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.
New iMac Not Expected to Launch Until Late 2023 at Earliest
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nothing could be as bad as that 5400 rpm HD. If they didn’t update the iMac until 2024 even that wouldn’t be as bad.
This is just completely false. You are off by over $500
According to everyMac.com the base iMac was $1999.
Yes, my mistake in the Mac mini $499 price.
Still when you factor in the flexibility of repurposing the Studio display, the extra few hundred dollars is worth it. Not to mention saving landfill of iMac displays.
(Of course if Apple really cared about the environment, they could bring back target display mode for the iMac.)
I have an M1 iMac and it’s not too bad. I bought when it was released and it’s serving me decently. However to sell it now at the same price (or indeed higher price in many markets) it’s ridiculous. It should at the very least have M2, and there should be an option for M2 pro. I wouldn’t suggest a friend to buy the current iMac. Very poor value for money.
A couple of likely contributing factors.
1. Display tech is going through an inflection point in terms of implementation and lighting.
Apple wants a predictable , affordable display tech they can squat on for years, but still be leading edge (so the display is a competitive feature).
the IPS tech they have in current iMac and minor bump in Studio Display is a safer choice, not a leading choice. Apple is sitting an milking the cash cow.
[ If double layer OLED or mini/micro-LED get affordable and long term predictiable then they'll switch. but that isn't now. ]
Apple used to 'herd' customers into the iMac just so they could keep the volume of iMacs up so high that they got economies of scale on the panels. That 'herd' customers effect is gone now so the iMac has incrementally higher problems paying for a major component.
2. Fratricide doesn't matter as much now. Mini/MBA/iMac 24" all take the same chip now. If imac doesn't sell then the Mini can sell the Mn chips. when the products had different processors from Intel one product could not directly increase volume discounts for the others. Now the container the M1 (and other shared across whole line up chips) go in the Mn , Apple doesn't care as much.
3. The ASD + headless Macs is driving higher average sell prices for the subset that choose it. But likely contributing here is that the 3rd party display market is getting much better. there are several 'doom and gloom' folks who will chase off any non 1440 multiple monitor, but truth is really can get a decent 'mainstream' monitor and not pay Apple's prices. As more folks have lower attachment rate to Apple panels , the iMac looses the 'mystical quality' that you need to have an Apple panel if every want to see a decent desktop image. Once pop that bubble the iMac have 'max unit volume' problems. So Apple chases the smaller group remaining at higher prices. ( not necessarily a net gain in revenue , but better margins in the smaller volume sold. Apple isn't going to get into a pricing war. )
4. Probably a small "green team" faction inside of Apple also. Where AIO displays don't need to be dropped every 1-2.5 years onto the Obsolete/Vintage countdown list. (the computer part primarily dragging them on. )
We'll see if there is a price war there. I suspect several of those folk are for the first 9-12 months going to chase up higher on the margin chain. Although as long as Apple is charging $400 for a decent height adjustable stand there is room to go up since Apple provides the price umbrella.
I never understood the argument that a Mac mini with a monitor substitutes for an iMac. The sole point of an iMac is that it is an all-in-one. Not just the machine and the display, but things like speakers and a webcam. And on top of that the entire machine is sleek and compact, everything in a beautiful chassis. A Mac mini with a monitor with external speakers and webcam does not even come close. (And I am very happy that the screen isn't any bigger.) And about that yearly update cycle: my M1 iMac sometimes feels snappier than my MacBook Pro M1 Pro.
You don’t have to plug in the Mac mini. It just works a lot better if you do.
"...
Starting at $1,799, the new 27-inch iMac is available to order today on Apple.com and in the Apple Store app. It will begin arriving to customers and will be in select Apple Store locations and Apple Authorized Resellers starting this week. ..."
