New iMac Reportedly in Advanced Stage of Development

[BradMacPro]

Sometimes I wish Apple had completely got rid of lightning ports (all at once) when Apple first introduce the USB-C port. It looks so tacky that we have different charging cables for Apple's own products.

Do you happen to live in Europe? Never bothered me because I don't also have an Android with USB-C charging port.

 

[BradMacPro]

I would seriously doubt that it'll be an iMac Pro. That would mean Apple would have to admit they misjudged the market. Well unless it's a >24" screen. I was surprised how many people would like/love a 32" iMac Pro idea. It. Would. Be. HUGE... And likely sell well too. How many use external/additional monitors, and how many that do that go 'big', rather than same size or smaller. Apple could really hit a sweat spot, and pent up demand for something larger.

Stay tuned. Anything can happen at this point. T'would be somewhat disappointing if it's just a faster version of the current shipping one. 🤷🏻‍♂️

They could reintroduce a iMac Pro by using a M3 Pro chip, a 27" display like the Studio Display, just give it mini-LED backlighting and ProMotion features. The (up to) 120 Hz refresh would require a twice as fast GPU. The old iMac Pro was Xeon so basically like the Mac Pro, which is now the Mac Studio, so it really should have the M3 Max SoC and a honking big heat sink and advanced cooling. The old school fat enclosure could be brought back. The rumor points to a new stand. Perhaps to reflect a wider stance, to coordinate with a fatter stand needed for the big monitor and heavy heat sink and force cancelling woofers and tweeters like the MacBook Pro 16" enjoys. If the Mac Pro is going to disappoint, the iMac Pro may be Apple's best for pro-sumers.

 

[Jorbanead]

Not gonna happen now there is the Mac Studio and 27” Studio Display.

That’s not a replacement for an iMac for many people and this lineup potentially loses Apple money.

Consumers are not going to add $1,600 to their budget just to buy a separate display. They’ll buy a $300 non-apple display instead and then spend less money on Apple products.

This idea that Apple purposefully replaced the 27” iMac with the Mac Studio + Display in a grand scheme to get more money needs to stop. Thats not how most consumers buy things.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

They could reintroduce a iMac Pro by using a M3 Pro chip, a 27" display like the Studio Display, just give it mini-LED backlighting and ProMotion features. The (up to) 120 Hz refresh would require a twice as fast GPU. The old iMac Pro was Xeon so basically like the Mac Pro, which is now the Mac Studio, so it really should have the M3 Max SoC and a honking big heat sink and advanced cooling. The old school fat enclosure could be brought back. The rumor points to a new stand. Perhaps to reflect a wider stance, to coordinate with a fatter stand needed for the big monitor and heavy heat sink and force cancelling woofers and tweeters like the MacBook Pro 16" enjoys. If the Mac Pro is going to disappoint, the iMac Pro may be Apple's best for pro-sumers.

The Mac Studio is NOT the new MacPro. If it is, expect a tsunami of 'pro-users', and 'pro-sumers' as they seek an exit from Apple. Apples grip on many pro-sumers is already tenuous at best. And pro-users are not going to accept a completely closed box with no possible expansion unless the price charged is in the 'throwaway' zone.

 

[BradMacPro]

There's a market for a 32" iMac with 4k display.

I don't think so. That would be less than Retina quality. Get a Mac Studio or Mac mini and your cheap 4K 32" monitor.

 

[BradMacPro]

Why not? The M3 is the “base” chip of the upcoming generation. What other chip would they put in an iMac?

The 3nm design can mean one of two things or both with compromises. Either higher performance or higher power efficiency. Why can't they go with M2 level performance but with cooler running so one could put the M3 inside the Studio Display and bring out a new 27" iMac.

 

[BradMacPro]

Interesting how they stagger the releases and will have M1, M2 and M3 devices in their lineup at the same time. All mixed up from entry to pro with blind spots, leaving consumer to make confusing trade-offs.

Would have been far more logical if they have an entire M1 lineup and then upgrade all devices to M2 etc.

Steve Jobs wouldn't have endorsed that. Unfortunately he is long since gone.

 

[BradMacPro]

No reason to think this. A17 doesn’t have to come first.

Apple makes far more iPhone Pros than desktop Macs, so I have to disagree. And we know they sell more laptops than desktops besides.

 

[BradMacPro]

If you look at Apple's strategy, the MBA's at the company drove the decision how the product line should drive more expensive purchase decisions. Instead of buying a 27 inch AIO, you can actually get more from the potential buyer with a Mac Mini M2 Pro and Apple Studio Display. So, instead of spending 1,699, you end up spending 2,900. Even better if you can get that customer up to a Mac Studio.

