Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is a New 24-Inch iMac Coming in 2023? What We Know So Far
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
When you’re on the outside and not in on the decision making process, and the data that went into it, it‘s a challenge to understand some of those decisions.
Also just because you as an individual want/like something doesn’t automatically make it the right thing to do from a business standpoint. Lots of people wonder why items they want are not on store shelves and they have to order them online and wait for delivery. Simple fact is the things they want are not wanted by the majority of the consumer base so a store is not going to waste valuable shelf space for items that appeal to less than five percent of the market.
It’s been two years since the new iMac was introduced. I’d say evidence for the release of a companion larger screen iMac is slim to none. And thats for a 27in. iMac. Those whining for a 29-32in. iMac are dreaming in 6K. It’s not going to happen. It was likely never even a notion.
The ship has also most likely sailed for the M2 being put into the iMac. They’ve had a year to do it and nothing happened. It’s becoming ever increasingly unlikely. Rather than continue whining about it why not welcome the news the next upgrade will be the more powerful M3, a more significant performance upgrade over the M1 or M2?
Many conveniently forget the howling of Apple devotees in these forums represents only a tiny vocal minority of Apple users and don’t represent Apple’s far broader customer base. Unless you have access to the data Apple uses upon which to base their decisions then you’re just expressing your wish lists. And there is nothing wrong with that as long as you don’t claim to speak for the majority. Crying Apple should do this or should do that only reflects your perspective and not necessarily the information they have at hand.
Also just because you as an individual want/like something doesn’t automatically make it the right thing to do from a business standpoint. Lots of people wonder why items they want are not on store shelves and they have to order them online and wait for delivery. Simple fact is the things they want are not wanted by the majority of the consumer base so a store is not going to waste valuable shelf space for items that appeal to less than five percent of the market.
It’s been two years since the new iMac was introduced. I’d say evidence for the release of a companion larger screen iMac is slim to none. And thats for a 27in. iMac. Those whining for a 29-32in. iMac are dreaming in 6K. It’s not going to happen. It was likely never even a notion.
The ship has also most likely sailed for the M2 being put into the iMac. They’ve had a year to do it and nothing happened. It’s becoming ever increasingly unlikely. Rather than continue whining about it why not welcome the news the next upgrade will be the more powerful M3, a more significant performance upgrade over the M1 or M2?
Many conveniently forget the howling of Apple devotees in these forums represents only a tiny vocal minority of Apple users and don’t represent Apple’s far broader customer base. Unless you have access to the data Apple uses upon which to base their decisions then you’re just expressing your wish lists. And there is nothing wrong with that as long as you don’t claim to speak for the majority. Crying Apple should do this or should do that only reflects your perspective and not necessarily the information they have at hand.
Yup, the "mystery" is why the M2 (base) didn't get rolled out to the 24" iMac and the Mac Mini last summer, or at least why the M2 iMac didn't appear alongside the M2 Mini earlier this year.
One possible explanation would be if the 24" iMac simply hasn't been selling enough, in the face of increasingly powerful laptops and renewed interest in the Mini.
On the other hand, never rule out corporate politics and internal "not invented here" spats - its interesting that (contrary to rumours) the 24" iMac design language (with Jony Ive written all over it) and features like external PSU + magnetic connector, Ethernet in the power brick were never extended to subsequent products like the M2 Mini, MBA and Studio Display. The white bezels clearly emerged from a different silo than the MacBook notch (you can make a black notch "disappear" against a black screen, you can't make a non-illuminated white notch disappear against an illuminated white screen).
Perhaps the "all-in-ones are useless" vs "where's my new iMac?" debate here has also taken place behind closed doors at Apple?
...its also interesting that there are strong hints that there was supposed to be a M1 Pro version of the 24" iMac: hence two versions differing only in the number of USB-C ports (the M1 Pro being able to support 4 three TB3 ports) and an extra fan on the logic board (for cooling a higher-powered M1 Pro chip?). Signs of a troubled product, maybe?
Wish I had more disposable income to upgrade... I'm rocking a 2011 27" iMac... I upgraded the HDD to a Samsung 860 EVO...
So it's been more profitable for them to kill the 27". Ouch...
AND the larger screens would be a niche market, but having it as a BTO option would be awesome! Using/leveraging BTO would mean Apple would be able to control cost better than actually manufacturing shipping containers full of them sitting on some pier somewhere hoping someone would buy one.
Last edited:
It wouldn't surprise me if they come out with a larger-screened M3 iMac with the M3 Pro and maybe even M3 Max chips, and thus dub it the "iMac Pro." Like I said, the 27" Retina iMac was VERY popular with professional users for graphic design, audiovisual creation, etc., and this is what led to them coming out with that "iMac Pro" in 2017.
