Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Depends on your height and torso length. I found the 27" iMac a bit too tall, but I'm 170 cm (5'7") tall.

That's why all Apple screens should ideally come with a height adjustable stand IMO.
There certainly is a precedent for establishing variable height adjustments on a larger then 27" all-in-one Mac. Perhaps that might be one of the reasons Apple held back on a revised larger AS iMac last year. ;)
 
It won’t.
Of course it will. Why do people buy desktops? Do they really want a cheep headless Mac or a superfast number crunching box for a few thousand dollars! No, most people just want to work at a nice big screen with keyboard and mouse. Mac mini and Mac Studio are horrible substitutes for an All-in-One. They serve a very niche purpose. The iMac is not only the quintessential personal computer, it's also the core DNA of Apple as a company. Everything else is just an accessory to this product.
 
I’d buy one to replace my iMac Pro 2017. The current iMac design is awful, they look like toys (very expensive toys), so I hope this one will have a pro style redesign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makisupa Policeman
Late 2024 or 2025 at the earliest to launch? Geez, I feel bad for whoever is still waiting.
 
No, most people just want to work at a nice big screen with keyboard and mouse. Mac mini and Mac Studio are horrible substitutes for an All-in-One. They serve a very niche purpose. The iMac is not only the quintessential personal computer, it's also the core DNA of Apple as a company.
Sorry to break it for you, but since about 2010 the core of Apple's DNA has been the iPhone. As for personal computing, what the majority of people want is a laptop or tablet, and it was heading that way since long before the post-pandemic drive for flexible working:


The quintessential/iconic Mac is the MacBook Air - and has been since Steve pulled it out of that envelope (though it took a couple of years to get the design and price right) and Apple Silicon cemented that by making it more than powerful enough for the majority of consumers. Beyond that, the "flagship" Mac is the 14/16 MacBook Pro. Post Apple Silicon, you may notice, Macs get new silicon in that order.

All desktop Macs are niche - and a shrinking niche at that. The old 27" iMac market is being eroded in multiple directions. Even the iMac fans in this thread can't even agree on whether they want 27", 30" or 32", fake HDR or true local dimming... Not to mention all of us who only bought iMacs because there was no headless alternative at the time.

I don't entirely like the design of the 24" iMac, but if you want an all-in-one for "general" use it pretty much fits the bill, is more powerful than the old entry-level 27" and has a better/larger screen than the old 21.5".

If desktops were selling in the same volume as MacBooks then, maybe, Apple could offer a choice of sizes at sensible prices and still offer headless options. Otherwise, letting people mix and max computers and displays is (and always has been) far more sensible especially as Apple can sell the displays to all those MacBook Pro users who just need a bigger screen & docking solution.

Apple have the market research here, and their actions over the past 10 years pretty much suggest that the only way they can sell enough iMacs is to not offer a mix-and-match alternative.

I’d buy one to replace my iMac Pro 2017.
And yet, unless you found a one-off bargain, the iMac Pro cost $5000. A Mac Studio Max, 32GB, 1TB, 38 core GPU and Studio Display costs $4000 and should significantly out-perform it (if it doesn't its because Apple Silicon and a new iMac won't fix that).

...plus, if you'd been able to buy a "separates" system in 2017 you'd now have a perfectly good 5k display and would only need a $2400 Mac Studio. I'd see that as a sign that high-end iMacs were just a bad idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makisupa Policeman
Sorry to break it for you, but since about 2010 the core of Apple's DNA has been the iPhone. As for personal computing, what the majority of people want is a laptop or tablet, and it was heading that way since long before the post-pandemic drive for flexible working:
That's just what the average costumer buys. But every single piece of iPhone software was programmed on a Mac and not the other way around. The Macintosh is the foundation of everything. tv works fine as just another Mac app. And for people who know what they're doing, the iPhone is merely a remote to their real computer.
 
Of course it will. Why do people buy desktops? Do they really want a cheep headless Mac or a superfast number crunching box for a few thousand dollars! No, most people just want to work at a nice big screen with keyboard and mouse. Mac mini and Mac Studio are horrible substitutes for an All-in-One. They serve a very niche purpose. The iMac is not only the quintessential personal computer, it's also the core DNA of Apple as a company. Everything else is just an accessory to this product.

