Larger iMac With Around 32-Inch Display Reportedly in Early Testing

[JimmyG]

They need to modularize their CPU/GPU/Port assemblies...buy the monitor of your choice (48/10K, 42/8K, 32/6K, 27/5K) and snap on a processing module with as much horsepower as one desires (vanilla, Pro, Max, Ultra, etc.). Future updates to M4, M5, M6, etc., keep the monitor, purchase the new generation processor/port module.

They can thank me for this idea with unlimited new gear and a stock option. "iMac Infinity". 'Natch.

 

[funkypepper]

iMac needs a stable design, with the future options to update the motherboard, and should be given the capability to use it as a standalone monitor if desired. Otherwise, it's destined to be e-waste. I am not planning to buy an iMac until these conditions are satisfied (at least the second one)!

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

32 inch screen will make good use of the notch 👍

 

[DavidSchaub]

They need to modularize their CPU/GPU/Port assemblies...buy the monitor of your choice (48/10K, 42/8K, 32/6K, 27/5K) and snap on a processing module with as much horsepower as one desires (vanilla, Pro, Max, Ultra, etc.). Future updates to M4, M5, M6, etc., keep the monitor, purchase the new generation processor/port module.

Isn’t that just the Mac mini or Mac Studio?

 

[Sippincider]

I really hope it includes a stand

I really hope they don't insult us with 8gb base memory on their flagship processor.

Then rub salt into it with ultra-premium BTO upgrades to make the machine usable.

 

[JoeG4]

Isn’t that just the Mac mini or Mac Studio?

That's exactly what it is, lol.

The annoying part is if you spend $600 on a Mac Mini, there's no matching $600 apple monitor to give you an imac-like setup for an imac-like price Gotta pair it with a nasty looking PC monitor. Or fork up $1500 for an Apple monitor lol.

Like it or not, I'm an aesthetics guy, and I think those iMacs are beautiful. I would love it if Apple somehow pulled a move like Framework and made the motherboards replaceable. The funny thing is, the way Apple builds iMacs now (with modular thunderbolt/usb-c ports and all), they TOTALLY COULD. But let's face it, very few of us would care about such things.. and most of us would buy a different model anyway.

I got my brothers iMacs. They are perfect for them. By the time those machines get long in the tooth we'll probably want to replace the entire thing anyway.

 

[theorist9]

It's weird though. Their flagship pre-Retina monitor for macOS was 101 ppi, but their 2X scaled flagship monitor is 218 ppi? Also, mathematically 200 ppi would still easily be considered Retina at normal recommended seating distances. Even 180 ppi could be considered Retina at normal seating distances. So, there is arguably a certain level of arbitrariness to that 218 ppi choice.

I like the sharpnesss of my 218 ppi iMac a *lot* more than that of my 163 ppi 4k. And I wouldn't want to risk losing any of that sharpness, not knowing the point at which it would become noticeable. Besides, I need that sharpness so I can use the small magnification required to view all the data in large spreadsheets at once, since I don't like having to scroll when I'm trying to see the big picture.

Those who've used the 280 ppi Dell 8k say it's sharper still. But, at 2x, that makes all the UI elements too small. So what we really need is something like 300 ppi with 3x scaling. Then everyone's happy .

 

[Jay Tee]

All joking aside, I've found that size to be too big for my comfort. The 32" Monitor I had frustrated me. The distance I needed it away from my face so that I didn't feel I was constantly moving my eyes or head too much made me had to decrease the resolution (make everything bigger) that I lost any benefit of having it over a 27" that I could have closer but higher resolution.

This is exactly right. 32” would be at the very limits of of a desktop monitor, or on a very large desk.

I do think a two-monitor setup would be more popular though: 1 landscape + 1 portrait, possibly.

 

[chucker23n1]

Those who've used the 280 ppi Dell 8k say it's sharper still. But, at 2x, that makes all the UI elements too small.

280 is probably high enough that most people don't really notice oversampling. So, just run it at the Pro Display XDR's resolution, and you probably won't be able to tell the difference. And you'll have saved a few thousand dollars.

 

[JimmyG]

Isn’t that just the Mac mini or Mac Studio?

The Mini and Studio are, IMHO, unnecessary chunks of aluminum require routing signal chains and the, then, necessary ports and cable(s) to connect the primary display along with requiring two separate power supplies and all the extra materials and hardware associated.

