Lower-Priced 23-Inch iMac and 11-Inch iPad Models Rumored to Launch in Second Half of 2020

[CWallace]

LG does offer the 4K Ultrafine display in a 32" as well as 23.7" sizes so in theory, Apple could just turn the "consumer" iMac into a 4K non-Retina line. If they bumped the base RAM from 8GB to 16GB and make the ~24" base storage a 1TB Fusion Drive and the 32" base storage a 2TB Fusion Drive they could keep the pricing at $1299 and $1799, respectively.

The iMac Pro would continue at 27", but it would also continue with 5K Retina resolution and adding HDR and better brightness thanks to miniLED backlighting. Base pricing could probably hold at $4999 with the cheaper W-2200 Xeons covering the higher cost of the 5K miniLED panel.

Frankly, I'd be okay with this because while an iMac Pro is overkill for my needs, I am drawn to it because it would likely last me for a decade and therefore I could justify the higher price - plus I want 5K Retina and adding HDR and higher brightness would be benefits I would be willing to pay for.

 

[sublunar]

LG does offer the 4K Ultrafine display in a 32" as well as 23.7" sizes so in theory, Apple could just turn the "consumer" iMac into a 4K non-Retina line. If they bumped the base RAM from 8GB to 16GB and make the ~24" base storage a 1TB Fusion Drive and the 32" base storage a 2TB Fusion Drive they could keep the pricing at $1299 and $1799, respectively.

The iMac Pro would continue at 27", but it would also continue with 5K Retina resolution and adding HDR and better brightness thanks to miniLED backlighting. Base pricing could probably hold at $4999 with the cheaper W-2200 Xeons covering the higher cost of the 5K miniLED panel.

Frankly, I'd be okay with this because while an iMac Pro is overkill for my needs, I am drawn to it because it would likely last me for a decade and therefore I could justify the higher price - plus I want 5K Retina and adding HDR and higher brightness would be benefits I would be willing to pay for.

Excellent spot there @CWallace - I found it on the LG site and it mentions Mac compatibility - reviews (including one at MacRumors) appear to have been published a year ago. The MacRumors review mentions this panel 'wasn't designed in partnership with Apple' though. I get the feeling the panel might not meet the high standard set by Apple and hence wasn't included in the Apple Store.

The retail price of the monitor is quite high at $1299 but it does support VESA DisplayHDR 600 and has Thunderbolt ports and DCI-P3 coverage which is a high spec. One thing I noticed was it lists Nano IPS as its method of achieving 98% of DCI-P3 coverage (135% of sRGB) which is less wide than the 23.7" Ultrafine (which is in the Apple Store) achieves.

Compare this with the 'classic' 27" UltraFine 5k which covers DCI-P3 99% with 500 nits brightness - same as the 23.7" Ultrafine.

The 32" also has a fairly low 138 PPI (understandably, given Apple's retina resolution definition would demand a 6k panel at 32") and incidentally only delivers 60w power to connected laptops.

With mini LED technology that Apple could apply miniLED to existing panels - perhaps even the 21.5" if they wished to - because they have the buying power to make it happen at affordable prices. The technology has been around for a few years now but Apple could choose this time to put Pro-motion 120Hz into something at 4k - perhaps at 23.7"?

Could that be an 23.7" 4k 120Hz iMac Air driven by a high spec GPU - easily confused as a 'gaming Mac'?

 

[PostApple2016BrainWash]

Excellent spot there @CWallace - I found it on the LG site and it mentions Mac compatibility - reviews (including one at MacRumors) appear to have been published a year ago. The MacRumors review mentions this panel 'wasn't designed in partnership with Apple' though. I get the feeling the panel might not meet the high standard set by Apple and hence wasn't included in the Apple Store.

The retail price of the monitor is quite high at $1299 but it does support VESA DisplayHDR 600 and has Thunderbolt ports and DCI-P3 coverage which is a high spec. One thing I noticed was it lists Nano IPS as its method of achieving 98% of DCI-P3 coverage (135% of sRGB) which is less wide than the 23.7" Ultrafine (which is in the Apple Store) achieves.

Compare this with the 'classic' 27" UltraFine 5k which covers DCI-P3 99% with 500 nits brightness - same as the 23.7" Ultrafine.