The amusing thing is, when the iMac 5K was the "best" desktop Apple offered, people on this forum carped about the "waste" of having to toss their monitor when they wanted to upgrade to a faster CPU and/or GPU.

Now they have that ability with the Mac mini Pro and the Mac Studio and either an Apple or third-party display, people are carping about is "why do I have to buy a monitor and a compute box? Why can't I get both in one chassis?"

:rolleyes:
 
The amusing thing is, when the iMac 5K was the "best" desktop Apple offered, people on this forum carped about the "waste" of having to toss their monitor when they wanted to upgrade to a faster CPU and/or GPU.

Now they have that ability with the Mac mini Pro and the Mac Studio and either an Apple or third-party display, people are carping about is "why do I have to buy a monitor and a compute box? Why can't I get both in one chassis?"

:rolleyes:
It’s always about the price range of the desktop solution, be it a component pairing or an all-in-one. Right now if buying only Apple devices, the value leader is a Mac Mini with the Studio Display being what is priced higher then expected. Although we seen it go as low as $1299. That $1300 Samsung Viewfinity S9 for that price is still not out there. So we go back and forth with what is the best deal of a desktop for $2000. Apple hasn’t returned to meeting the mark at that price since they jettisoned the 27” iMac desktop. The M1 24” iMac is sorta in a bad value spot now even though it’s quite capable. ;)
 
Well people are always going to carp about pricing of Apple products. ;) :)

But yes, if you want a 5K display from a Tier One OEM (Apple, Samsung, LG) you are going to pay a premium for it. But you can go "grey market" with something like the Kuycon for half the price.

And you can also go third party. That is what I decided to do since Amazon put the Samsung 32" MiniLED 4K display on sale for Prime Day at 35% off (I plan to run it at 1080p Retina).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makisupa Policeman
Of course it will. Why do people buy desktops? Do they really want a cheep headless Mac or a superfast number crunching box for a few thousand dollars! No, most people just want to work at a nice big screen with keyboard and mouse. Mac mini and Mac Studio are horrible substitutes for an All-in-One. They serve a very niche purpose. The iMac is not only the quintessential personal computer, it's also the core DNA of Apple as a company. Everything else is just an accessory to this product.
The price point is its downfall.
If it were say $1700-1999 for a well equips model. It would sell in droves. But like the studio is won’t break numbers charts it won’t see massive adoption.
The current mac mini can’t even sell. No one I buying them. Third party resellers have to give them away to move them, used models are currently the most affordable M series Mac on the second hand market.
If apple puts a top tier screen on them and gives them pumped specs and internals like the M1 iMac people will buy them for everyday use. But at the prospective price point….. it makes zero economical sense to buy one.
Especially when a top end mac mini and a studio display are more than half the prospective price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makisupa Policeman
That's just what the average costumer buys.
...and that's where Apple makes there money... and because the volume of sales is probably many times larger than desktops, that's where it's economical to offer a choice of 4 sizes of laptop screen (plus 2 flavours of external display).

But every single piece of iPhone software was programmed on a Mac and not the other way around.
What's that got to do with anything? (a) I'm not sure its even true - there are several cross-platform development systems used to write phone apps and many apps depend on cloud backends that aren't even running on Mac hardware (unless you think that Maps/Music/AppleTV+ backends are running on a rack of Trashcans somewhere...) and (b) there's very little in iPhone development that couldn't be done on a Mac laptop.

Make no mistake, if Apple wanted to drop the Mac they could have XCode for Windows/Linux - or a browser-hosted version of XCode Cloud - out the door really quickly. Remember that, until Apple Silicon Macs launched, iPhone development was being done quite happily on x86 machines. Not that I think the demise of MacBooks is imminent, but that's the way development - with teams of programmers working remotely. You certainly don't need an iMac to develop for iPhone.

tv works fine as just another Mac app.

tv works fine on my LG TV - plus Android, Chromebook and Windows. Your point?

Now they have that ability with the Mac mini Pro and the Mac Studio and either an Apple or third-party display, people are carping about is "why do I have to buy a monitor and a compute box? Why can't I get both in one chassis?"
I don't think it's the same people carping. The 5k iMac was always a bargain if a Mac with a 5k, 27" screen was exactly what you wanted and an annoyance if you wanted something more flexible. The Studio/Mini isn't perfect but they've hit the spot for a lot of people who wanted a headless Mac. The sillier features of the Studio Display (lacking standard things like height adjustment, after-market VESA mounts, detachable mains cords that are standard on displays costing a fraction of the price) don't help the case, though.