A refurbished Mac Studio with M1 Max isn't much more than a new M2 Pro based Mac mini.

 

[Warped9]

In Canada a refurbished Mac Studio Max plus refurbished Studio Display is still $4000 CAN.

A new iMac with 16GB RAM and 1TB SSD is $2699 CAN. The same spec’d iMac refurbished is $2209 CAN.

 

[ADGrant]

I don't think so. That would be less than Retina quality. Get a Mac Studio or Mac mini and your cheap 4K 32" monitor.

4k is low resolution for a 32" monitor.

 

[Serqetry]

4k is low resolution for a 32" monitor.

It's not low-res, but MacOS is not designed for it. I use a 32" 4K display, and it's annoying. Your choices for non-scaled is either huge (HiDPI) with no screen space or too small to read anything. scaling it in-between causes artifacts and lower performance. If Apple would just add 1.5x scaled UI elements to MacOS, a 32" 4K display would be excellent.

 

[ambientdaw]

Yup. If I wanted an extra computer for general use that would plug-in and go, wouldn't need a lot of peripherals then... well, actually, I'd probably get a MacBook Air - but if it had to be a desktop, the 24" iMac would be perfect. The CPU is powerful enough to do a bit of everything, the display is pretty good and a decent size, and if I got the silver option I wouldn't have to throw up in my mouth a bit every time I looked at it. If, however, I'm spending $2000+ on a Mx Max computer and $1000+ on displays I want to be able to pick and choose.

It's not just cost, specs and future waste, but ergonomics: the 27" iMac is already a pain when you have to reach around the back to plug things in, or move it around - any larger and it would get ridiculous. With a large screen I'm definitely going to want a more flexible stand than you get with the iMac (and Apple's adjustable stands certainly aren't worth the price) - yes, you could get the VESA option and your mount of choice - but then you have a dozen wires for peripherals etc. dangling from your display and it rapidly becomes much neater to have your computer in a box on the desk.

I only got an iMac in 2017 because there was no viable 'headless' Mac at the time. The 5k iMac display was really nice and sounded like a good deal c.f. $1200+ for an LG Ultrafine - but a "good deal" is only good if it gives you what you want, and however nice the image was, having a large display - with no external input - welded to my computer was a permanent pain in the backside. Now I've switched to a Studio and two matching third-party displays and it is far better suited to my needs... and, maybe, in a couple of years time I'll replace the computer and keep the screens or, maybe, replace the screens and keep the computer... So much more flexible.



True. For some of us it is a vast improvement. It comes down to a whole laundry list of practical reasons why separate components are more flexible and practical vs. "it looks neat" for the iMac. Ultimately, it comes down to sales numbers - we don't have those, Apple does and they have reacted by dropping the large-screen iMacs. If they'd been flying off the shelves, Apple could have stuck an M1 Pro into a 5k iMac chassis ages ago. Plus, Apple can sell Studio Displays, Pro XDRs and any future displays to MacBook owners, Mac Pro owners, Mac Mini owners - not just people who happen to want an iMac.

...then what about people who want a Pro XDR display to go with their Mac desktop? I think it's ludicrously expensive but if I were being paid to stare at a screen for most of the day and it fit my needs I wouldn't rule it out (I don't see any comparable panels at lower prices - plus I could always stand it on a pile of bricks and save $1000 🙂 )... but its far too expensive to bundle as standard with an iMac and I certainly wouldn't want a $5000 display that died with the computer it was glued in to. We may see a 'cheaper' XDR display from Apple, but that's gonna be "cheaper than $5000", not pocket money, and that price will probably be based on attracting sales from all higher-end Mac owners.

Even a Mac Studio/"Mini Pro" + Studio Display setup costs about the same as a top-end iMac used to (by the time you've factored in the 32GB RAM upgrade) for a spec comparable to a $5000 iMac Pro, and that's ignoring the various far cheaper 3rd-party display choices.

Yes, we've lost the $1800 entry-level i5 5k iMac - but I suspect the 5k panels have got just too expensive to make that viable (5k has totally failed to catch on outside of the Mac world) - plus, I wouldn't recommend a regular M1/M2 to push that many pixels, even if it "works". OTOH You can pair a M2 Mini with a pretty decent 4k screen for a lot less.

Thanks for this. Which monitors are you using? Is your setup as 100% quiet as the iMac ( I have a 2021 iMac and the fan is practically never on at all)? Also are you saying the Studio Display speakers are not as good as iMac's? I do pro audio but for casual listening use the internal speakers and they sound great at low volumes.