The 32" also has a fairly low 138 PPI (understandably, given Apple's retina resolution definition would demand a 6k panel at 32") and incidentally only delivers 60w power to connected laptops.

With mini LED technology that Apple could apply miniLED to existing panels - perhaps even the 21.5" if they wished to - because they have the buying power to make it happen at affordable prices. The technology has been around for a few years now but Apple could choose this time to put Pro-motion 120Hz into something at 4k - perhaps at 23.7"?

Could that be an 23.7" 4k 120Hz iMac Air driven by a high spec GPU - easily confused as a 'gaming Mac'?

Agreed, Apple needs to adopt 120hz for the iMac lineup and it's rapidly growing as the new standard on smartphones and people are expecting it to be a part of the next major update.

 

[CWallace]

I am not sure 120Hz would be important for Apple in a general-purpose display. The iOS devices have it for smooth high-speed scrolling because one has to scroll a fair bit on such small devices. On large computer displays, scrolling is less often and when one does scroll, the speed is usually slower.

And is 120Hz even available at 4K using AMD FreeSync? I have not been able to find one in a simple Google search. They all seem to be limited to 60-75Hz with 120-144Hz models only supporting 1920x1080 resolutions. Also, 120Hz at 4K requires a very powerful GPU and while AMD makes such GPUs they would be expensive and therefore would increase the base and option prices over using GPUs that only need to drive a display at 60Hz.

 

[sublunar]

I am not sure 120Hz would be important for Apple in a general-purpose display. The iOS devices have it for smooth high-speed scrolling because one has to scroll a fair bit on such small devices. On large computer displays, scrolling is less often and when one does scroll, the speed is usually slower.

And is 120Hz even available at 4K using AMD FreeSync? I have not been able to find one in a simple Google search. They all seem to be limited to 60-75Hz with 120-144Hz models only supporting 1920x1080 resolutions. Also, 120Hz at 4K requires a very powerful GPU and while AMD makes such GPUs they would be expensive and therefore would increase the base and option prices over using GPUs that only need to drive a display at 60Hz.

Freesync 2 appears to cover 4k monitors such as X438Q Rog Strix 43" - but I'll accept there isn't an obvious panel on the market that will cope with the colour specs that Apple would be after. 43" is already a ludicrous size and that ROG Strix doesn't cover anything like the full DCI-P3 gamut.

I was under the impression that FreeSync (and GSync) adaptively changed the refresh rate to sync with whatever the GPU was putting out while gaming to reduce tearing.

Apple would probably be fixing the refresh rate with Pro-motion as per their recent change to accommodate the MacBook Pro for video editing. Therefore working with 120fps 1080p footage would be smoother. Scrolling through windows would be nicer.

If dynamic refresh rate switching were allowed the GPU in an iMac could potentially be rested if the system detects that the user is not doing anything - thus allowing it to cool down the iMac quicker.

As I mentioned earlier, this could be mistaken for dynamic refresh rate changing (for games) with adjustable fixed refresh rates to suit video editors? The iPhone 11 can record 1080p footage at up to 240fps so perhaps being able to play that on a screen with a higher refresh rate would be an important marketing feature.

Basically, I'd be looking for a reason why Apple would release a 23" iMac and it's below 219ppi (eg approx 4.6k resolution).

 

[stevec618]

They need to pull something pretty impressive out of the bag, for the new iMacs. Every machine in the desktop lineup is underpowered and overpriced.

 

[Jury]

They need to pull something pretty impressive out of the bag, for the new iMacs. Every machine in the desktop lineup is underpowered and overpriced.

Agreed, the new iMac is going to need a bigger update and some innovative features like capable of using as display monitor so the mac mini can connect to the additional output display.

 

[PickUrPoison]

23" iMac with user upgradable ram, SSD, solid WiFi, Bluetooth with decent graphics and speaker inside? I'd consider, IF Apple gets their stuffing together with hardware and macOS.

I need a new desktop Mac badly, but after fracturing my arm I can no longer wrangle a 27" iMac*. May the ports on my 27" iMac hang on until this is released. *As much as I love the idea of a Mac Mini, this wasn't a good upgrade this year.

At any rate, this could be good news.

If user upgradable SSD is a requirement, you need to look at something besides a Mac.

re: Mac mini, there hasn’t been an update (yet) this year. Hopefully it’ll get an update once Intel releases the S-series CPUs that are used in it. The current mini has the newest/fastest 65W CPUs available for it.