In an ideal world Apple would produce both the Mini/Studio range and a large iMac - but the sales volume clearly isn't enough to support it (at least not by Apple's standards) and while I wouldn't want to deny an iMac to someone who wanted one, I worry that if Apple flip-flops back to the iMac concept they'll also revert to the "gimp the headless options so people have to buy a new display every 3-4 years" strategy.
 
An M3 iMac has so much potential!

1689098403692.png
 
What is stopping Pro Motion on 32" screens? 6K/60 without Display Stream Compression works over existing links, so I don't see why 6K/120 couldn't work with Display Stream Compression turned on? Certainly it isn't a problem over HDMI 2.1.
Not sure. Probably the same thing that stopped them on the existing Studio Display and Pro Display XDRs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EugW
Not sure. Probably the same thing that stopped them on the existing Studio Display and Pro Display XDRs.
Yup. It's common in the creative pro market NOT to have high refresh rate monitors. It seems most actual working creative pros are not as adamant about these things as some people here at MacRumors.


P.S. Your handle reminds me of this:

 
Last edited:
I also tried a 32” 4K Asus ProArt monitor. The text quality was noticeably poor. I returned it for this reason and because it had some light bleed.
That doesn't have to be a general problem with the combo 32" size + 4K resolution though, could've just been that specific monitor. Especially when you use the native resolution for text (which macOS doesn't by default).

That said I agree that 5K+ is nicer on 32" screens or larger, no argument here. It absolutely makes sense. For me personally it's just not as important as ProMotion. If I could choose (and the price is not insane) I would definitely pick both.

Apple often do this annoying thing where they meet all the preconditions to put all the available features into a new product but they put off some of them for the next iteration(s). I wouldn't be surprised if the new large iMac only has one or two out the three features 5K+, ProMotion and True Tone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makisupa Policeman
That doesn't have to be a general problem with the combo 32" size + 4K resolution though, could've just been that specific monitor. Especially when you use the native resolution for text (which macOS doesn't by default).
It’s absolutely because of the pixel density. Without subpixel rendering, 4K at 32” is too low at normal seating distance.

It’s 138 ppi, which is not Retina at normal seating distance. At 138 ppi (4K 32”), the required seating distance for Retina with 20/20 vision is 25” minimum. At 163 ppi (4K 27”), that’s 21”. At 184 ppi (4K 24”), that’s 19”.

Ergonomic guidelines recommend minimum 20” seating distance for a desktop computer. That would mean a minimum of about 170ish ppi or maximum 4K screen size of about 26”.

I can tell you I still see a noticeable text degradation at 163 ppi (4K 27”), but it’s still very good. However, at 138 ppi (4K 32”), not so much. I sit at about 20-24”, usually around 22”.
 
Last edited:
Lets use the HP Pavilion 31.5" as a example, does the size appeal to most consumers if the other choice is a 23.5" (24" IMac?


Module_3_image_1_Desktop.png


Module_3_image_2_Desktop.png


Looking at this example do you really think most business or consumers want a 32" display in people workplaces or homes? You be the judge. The 27" size was originally chosen because of amount of space it took up on one's desktop. Yes I can see the need for a larger display but Apple might want to make the largest display be majority of the form factor then any real bezels enlarging the size of a all-in-ine. Just think about how much larger the stand might also be on the desktop's surface also.
Just as an aside -- that is the fugliest AIO I've ever seen 😳
 
This is my guess for the 2024 iMac 32" 6K

iMac 32" 6K
Mac chip
Base RAM
Base Storage
$1,999​
M3​
8GB​
256GB​
$2,699​
M3 Pro​
16GB​
512GB​
$3,399​
M3 Max​
32GB​
1TB​
$5,399​
M3 Ultra​
64GB​
1TB​

It is just sad that Apple does not allow SODIMMs replacements anymore. If they did I'd likely buy
  • $149 64GB for 2021 MBP 16" from 16GB in a 2011 MBP 13"
  • $298 128GB for 2024 iMac 32' 6K from 32GB in a 2012 iMac 27" 2.5K
The 1st time 8GB RAM became standard on the larger iMac was in the 2012 model.

I'd love Apple to double RAM & storage sizes while keeping the chip and MSPR unchanged.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DavidSchaub
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.