I tend to view this all a example of larger Mac products took the hit when Apple had to cut production in China and prioritize/maximize their production runs that made the best odds for maintaining revenue that wouldn’t effect Wall Street investmen/analyst. Now that we are a few months later ( china city wide lockdowns ended Dec 2022) once manufacturing normalized some more Apple will return to production of new iMacs. Something like that where transportation costs of Covid 19 years would explain the Shift from iMacs to Small form mc studios, and studio display that could be a solution for many products that needed external displays. The reason I use a 23.5” iMac is because of casual usage where the display allows me towork better doing multiple applicatoons sessions.
Last edited:
The M3 will probably at least have faster single-thread performance than any M2 series chip, so it will be a better fit for the sort of general use that the iMac is aimed at. Presumably, the M3 will be going into the MBA as well, so the price point would be about right, too.
A desktop‘s energy efficiency is important also from green standpoint and decreased heat generation. The original M1 did great, the M3 would do better then M2 device, still they all are advantages to utilize compared to Intel platform.
3nm doesn't only save battery, it allows to put millions more transistors on the same chip area and let the cpu run faster without getting any hotter. Which, is the only reason why the M2 Ultra isn't in the 24" iMac. The giant heatsink wouldn't fit into a 7mm chassis. No matter the energy supply, it's always about performance per watt.
1) Cost - M3 (or M2, or frankly M1) is more than enough power for the intended use of these machines - which is general computing. An M3, versus a Pro, Max or whatever, keeps it affordable
2) Thermals - If you have handled an M1 iMac, one of the awesome things about it is how thin and light it is (so you can move it from desk to desk pretty easily). M3 would presumably have even better thermals
The thing is - Pro chips are available today in Mac desktops - including Mac mini, Mac Studio, etc....
In short, Apple is likely more so moving toward how the mainstream PC market treats the All-in-One form factor.
A decent chance it is primarily because the M3 will arrive later. This allows Apple to use the same logic board and configurations for > 2 years. Back in Intel era the Mini went 2014 -> 2018 on updates. Apple gets to take a year (or two or three) years off from doing new R&D. Similarly, for a very long time Apple has a comatose , 'edu' , non-retina 21.5" iMac in the line up. It sat unchanged in the line up for long stretches (on multiple year old Intel CPUs based on old MBA platforms). Same situation here. Apple also gets to pair the M1 consuming iMac up with the 'extra low entry price' M1 MBA they are still selling. So it is also a place to soak up fluctuations if M1 demand.
It is just the 'smaller screen' iMac now. In desktop line up, it is surrounded on two (or three) sides by the Mini, Mini Pro, and Mac Studio. It is not the anointed 'King' of the desktop line up anymore. So not particularly surprising if Apple just lets the product 'drift' for years at a time. [ NOTE: if 27" iMac sales were 50% of iMac sales in the 'only' Intel era then about half of iMac sales have disappeared. If 35-45% , again that is a major drop for the form factor. That doesn't even take into account the fratricide losses when the Mini and MBA/MBP 13" has just as fast a SoC as the iMac (iMac isn't getting the average user better performance. ). If the aggregate unit numbers for the form factor are rapidly dropping how likely is Apple going to throw time and money at the product line? Probably isn't going to happen. ] Apple thinned out the iMac 24" so much that it is pragmatically confined to being limited to MBA/iPad Pro SoC range. It is even more an All-in-one move more so than any unique performance value-add.
Additionally, the screen panel technology seems to be going through a substantive change. Apple isn't sure if double OLED or microLED is going to be the 'future' of 'affordable if buy in huge volume' tech. Again, a way to squeeze better margins out of just letting the product 'drift' with no updates. As long as the sales don't crater 'too far' , Apple continues to make money on a product that is primarily using 'paid for' parts R&D and manufacturing jigs/set-up .
The 24" iMac is too thin for a M2 Pro SoC. Being confined to the thinned out chin puts limits on how big the SOC package ( die + RAM ) can be. There is no copious extra space on the main logicboard for the iMac 24". The Pro package won't fit. If it was the old 21.5" chassis there would be no problem. But Apple moved the iMac 24" to being modeled as an ' iPad on stick' ... hence effectively limited to iPad SoCs.
If Apple reversed the decision to let the thinness politburo scope the primary design criteria for the iMac then perhaps they would have other options. But with the current ones though it is a painted into a corner chassis.
I think the "its gotta have a M2 Pro " option comes from a notion "how is it going to compete with the Mini Pro". The answer there somewhat likely could be ... it doesn't. That Apple reverses the script and the Mini is free to run performance value add over the iMac in the new era. As long as Mini Pro sales go up relative to old Intel era iMac in that price range then it is a non problem for Apple.
Apple has two discrete , docking station monitors now. More than they have had in well over a decade. There is talk of another display priced between the Studio Display and XDR. If Apple goes to three options that is an even bigger shift away from purposely herding users into All-in-one chassis as a strategic objective. Apple has also left plenty of 3rd party displays to fill the void for price sensitive Mini buyers ( and the 3rd party market has gobs of competition and options. ) . The era where Apple makes folks who don't want All-in-Ones , buy iMacs anyway is basically over. The 'clout' of the iMac is likely going to drop. That will impact the frequency of updates from Apple.
