lower end applications (home all-in-one, computer lab, etc). In those places, older hardware is fine and a low total cost is great. But, any iMac Pro is going to be super expensive if it combines a pro display with a pro computer. Separate those two and you have some nice advantages: (1) upgrade the computer without getting rid of the display (2) have greater variety of combinations, such as having a smaller and larger display and mini vs pro computer (3) make the display compelling for those of us with laptops. Before now, hooking up to a really nice display was complicated. Now, it requires a single cable that could also charge your laptop.

 

[JouniS]

The larger iMac has always been a cost-effective consumer desktop. At the low end, you get a good display for a reasonable price. At the high end, you get better performance than with any other consumer Mac without having to pay workstation prices.

There are two major reasons for having a desktop computer in addition to a laptop: convenience and reliability. Synchronizing files between computers is easier than the constant hassle of plugging and unplugging cables, packing and unpacking things, and moving and resizing windows. And if you use a computer for work, you should always have at least two of them available in case one breaks.

As for longevity, there is not much difference between the lifespan of a computer and a monitor these days. Both remain useful for 5-10 years, depending on the initial price and application.

I wouldn't mind if Apple decided to release a high-end consumer desktop in a separate case. But I wouldn't buy one either without some real benefits, such as user-upgradeable RAM/SSD or higher performance than what would be possible in an all-in-one form factor. If it's just a 300 W box with integrated components, Apple could just as easily integrate it into the monitor.

 

[Hunter5117]

There are two major reasons for having a desktop computer in addition to a laptop: convenience and reliability. Synchronizing files between computers is easier than the constant hassle of plugging and unplugging cables, packing and unpacking things, and moving and resizing windows.

I tried laptop plus monitors for a number of years and went back to having a full time desktop. As you have said, the convenience of the desktop being always on, capturing files, running nightly backups, etc is worth a lot.

 

[Abazigal]

There are two major reasons for having a desktop computer in addition to a laptop: convenience and reliability. Synchronizing files between computers is easier than the constant hassle of plugging and unplugging cables, packing and unpacking things, and moving and resizing windows. And if you use a computer for work, you should always have at least two of them available in case one breaks.

It also used to be that desktop computers could fit more powerful chips as power supply and heat dissipation were less of an issue compared to laptops.

Apple seems to be upending that conventional wisdom somewhat (at least the iMac shipped with the same M1 chip as the MBA). You are basically paying for the display, but not any appreciable improvement in performance.

And now with USB C, you can connect everyone via a single hub, so it’s less of a hassle as well.

We will see if the iMac Pro next year basically matches the MBP in performance or if Apple has something else up their sleeves.

 

[Traverse]

There are benefits to an always-on and connected machine. In addition to being a personal computer, my iMac hosts all of my files and media with an external 4TB SSD mounted to the back. While the display remains locked, the system is on to act as a Plex Server and what not.

With a laptop, as soon as it's in a bag, you lose your files and connection. You could have a headless Mac mini and MacBook Pro, but I don't need to Macs. An iPad is enough for my portable needs at the moment so I make my desktop Mac a higher-end one.

For years I ran with a MacBook Pro clamshell + display setup and it was fine, if a bit flaky. I've hard the M-series laptops handle displays much better, but I still get anxiety leaving laptop plugged in 95% of the time.

 

[JouniS]

And now with USB C, you can connect everyone via a single hub, so it’s less of a hassle as well.

Only if your demands are low. If you have two monitors and an external SSD, you will probably want to use at least two ports.

We will see if the iMac Pro next year basically matches the MBP in performance or if Apple has something else up their sleeves.

That would be quite underwhelming. Apple could match the M1 Max performance with Intel CPUs and AMD GPUs in the old iMac form factor.

 

[Abazigal]

That would be quite underwhelming. Apple could match the M1 Max performance with Intel CPUs and AMD GPUs in the old iMac form factor.

Not if you want a super-thin form factor (like this year’s M1 imac), but I doubt that’s a quality the “pros” care for.

 

[lux9488]

Desktops still have greater thermal capacity, room for additional ports, no battery (big cost and headache) and continuous power. If you want an always on computer in your house, you can't beat a desktop.

We've already seen the rumoured Jade C Die (M1 Max) and Jade C Chop (M1 Pro) chips and the the rumours suggest Apple has chips codenamed Jade 2C-Die and Jade 4C-Die which sound like two and four M1 Maxes in a single package.

If true, I could easily see a Jade 2C-Die option in a future iMac Pro.

 

[ADGrant]

The larger iMac has always been a cost-effective consumer desktop. At the low end, you get a good display for a reasonable price. At the high end, you get better performance than with any other consumer Mac without having to pay workstation prices.

Yes, the current Intel 27" iMac is a much more cost effective Mac than the Intel Mac mini or the Mac Pro (or the Intel MBPs if you price in a 5k monitor).

The base Mac Pro with a 5k LG Ultrafine would cost over $7,000 dollars. A $3,500 2020 27" iMac would be much faster.