 

[PickUrPoison]

They need to pull something pretty impressive out of the bag, for the new iMacs. Every machine in the desktop lineup is underpowered and overpriced.

I think there are a couple price points that Apple would probably like to hit, if they could be profitable... a $999 8/256 21.5” iMac or maybe a $1,099 8/256 23” iMac.

For the 27” iMac, if they could hit $1,599 in an 8/256 config that would be pretty sweet.

Who doesn’t like lower prices 🙂

 

[kazmac]

If user upgradable SSD is a requirement, you need to look at something besides a Mac.

re: Mac mini, there hasn’t been an update (yet) this year. Hopefully it’ll get an update once Intel releases the S-series CPUs that are used in it. The current mini has the newest/fastest 65W CPUs available for it.

Nope, just upgradable RAM. I'd like the SSD to be in the stock model (no more fusion drives or spinners).

And there was a Mac Mini update (albeit, just a storage bump).

Not flaming, just responding.

 

[sublunar]

I think there are a couple price points that Apple would probably like to hit, if they could be profitable... a $999 8/256 21.5” iMac or maybe a $1,099 8/256 23” iMac.

For the 27” iMac, if they could hit $1,599 in an 8/256 config that would be pretty sweet.

Who doesn’t like lower prices 🙂

Apple could do that and keep the prices reasonable but would the average consumer be down with a reduction in storage space? And would Apple go all SSD without a full redesign to include the T2 CPU and all the trimmings?

 

[Jury]

Apple could do that and keep the prices reasonable but would the average consumer be down with a reduction in storage space? And would Apple go all SSD without a full redesign to include the T2 CPU and all the trimmings?

A full redesign and chinless iMac will definitely help increase the sales of mac and higher storage of fusion drive.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Nope, just upgradable RAM. I'd like the SSD to be in the stock model (no more fusion drives or spinners).

And there was a Mac Mini update (albeit, just a storage bump).

View attachment 910851

Not flaming, just responding.

re: the mini, there was new pricing announced in March, which was nice. But the product itself was not upgraded (though the lowest end config, the 8GB/128GB, was discontinued).

But with yesterday’s release of 10th gen S-Series chips, hopefully there will be “B” variant parts available soon for the mini. As I mentioned previously, the mini currently has the newest/fastest 65W BGA-package CPUs Intel has available. There’s really no update possible without a new CPU.

Price cuts are nice, but 8/10 core 10th gen processors—and maybe WiFi 6—would actually be a pretty good update. Probably the 6-core upgrade gets a bit cheaper, $300 is pretty steep. Ideally the base model becomes 6-core.

 

[iJustines]

A full redesign and chinless iMac will definitely help increase the sales of mac and higher storage of fusion drive.

You are absolutely right about how the next iMac is going to like and it's the true evolution of ninth-generation.
[automerge]1588410687[/automerge]

Agreed, the new iMac is going to need a bigger update and some innovative features like capable of using as display monitor so the mac mini can connect to the additional output display.

Apple can advertise as the first new 2-in-1 display on iMac.

 

[sublunar]

re: the mini, there was new pricing announced in March, which was nice. But the product itself was not upgraded (though the lowest end config, the 8GB/128GB, was discontinued).

But with yesterday’s release of 10th gen S-Series chips, hopefully there will be “B” variant parts available soon for the mini. As I mentioned previously, the mini currently has the newest/fastest 65W BGA-package CPUs Intel has available. There’s really no update possible without a new CPU.

Price cuts are nice, but 8/10 core 10th gen processors—and maybe WiFi 6—would actually be a pretty good update. Probably the 6-core upgrade gets a bit cheaper, $300 is pretty steep. Ideally the base model becomes 6-core.

I've said before that the 45w Comet Lake H series (targeted at the MacBook Pro 16") CPUs are perfectly competent options for Apple in the Mini. The top SKU even has an official 65w cTDP up mode. It would offer 8 cores, 16 threads at 3.1GHz which Apple could sell as an 'upgrade' on the current top SKU i7 (3.2GHz, 6 cores, 6 threads).

Comet Lake H has a significantly higher turbo boost frequency than the Coffee Lake and with some cooling overhead I wager that it could sustain this turbo mode for longer if Apple use the 'Pro Mode' which is essentially fan curve control.