Pretty good chance Apple isn't going to chance buyers who have performance as a top 3 criteria with the iMac going forward. So yes, it would be easy to skip the M2 if not highly focused on those buyers. The M3 is not 'amazing new performance' as much as ships later after taken longer to make more profits on the previous iteration.
Not making a Mac Pro after effectively saying that they would ... you are in wishful thinking land. That $5K pricing range of the product line up is not a fratricide filled pricing zone . There is more than plenty of room there for another product with substantive value-add properties ( multiple internal storage option, High end general internal I/O , etc. )
A mostly AR focused headset is pretty likely . The primary focus probably won't tbe VR , but AR confined to hyper lightweight glasses has major constraint issues. ( somewhat similar to confining the iMac to "iPad on a stick" constraints). The approach to the size , quality , and amount of information can presented is more limited. Given the reported large number of cameras on this headset , it very likely is not limited much at all in passing through reality. As long as it is mostly reality that is presented to the user ... it is AR far more than it is VR.
Microsoft Hololens and Magic Leap are far more the likely targets than gamer/escapist centric consumer VR headsets.
Not at all, the M2 pro is the cheapest upgrade to allow 32 GB Ram, more CPU cores, and GPU cores for meaningful performance gains. The 24” iMac is not in competition with the M2/M2 pro Mac mini, this just represents an acceptable update to the original M1 model.
Apparently Apple doesn't think it's an acceptable upgrade. They're convinced M3 is a better solution.
Thinking about it, besides the space and thermal issues, the M2 MacBook Air could be a fair example of why they're skipping M2 in the iMac. The M2 Air is a debatable upgrade/value over the M1 Air which was a killer value (and still is) when it was released. Unless you're enamored with the M2 Air's new design, negligibly larger display and colour options is that marginal performance gain worth $200 over the M1 Air? A lot of mainstream users won't care and would rather pocket the $200 or use that savings to buy AppleCare and/or accessories--better overall value.
This isn't to say the M2 Air isn't a good machine--it most definitely is--but for many is it worth the extra $200 when the excellent M1 Air is still available?
Last edited:
Pragmatically a Mn Pro costs more. Both in die size fabrication costs and also because the 'minimal RAM' capacity is also higher. With Apple pricing ( margins and mark-up) that substantively increases the cost of the overall system .
Can drift into a tangent of whether "real desktops start at 16GB RAM" or not. However, Apple's pricing of RAM capacity really does make this a significant factor.
The other factor is the the M3 is smaller than the Mn Pro . The main logicboard space of the iMac 24" is limited to the chin of the device. So the size of the desktop plays a factor. To put the M2 Pro and cooling solution into the Mac Mini Apple effectively consumed the available space ( while retaining the internal power supply and the same chassis dimensions. ) . Smaller chassis plays a role in most of Apple's desktop line; for better or worse it is a very real, self-imposed constraint. Part of the rational of Apple doing their own, custom to product SoCs is to make the desktop products they want to build. 'Smaller' is part of that want for a long time now. The Mini is relatively a way, way, way better product now that the SoC much better matches the chassis it is in.
If Apple can put 80% of the M2 Pro multiple core performance into a M3 you get more performance in a smaller package. It isn't just 'lower power'. In fact, I doubt there will be much lower battery consumption of the M3 when it is actually doing something. Better battery life when relatively mostly idle , but TSMC N3 gets a large power saving if take no performance increase. You don't necessarily get huge performance increase and battery saving at the same time. Pretty good chance Apple is going to leverage the increased logic transistor density to put some more performance accelerators into the M3 , it likely won't be an attempt to 'idle' the transistors more on general workloads; more so idle the general purpose cores/function units on some more expensive limited cases .
And the cache sizes aren't going to shrink much so not going to see major power gains there.
The iMac 24" logical board doesn't allot for that kind of RAM capacity ( with current M2 era tech) as there is no room for the 'extra' RAM dies.
And long term lifecycle costs , the Mini Pro is cheaper because when comes time to update either screen or Mac unit , you don't have replace both. So if primarily chasing performance and maximal RAM capacity, then All-in-One doesn't make much sense over the longer term.
At this late point I think the rumours have a reasonable basis in fact. And the iMac is definitely a Mac.We are just speculating against a rumor.
Just wish they would do items other than iPhone like iPhone. Have multiple screen sizes for each spec. Why do they have to lock the MacBook biggest screen size behind massive specs and pricing?
That or the rumor is so ingrained that it has its own life.
Example the assumption of a $3000 headset.
Drives me crazy.. I could handle losing a 27" screen if I could have 32GB of RAM. The Mac Mini goes up to 64..