Apple Announces New 27-Inch iMac With 10th-Gen Processors, Up to 128GB RAM, 1080p Webcam, True Tone, and More
Apple today announced a new 27-inch iMac with faster 10th-generation Intel Core processor options, next-generation AMD graphics, up to 128GB of RAM,...
www.macrumors.com
same with everymac if go look at all of the 2020 iMacs models. (3.1Ghz mode as oppoesd to the 3.3 one. l )
iMac "Core i5" 3.1 27" (5K, 2020) Specs (Retina 5K, 27-Inch, 2020, MXWT2LL/A, iMac20,1, A2115, 3442): EveryMac.com
Technical specifications for the iMac "Core i5" 3.1 27" (5K, 2020). Dates sold, processor type, memory info, hard drive details, price and more.
everymac.com
For what it is, the Apple Studio Display is relatively expensive. (all that SSD capacity and sizable RAM that don't really do much adds to the costs without much broad value impact. )
Last edited:
So here's my own take. To start, an M2 Mini really isn't comparable to a 27" 2020 iMac. It simply doesn't have equivalent power and capabilities (e.g., with an M2 Mini you're limited to 16 GB RAM, and two displays). You're essentially comparing an entry-level desktop to a higher-end one. The comparison I'd made would be the 10-core i9 2020 27" iMac/Radeon Pro 5500 XT to the base M2 Pro Mini (10 core CPU, 16-core GPU), both with a 1 TB SSD or 2 TB SSD and 32 GB RAM. Here's what I get with the 1 TB SSD (upcharge for the 2 TB SSD is a somewhat silly $600 on both, so it doesn't change the comparison) (yes, Apple is still charging the same for SSD's in 2023 as 2020):
2020 iMac with Radeon Pro 5500XT/i7/8GB/512GB (glossy, no vert adjustment) = $2300
Upcharges: i9 ($400); 32 GB RAM ($600); 1 TB SSD ($200)
Total: $3500
2023 M2 Pro Mini with 10 core CPU/16 core GPU/16GB/512GB: $1300
Upcharges: 32 GB RAM ($400) (same as the upcharge on the iMac to go from 16 GB->32 GB RAM); 1 TB SSD ($200)
Total: $1900
Total with ASD (glossy, no vert adjustment): $1900 + $1600 = $3500
So they really are essentially the same price. The caveat is that, to make the iMac's pricing equivalent to the Mini's, I used Apple's own RAM pricing on the iMac, since you have no choice but to pay Apple's RAM pricing on the Mini. But, of course, anyone putting a lot of RAM in the iMac would probably just buy the aftermarket stuff.
I.e., to the extent the 2020 iMac was a better value than the M2 Pro Mini + ASD, it's solely because you could upgrade the RAM (and this was even more true for the 2019 iMac, where both RAM and SSD were upgradeable). If you take that out of the comparison (i.e., if you pay Apple's RAM and SSD prices), their prices are essentially comparable.
[OTOH, if the upcoming 27" 5k Samsung Viewfinity S9 turns out to be a good option, and is priced significantly less than the ASD, that will make the M2 Pro Mini's pricing relatively more appealing.]
Reference for 2020 iMac pricing—screenshotted from:
Last edited:
Stuff that comes out of his weekly PowerOn newsletter is likely less correct than when he reports on an actual leak. Most his newlesster stuff is " I think" "I suspect" "I <fill in the verb> ". That isn't a leak. ( I suspect some of that is him trying to mask his sources , but sometimes not. ), Real , creditable leaks do not happen on a fixed timetable. If there is a regular schedule,, then most likely not a regular set of leaks.
Once folks are search for clicks, ad views , and part of the advertising system start down the slippery slope of wanting to be paid more versus the truth leaking from Apple.
Gurman had better track record when ihe did not have weekly deadlines for material.
there is a big different between when macrumors says "Gurman says some Apple internal source said 'a, b , c' " and "Gurman expects Apple will do ' a , b, c' " Folks tend to treat those exactly the same and they are not.
Last edited:
For $1299 you get a weaker M1 chip, which isn't a major downside, but you also lose ethernet, two USB ports, and TouchID, and fewer colors. And then you've still got the 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM to consider. It's perhaps not as dire as the days when a $1099 iMac came with a slow spinning hard drive that was painfully slow in day-to-day operation, but the base M1 iMac still is a bad deal when you compare it to other entry-level machines Apple has, like the $599 Mac mini or $899 edu MacBook Air.
I think it's a substitute in the sense that prior to the M1, you had to get an iMac if you wanted a capable desktop Mac and a Mac Pro was overkill. People then complained that they were unable to substitute a display of their choice (not unreasonable).
