iMac Update Expected This Year, Model With OLED Display Also in Works

[artifex]

Let us know when they re-implement target display mode, so those pretty displays don't have to be discarded just because the machine's obsolete.

 

[k1121j]

lets hope they get rid of those ugly white bezels ( they look cheap), I'm pretty sure they added them so this go around they can remove them and call it a feature.

Also how did we go from iMac 5k so many years ago to worse resolution now?

 

[RealE]

I have been waiting on a 27" or larger iMac for quite a long time. My current one that I work on daily - and it's been great - is a LATE 2012 model! This thing has been going strong for 14 years! It's always been on - except for vacations when I shut it down - the thing is a beast. But, after all these years, I would really like to have the latest OS, the latest Adobe software, the latest software in general. I've been holding out a long time with these larger screen iMac rumors, but if one doesn't appear this year, I guess I'll be getting an iMac mini, and getting a couple of displays ( non Apple, because Apple displays are priced above my priceline ). So, it's too bad - for me - that it doesn't seem to be coming to fruition, but I guess I'll have to do the alternate. And it'll be sad when I finally unplug this beast for the last time!

Same boat and I just can't wait anymore.

 

[zarmanto]

Also how did we go from iMac 5k so many years ago to worse resolution now?

Strictly speaking, the current gen iMac isn't a "worse" resolution, per se... it's a smaller screen with the same dot pitch. (218 pixels per inch) The pixels you're giving up going from 5K to a 4.5K directly correlate to the size difference of the two displays -- 27 inches vs 24 inches, respectively.

That said... I still actually wonder the same thing as you; I just frame it differently.

 

[sotosoul]

24 inches is just way too small. We're not living in the '90s.

Even my 27-inch Studio Display seems a bit small to me. For the future, I'm not interested in anything below 32 inches, whether it's an external display or an iMac.

Up until one month ago I might have assumed that you are a bit "spoiled" for screen real estate. I got a relatively cheap HP 32" 4K display at work, where I use Windows at 150% scaling. My, oh, my would I have been wrong to call you spoiled 😄

 

[zarmanto]

... My, oh, my would I have been wrong to call you spoiled 😄

Nah... you're just spoiled now, too. 🤪

Spoiler: obligatory meme

 

[jouster]

I'm not in the market but my partner is. Her machine is about 8 years old and pretty sluggish. Perhaps I shouldn't have got it with the Fusion Drive 🥴...

I hope Apple redesigns the stand. She'd pay more to be able to raise the screen without needing a pile of books or an accessory.

 

[mattopotamus]

I agree (I’m biased, I’ve always preferred the iMac), but I suppose the issue is once it’s outdated, all of the great qualities become useless as it can’t be upgraded and there’s no target display mode

Such a huge miss that it can't be used as an external display.

 

[mistymac]

I'm dying for the return of a larger/pro iMac. I would happily pay $2K starting price for an M series chip slapped inside a Studio Display just for the convenience at this point.

 

[Spongmincer]

Had iMacs since 2013. just feels like they have been going backwards for years. Impossible to get excited about.

 

[Student of Life]

Sadly because it is a beautiful computer, but the iMac offers a relatively bad value for your money. This has only gotten worse with the price hike.

Only if one buys one at full price without discounts. If you look around you can find great deals but of course luck plays a role. I was able to get one at a price less than 600 and at that price point it is one of the best values for one’s money.

 

[zarmanto]

Had iMacs since 2013. just feels like they have been going backwards for years. Impossible to get excited about.

Everything is a matter of perspective. I've been using Macs (and specifically iMacs) for... well, perhaps slightly longer than you, and Apple's hardware history is maybe a bit complex.

That said: recent years have certainly introduced some very peculiar reversals -- like this whole going back to a 24" display issue that we've been bemoaning, and of course, publicly proclaiming that there are no plans to bring back the 27" iMac. I personally think that was a mistake, and it's clear by these comments that I'm not alone... but it's a recoverable mistake.