 

[BradMacPro]

What I hope for, but seriously doubt: lose the chin, make it thicker so they can put all the components behind the screen. If I remember correctly, the ethernet port is actually in the power brick. II want to see that moved back to the actual computer. Add FaceID as well, with the option to use FaceID and/or TouchID. Have a "Pro" model with builtin touchscreen and Apple Pencil support for graphic designers. Also have a at least one, if not two, M.2 slots.

The macOS is not designed for touch interface and your arm would tire in one day, so that's not happening. The M.2 slots won't happen either, as the Apple Silicon solution has the controller for the NAND chips inside, not on each M.2 slot. That said, the un-upgradable NAND chips on the socketed Mac Studio could possibly be changed with a future redesign.

 

[Warped9]

I wouldn’t expect a physical redesign anytime soon.

 

[BradMacPro]

4k is low resolution for a 32" monitor.

I quite agree.

 

[ADGrant]

It's not low-res, but MacOS is not designed for it. I use a 32" 4K display, and it's annoying. Your choices for non-scaled is either huge (HiDPI) with no screen space or too small to read anything. scaling it in-between causes artifacts and lower performance. If Apple would just add 1.5x scaled UI elements to MacOS, a 32" 4K display would be excellent.

Compared to a 5k 27” screen, a 4k 32” is low res. The 32” Apple monitor is 6k.

 

[BradMacPro]

The thing is, people bought the 27" iMac partly for the bigger higher resolution display, but really in the later years, it was it's better performance people wanted. Now if you were editing photos with it, you wanted both. But say you were editing audio, why should you pay for an expensive quality monitor in a iMac and the 2019 Mac Pro was and is over priced for this market. Apple went with separates and it's better for the high end users to separate out the computer and the display. Yes, it's a bit more wires, but the Mac mini or Mac Studio can go behind or under the display and take up no more space really. And as people have pointed out, you probably will replace the computer and not have to also replace the expensive monitor. Now you don't have to shell out for a $1599 Apple Studio Display. Even a pair of $300 LG 24" 4K monitors would be better and far cheaper and nearly Retina quality. The original article also mentioned a revised stand for the future iMac. Does anybody think they will be needing a wider footprint for a ultra-wide screen iMac? I'm thinking something on par with a LG UltraFine 34" 5120 x 2160 monitor. Apple has never embraced the Ultra wide market before. This is like 4K resolution in the vertical direction (2160 pixels), so it doesn't have to tax the machine as much. The higher GPU core count would be put to good use pushing more pixels. I know I've got a ton of menu extras, so a greater width could be useful. I do like that rendering that ditches the chin, for a fat butt, which could add to the strength of the body and allow for the Ethernet jack to return to the back of the iMac.

 

[Jorbanead]

Apple makes far more iPhone Pros than desktop Macs, so I have to disagree.

What does that have to do with M3 coming out before A17?

 

[hagar]

Steve Jobs wouldn't have endorsed that. Unfortunately he is long since gone.

I think Steve Jobs invented these cycles, always keeping people excited for the ultimate machine.

If they upgraded their entire lineup with M1, then M2, and so on, you would know exactly what you wanted to buy. But now, people drift from model to model, tempted by the shiny features exclusively on the newest model.

 

[Steve121178]

32 inch would have been such a breath of fresh air. But I guess the fear of cannibalizing other product lines is now a thing at Apple. Selling performance these days is a tough cookie when the latest version is just a spec bump and doesn’t look any different from the models it replaces.

Look at the M2 Pro/Max versus the M1. I think this is gonna have some impact on upgrade decisions.

I'll be upgrading from a late 2012 21.5" iMac with Fusion drive. I've been holding out for the M2/M3 refresh so a 'spec bump' with gen2 hardware refresh to iron out niggles and issues with the M1 iMac is just the ticket for people in my boat.

 

[theluggage]

Thanks for this. Which monitors are you using? Is your setup as 100% quiet as the iMac ( I have a 2021 iMac and the fan is practically never on at all)? Also are you saying the Studio Display speakers are not as good as iMac's? I do pro audio but for casual listening use the internal speakers and they sound great at low volumes.

I'm comparing with a 2017 5k iMac and assuming that the Studio Display speakers are comparable, probably slightly better. Yes, they were perfectly listenable to, and pretty impressive for down-firing built-ins, but not even good enough for the sort of messing-around-for-my-own-satisfaction audio stuff I do**. I added a pair of cheapo Behringer USB-driven monitor speakers (not exactly revered as the "gold standard" for audio) and even those were night and day - unfortunately, after about 4 years use they went bang and the magic smoke escaped so they won't get my unqualified recommendation (still... 4 years of useful service for a cheap tofu-dreg product). What I have now is a pair of KRK Rockit RP5s which are a bit more respectable. Point is - once you have a decent sound system, why not use it for everything?