If the mini is the only line that needs B class CPUs for the BGA element that's potentially a fairly specialised order if the iMacs don't go that way too. And sharing a bulk CPU order with the MacBook Pro would be a fairly good way of getting some economy of scale with the MBP.

It might even be worthy of rolling out the idea that an iMac Air might also share these economies of scale with a 23" panel...

 

[ericwn]

Only Apple could call a $899 or $999 computer "cheap" and still have the "courage" to sell it with a spinning hard drive.

Wait, Apple’s marketing would call a product cheap? I find that unlikely to happen.

 

[Jury]

Then again, it would be great if they just released a good, reasonably priced 4K monitor so I could hook up my MacBook Pro to it and have the same visual experience as I do with my MacBook Pro's display.

Agreed, that will be a thunderbolt retina display starting at $999 from Apple.

 

[sublunar]

I've just done a straw poll of UK BTO orders - at time of writing:

The stock bottom 2 SKUs of the 21.5" iMac appears to be slipping to May 6-11, while the top SKU is still available from May 5. Any BTO builds for all 21.5" SKUs are available from May 19-21.

The bottom SKU of the 27" iMac has also slipped, but as per previous posts - a BTO 27" appears to have slipped right back to June 1-8.

Switching to the iMac Pro, the stock model would arrive on Tuesday May 5, while a BTO order would arrive May 26-June 1.

If I were to make an interpretation of this, I would say that the 21.5" model may be continuing with a minor spec bump or any update contains like for like SKUs. But something more seismic may be happening to the 27" iMac (anyone ordering now could get a refund or bumped onto a similar model). It might be unconnected but the iMac Pro is showing long dates too.

The MacBook Pro 13" with and without Touch Bar sees availability increase to May 21-29 for BTO non Touch Bar orders, and May 18-26 for BTO Touchbar orders. Remember this is the model that is due to be replaced with a 14" model imminently.

By comparison the recently spec bumped Mac mini is available from Tuesday May 5. Make a BTO order and delivery jumps to May 13-15 - not entirely unreasonable.

The recently released MacBook Air 2020 has stock models showing delivery between May 21-26 although a BTO build showed May 21-29 indicating to me that initial stocks have run low and everything is being build to order at the moment.

And BTO orders of the 16" MacBook Pro appears to be due May 15-19.

The Mac Pro is assembled locally (I believe in Ireland for Europe, Texas for US). All BTOs of the Mac Pro were 5-7 days away in the US store and showing May 15-22 for UK.

The US store doesn't show precise date ranges like the UK store but most BTO goods in there are available within a week or two but the 27" iMac BTO orders are showing 3-4 weeks and iMac Pro BTO orders are showing 2-3 weeks.

My conclusion from this is that nothing much might happen to the 21.5" model but it's the 27" that people should keep an eye on.

 

[LiveM]

Deleted

 

[Azrael9]

Agreed, that will be a thunderbolt retina display starting at $999 from Apple.

Yes. Please god.

A rational Apple Display for under £1k.

Azrael.
[automerge]1591800940[/automerge]

I think there are a couple price points that Apple would probably like to hit, if they could be profitable... a $999 8/256 21.5” iMac or maybe a $1,099 8/256 23” iMac.

For the 27” iMac, if they could hit $1,599 in an 8/256 config that would be pretty sweet.

Who doesn’t like lower prices 🙂

Greater value to the iMac line is over due.

I like your prices. And value.

Azrael.
[automerge]1591800996[/automerge]

Agreed, Apple needs to adopt 120hz for the iMac lineup and it's rapidly growing as the new standard on smartphones and people are expecting it to be a part of the next major update.

I've love promotion on iMacs.

Azrael.

 

[compwiz1202]

Agreed Apple need to ditch those spinning platters in the next iMac refresh.

It would be nice if the end user could upgrade SSDs as well as the ‘lower’ end model also allowing people to upgrade the RAM without having to use Apple or an authorised service provider.

Even freaking PCs are such a pain to upgrade anymore. Less laptops with access panels, and even the new desktop my dad got had no extra cables to add a second drive!

 

[arvinsim]

Agreed, that will be a thunderbolt retina display starting at $999 from Apple.

I hope something cheaper than that. At $999 there are already alternatives, while not Retina, are still good.