After all, saying there are "no plans" isn't the same thing as saying "it will never happen". So I hold out hope that they could revisit that decision at some point.

 

[danbuter]

Everyone really wants screen burn-in, don't they? OLED is not that great.

 

[marcelvelky]

1. Target Display Mode
2. 27"

or bust..

 

[upthetoffees]

OLED iMac = day one purchase.

OLED 27 inch imac = day one purchase.

 

[ignatius345]

Apple has never released an iMac with its higher-end "Pro" or "Max" chips.

I assumed the iMac just doesn’t have the thermal capacity to deal with this, but I could be wrong. It’s a very thin enclosure, and even just the base M4 I have can get quite warm on the back when it’s cranking away at something.

 

[ignatius345]

Had iMacs since 2013. just feels like they have been going backwards for years. Impossible to get excited about.

Very much disagree. The 24” is a great size for many uses, and is easy to fit onto even a modest sized desk. Performance on my M4 is rock solid, which is a lot more than I can say for the Intel 5K one I had before. Really one of my all time favorite Macs.

 

[Ja50n]

Compared to the laptops, the iMac has become a show piece of little substance. I had the M1 iMac, loved the looks, hated the screen. No Mini LED, no ProMotion, not even a 50Hz mode for UK content. Oh, and no option for Pro Silicon or more RAM. Crazy for a $1500 machine!

 

[zarmanto]

I assumed the iMac just doesn’t have the thermal capacity to deal with this, but I could be wrong. It’s a very thin enclosure, and even just the base M4 I have can get quite warm on the back when it’s cranking away at something.

That could be a reasonable assumption -- if not for the fact that M-series Pro and Max chips have shown up in multiple configurations of Apple's laptops, over the years. I'm mostly certain that their laptops have been consistently thinner than the M-series iMacs, so clearly thermals aren't the only consideration.

I suspect the current generation iMac is being intentionally targeted at the low end of the market, for the time being.

 

[Biro]

$1499 for a 24 inch display with MacBook Air specs... I really want to like the iMac, but I feel like it's an afterthought to Apple these days. The iMac in the late 2010s was such a beast compared to other Macs and could be upgraded into something with ridiculously powerful specs. I fear those days are long past. 🙁

Apple got it into its collective head that the iMac should be a “toy” computer… or the kids’ computer. Which is not at all the way the vast majority of Apple’s user base viewed it - nor the way they feel it should be today. It’s hard to say if Apple will ever correct its mistake because they’ll never admit that they made one.

BTW, $1499 is about what you’ll pay today for a base 15-inch MacBook Air or a 13-inch with 24GB of RAM.

 

[Biro]

I assumed the iMac just doesn’t have the thermal capacity to deal with this, but I could be wrong. It’s a very thin enclosure, and even just the base M4 I have can get quite warm on the back when it’s cranking away at something.

Remember, the Intel iMac offered processors all the way up to the i7 and i9. Yes, today’s iMacs are thinner and smaller. But Apple’s chips run A LOT cooler. And no one is expecting an M Max chip in an iMac. But an M Pro? Why not?

 

[ignatius345]

Remember, the Intel iMac offered processors all the way up to the i7 and i9. Yes, today’s iMacs are thinner and smaller. But Apple’s chips run A LOT cooler. And no one is expecting an M Max chip in an iMac. But an M Pro? Why not?

The Intel iMac was also much bigger machine. The razor thin frame of the 24 inch iMacs might be harder to cool. But maybe you’re right!

 

[Biro]

The Intel iMac was also much bigger machine. The razor thin frame of the 24 inch iMacs might be harder to cool. But maybe you’re right!

How about this: Restrict a 24-inch iMac to base M chips. An M6 or M7 would still make for a nice machine. But offer M Pro chips only in 27, 30 or 32-inch iMacs (pick one, Apple). That way Apple’s beloved “product differentiation” would be preserved.