Noise wise - if you need a 100% silent system plus mid/high-end computing power, you are probably going to be disappointed. I'm not sure what makes people expect otherwise. However, reality is that there's now an awful lot more you can do with the "low end" M1/M2 and have a virtually silent machine (I'm assuming you're talking about a M1 iMac).

Comparing the Studio with my previous 2017 i7 iMac: The studio fans run continuously at low speed and are just about audible in a quiet room - but very unobtrusive. I haven't had any "whine" problem (and if I did, I would pester Apple until they sent me a quiet one). Thing is, I have never heard them get any louder, even when deliberately stressing the machine with something like Handbrake or Cinebench. With the iMac - it was dead silent at idle, but as soon as the i7 or GPU started earning their keep, the fans would get quite loud and obtrusive. I think for most people the Studio will sit below their "noise floor" whereas an Intel iMac will keep popping its head up and blowing raspberries.

**: https://i.redd.it/8zm7uax6o6m11.jpg

 

[theluggage]

Consumers are not going to add $1,600 to their budget just to buy a separate display.

A 10 core Intel 5k iMac with 512GB SSD was $2700, or $3200 with the best GPU option - but that came with a measly 8GB of RAM (ridiculous compared to the other specs of that machine) and Apple wanted $600 for the upgrade to 32K. So that's $3300 to $3800. Yes, you could have a couple of hundred off that if you got 3rd party RAM, but that option was always going to go away with Apple Silicon.

A base Mac Studio Max has a significantly faster 10 core CPU, comes with 32GB as standard and costs $2000. Add a Studio Display and that comes to $3600. Add the full 32 core GPU option and that comes to $3800. Also bear in mind that the Mac Studio has 4 full-fat TB4 ports, for which you'd previously have had to go for the $5000 iMac Pro.

So, really, the price of a Mac Studio plus Studio Display is pretty much in the same ballpark as a comparable (even allowing for a bit of 'progress') Intel 5k iMac, and the 20 core Studio Ultra + display is considerably cheaper than the $7000+ 18 core iMac Pro.

What we've lost is the $1800-$2000 5k iMac options, which were always the best bangs-per-buck that Apple offered (considering the only comparable 5k display sold for $1000-$1200) - but they were never in the same league power-wise as the Mac Studio. You could get a M2 Mini and Studio display for $2200 and the result would be as capable as a lower-end 5k iMac (personally I'd want a beefier GPU to go with that screen) - still, it's clear that the price there has gone up - but it hasn't 'added $1600' to the budget.

They’ll buy a $300 non-apple display instead and then spend less money on Apple products.

OTOH Apple can now sell Studio Displays and Pro XDRs to MacBook Pro owners who previously would have bought 3rd party displays - and there are probably far more MBP users than 'desktop' users out there. I don't like the Studio Display much, but it is pretty well suited to being a MacBook docking station (and Apple have put a lot of effort into squeezing in a big power supply to charge a MBP).

Meanwhile, Plenty of Mini/Studio here seem to be happily buying the Studio display. Then there's probably some people who didn't want a 5k iMac because they wanted the Pro XDR. Plus, the people most affected by this either (a) haven't done the math (see above) or (b) wanted one of the lower-end 5k iMacs which I strongly suspect must have been one of Apple's lowest-margin products.

...and even if people do buy a 3rd party display, they'll still have a Mac, still probably buy a new Mac in the future, still spend money in the App Store and support the development of MacOS software, be more inclined to subscribe to iCloud/Apple Music than DropBox/Spotify etc. and probably more inclined to buy iPhones/iPads - all of which is becoming more/as important as selling the hardware.

Whereas, for some of us, the lack of a "headless" Mac option was becoming a major downside of using Macs. Not sure I'd have stayed with Apple if the only desktop options were an all-in-one iMac with a type of screen I really didn't want or a stratospherically expensive Mac Pro. Plus, it's quite likely that I'll upgrade my Mac Studio sooner if I'm not forced to replace a perfectly good display at the same time.

 

[DaveM77]

I don't want an iMac Pro - i just want a new imac that isn't smaller than my current 27" model. Is it really too much to ask?

 

[Adelphos33]

I don't want an iMac Pro - i just want a new imac that isn't smaller than my current 27" model. Is it really too much to ask?

If the 27" inch Apple screen is so essential, why not go for the Mac mini + Studio Display?