The genius of the all-in-one (read: iMac) is reduced footprint and materials and direct connection to the display and a single power supply. 5nm/3nm/?nm circuitry allows for small-form modularizing of the CPU/GPU internals negating the need for giant aluminum (e-wasteful) housings (read: Minis, Studios). Snapping on a module in the rear provides the user choice between Display and Computer and, in providing an upgrade path for both/either, it negates the need for Minis and Studios.

That Apple were to then broaden its display offerings we could see a world where authors could purchase true B&W work panels, average users could purchase SDR-class panels, creatives could purchase HDR panels, gamers could purchase high-refresh-rate panels, etc., all native, smart, and OS-aware. It's a paradigm shift from computer power prioritization "think" to display options prioritization "think".

Again, a lifetime of gear, and stock options will work, Tim! LOL

 

[chucker23n1]

5nm/3nm/?nm circuitry allows for small-form modularizing of the CPU/GPU internals negating the need for giant aluminum (e-wasteful) housings (read: Minis, Studios). Snapping on a module in the rear provides the user choice between Display and Computer

You're conflating transistor gates, internal connectors, and external connectors, all three of which have vastly different bandwidths, latencies, and other constraints. The "giant aluminum housings" aren't fully necessary, but you're going to need some amount of shielding.

The "snap on a module in the rear" design is what a Mac mini or Mac Studio with an external display already provides.

 

[JimmyG]

You're conflating transistor gates, internal connectors, and external connectors, all three of which have vastly different bandwidths, latencies, and other constraints. The "giant aluminum housings" aren't fully necessary, but you're going to need some amount of shielding.

The "snap on a module in the rear" design is what a Mac mini or Mac Studio with an external display already provides.

The only thing required of the display is comm-connector for the display/module i/o and provide power to the module for the snap-in ability, all other i/o is onboard the computing module. Imagine an iPad (only smaller) sans screen and with i/o that snaps into the back of a display, power comes from the display and everything else is handled by the module.

 

[SFjohn]

iMac needs a stable design, with the future options to update the motherboard, and should be given the capability to use it as a standalone monitor if desired. Otherwise, it's destined to be e-waste. I am not planning to buy an iMac until these conditions are satisfied (at least the second one)!

Apple already makes what you describe… Mac Studio + Apple Display. Add a shelf behind the display and you’re all the way there. 😉

 

[theorist9]

280 is probably high enough that most people don't really notice oversampling. So, just run it at the Pro Display XDR's resolution, and you probably won't be able to tell the difference. And you'll have saved a few thousand dollars.

Possibly, but no way for me to know without seeing it for myself. If you get the XDR at educational pricing with a VESA mount, it's ~$5k, vs. ~$4k for the Dell 8k. The real savings is the Dell 6k, which I've seen at $2400.

 

[Strider64]

The Mini and Studio are, IMHO, unnecessary chunks of aluminum require routing signal chains and the, then, necessary ports and cable(s) to connect the primary display along with requiring two separate power supplies and all the extra materials and hardware associated.

The genius of the all-in-one (read: iMac) is reduced footprint and materials and direct connection to the display and a single power supply. 5nm/3nm/?nm circuitry allows for small-form modularizing of the CPU/GPU internals negating the need for giant aluminum (e-wasteful) housings (read: Minis, Studios). Snapping on a module in the rear provides the user choice between Display and Computer and, in providing an upgrade path for both/either, it negates the need for Minis and Studios.

That Apple were to then broaden its display offerings we could see a world where authors could purchase true B&W work panels, average users could purchase SDR-class panels, creatives could purchase HDR panels, gamers could purchase high-refresh-rate panels, etc., all native, smart, and OS-aware. It's a paradigm shift from computer power prioritization "think" to display options prioritization "think".

Again, a lifetime of gear, and stock options will work, Tim! LOL

Yeah, but if I want to change the monitor or it there's a better monitor I can simply buy it. Oh the horror 🧟‍♂️ of having two plugs. 🤣

 

[DavidSchaub]

Yeah, but if I want to change the monitor or it there's a better monitor I can simply buy it. Oh the horror 🧟‍♂️ of having two plugs. 🤣

I agree; and really, making a mass-market consumer compatible "logic/ports/cpu" module that would go into an iMac chassis would still be a pile of aluminum, it would still need ports (to connect the module to the chassis), and would only be more complicated than a separate desktop... for minimal gain.