In terms of performance, I think a M2 Pro Mac Mini is the ideal fit, you don't have to get the studio display, and you can reuse your existing monitor when it's time to replace the Mac body (or swap out the display when a better one comes along).
I am currently still using my 2017 5k iMac, and when it's time to upgrade, and if Apple still doesn't have a 27" iMac offering, this is probably the route I will go.
You don't have to be a YouTube predictor to see what Apple will probably do..Mac Pro is waiting for the M3 with 3-nano architecture, then later (maybe fall) Mac Studio will get a m2 upgrade. That would differentiate Mac mini, Mac mini pro, Mac Studio and Mac Pro in a more clear way for customer buying and/or need or just want base.
I personally look forward to a M2 Mac Studio (or m3 if lucky) and is my area and need/want base. Mac Pro (should be) is for higher Pro and/or heavier wallet Pro or Corporate type target base and should cater for them.
If memory serves me correctly, when Mac Studio came out, Apple kind of gave the message that 27" iMac is a "no more" product during the announcement and Mac Studio takes its spot along with a Studio Monitor.
I was actually amazed at the suggestion of a no more larger iMac, but it makes sense and Apple centers their decisions on the numbers now, so maybe the larger iMacs don't sell as well as we think. I personally like a 27" iMac concept (and was planning on buying one eventually), but like many have said before, nice 5K monitor, but outdated insides without the ability to upgrade after a few years...so land fills or big iMacs in the trash or on the used market dominates the iMac's short lived end. Environmentally a disaster "if" Apple is really concerned with the environment instead of just using it as a marketing gig...being able to just change the unit after some time and keep a good monitor is a better option practically, but...the all in one is a great practically too..just an issue after a year or so with quickly outdated insides.
If a larger iMac comes, it will probably be in a few years when there is a reason.
I cannot see going backwards to 4k. My eyes are not as young as they were and I imagine 4k is an inferior experience
It was $1799.
Here's a link to the Apple Store archive as proof...
Buy 27-inch iMac
The 27-inch iMac comes with the latest Intel Core processors and stunning 5k graphics. Pick your storage and processor to customize your iMac. Buy now on Apple.com
web.archive.org
I've run a 24" 4K and 27" 4K for years as a designer. Is it as nice as true retina on Mac? Nope. But it's still much sharper than low-DPI displays and unless I'm closer than my usual viewing distance, it's pretty hard to tell.
With the recent inflation since 2020 that $1799 would be $2034, so it is not so far off. And that base model M2 Mini will run circles around that Intel iMac.
1) The $1,299 iMac comes with a 24" screen, speakers, webcam, keyboard, and mouse. The $599 Mac mini doesn't come with any of that, while the MacBook Air at $899, which has the same exact specs in terms of computing's ones with a smaller screen.
2) You can configure the the iMac to get more ports, storage and RAM depending on your needs
3) All of the computers you mention, regardless of processor and storage, perform very admirably with the tasks they were designed for. These are office / retail / school computers. I have never run into any performance issues with my machine.
How about a monitor with built in speakers and webcam? Something like the Apple Studio Display?
The internals of a Mac Studio will date just as quickly as the internals of an iMac will.
Unless Apple decide to make the Mac Studio user expandable it's prone to exactly the same obsoletion the iMac is.
The only difference between the two is the display. If the display on the iMac were to fail it can be repaired or you can attach an external monitor, so I don't believe there is any truth in the claim that Apple's decision is motivated by land fill - it's clearly motivated by greed.
Killing it seems unnecessarily harsh. But it does not fit in with Apple's self-proclaimed emphasis on sustainability.
If only there were some simple solution, like allowing it to be used as a monitor for a different computer.
At least you could upgrade that HD and move up to an SSD later...
But I'm sure many people started to hate their Mac because of it and some iMacs might have been thrown away because they were 'unusable.'
Its happened in the past, the neglected the MacBook Air in favor of the retina MacBook then did 360 years later to get it updated. Also, the fact that the entry level price of the new Air starts at 1200, instead of the 999 which many found acceptable, but they have to choose the previous gen to get in at that price, probably suggest, they might make the Air skip a generation to bring the price down.