Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New iMac Reportedly in Advanced Stage of Development

People wanting a 27/32 inch iMac are so funny. You realise that would instantly kill the Studio Display. Not saying the Mac Studio but the Display would get burned to a crisp. Why would Apple shoot themselves in the foot? That's why they discontinued the 27 iMac same day they announced the display and mac studio.
Even if they would release a 27/32 inch iMac the price would be something people would complain anyway.
24 iMac is in a safe and steady spot, not in the spotlight anymore but does its job for a fair price.
Requesting a 27/32 inch display with paper thin bezels 32gb min RAM and M3 3nm CPU for £2500 - 3000 is pure delusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashenoa and Warped9
Warped9 said:
The nonstop dissing of 24" display, AIO design, and any colors other than black or space grey is completely ridiculous.
Click to expand...
You're my hero! More power to you. I've never met a fellow 24" iMac owner, who didn't love his machine. It's hard to pick a color, but boy do they look great. I wish I had all of them! 😍 🖥️

And seven MacBook Airs. All data in the cloud and then a different color laptop every day. 😏 💻
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashenoa
Isn’t the biggest thing about moving to a 3nm chip the increased power efficiency - so why would they squander limited/expensive initial quantities of M3 chips on a cheap(ish…) desktop Mac?
 
andreyush said:
You realise that would instantly kill the Studio Display.
Click to expand...
A new 27/32 inch iMac would definitely not kill the Studio Display. Not everyone wants an all in one. I don’t like being stuck with a big beautiful display that I can’t use anymore when the computer is obsolete. For instance, I’m still using a 24 inch LED Cinema Display from 2010 with my M1 MacBook while the computer I originally bought it for is long gone. What can you do with a 2010 iMac?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlyMackle and hooptyuber
johntherazz said:
Isn’t the biggest thing about moving to a 3nm chip the increased power efficiency - so why would they squander limited/expensive initial quantities of M3 chips on a cheap(ish…) desktop Mac?
Click to expand...
The iMac certainly isn’t the only device that will get the M3.

It’s astounding how people can get stuck in such a narrow viewpoint.
 
All of the new Mx products seem to have very slow feature creep but no issues for price creep. Reading these threads shows the relative wealth of Apple fans as they seem to want to upgrade their main computer nearly every year.

The non Mac Pro Intel gear will probably fall of the MacOS support wagon within the next year or so as my 16" 2019 MBPro will be four years old this year and the 2018 Intel Mac mini vanished just this year. My 2013 Mac Pro (trash can) only lost MacOS support with Ventura which was a long run. I doubt we will see that long MacOS support in the future.
 
My wallet will only open for a 27" or greater size iMac. I currently use a 27" iMac and it's impossible to move to the 24" when you're used to the extra screen size.

As tempting as it is to look at a M2 Mac mini and a 27" or greater size of display I just don't have the desk space to have separate units. I like the convenience and functionally of an iMac.
 
  • Like
Reactions: George Dawes and johntherazz
I think this craziness of having cellphones “updated” every year is rather absurd. It has fostered a mindset that electronics of all kinds have to have the same yearly update. And beware the wrath if there aren’t significant upgrades every year.

I have an old computer, but it still works very well. It hasn’t been until recently that I started to think of replacing it. In all those years before I barely looked at other newer devices except in perhaps idle curiosity. On a year-by-year basis computer advancement is largely incremental. Only periodically do you see something genuinely significant and then it’s back to incremental improvements for another stretch.

Looking back over the past several years I see the introduction and later widespread adoption of the SSD as a significant upgrade. More recently it’s been the introduction of Apple Silicon. Outside of that upgrades have been largely incremental.

Because I’ve managed to use my current computer for so long pretty much any newer device, be it the current M1 or the forthcoming M3 iMac, is going to be a significant upgrade over what I have.

But maybe I wouldn’t feel that way if I had been obsessing over every little change on a year-by-year basis.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BradMacPro and Bodhitree
Warped9 said:
I think this craziness of having cellphones “updated” every year is rather absurd. It has fostered a mindset that electronics of all kinds have to have the same yearly update. And beware the wrath if there aren’t significant upgrades every year.

I have an old computer, but it still works very well. It hasn’t been until recently that I started to think of replacing it. In all those years before I barely looked at other newer devices except in perhaps idle curiosity. On a year-by-year basis computer advancement is largely incremental. Only periodically do you see something genuinely significant and then it’s back to incremental improvements for another stretch.

Looking back over the past several years I see the introduction and later widespread adoption of the SSD as a significant upgrade. More recently it’s been the introduction of Apple Silicon. Outside of that upgrades have been largely incremental.

Because I’ve managed to use my current computer for so long pretty much any newer device, be it the current M1 or the forthcoming M3 iMac, is going to be a significant over what I have.

But maybe I wouldn’t feel that way if I had been obsessing over every little change on a year-by-year basis.
Click to expand...

Well said. But I think the case of smartphones and computers is rather different. Computers have been going with incremental updates for a few decades, and it is rare that a big step change in tech comes along, such as the original dual-cpu computers or Apple Silicon.

Smartphones up until a few years ago were still making big strides every few years, and arguably with the folding and rollable devices may still have further to go. You might say they are slowly moving to a more incremental model as well — this much better battery, this much faster cpu, this much more light captured by the camera. It’s an industry in transition.

But I believe in both cases we have arrived at a spot where the devices are “good enough” that you don’t need to upgrade every year, or even every five years. If you recall the computing days of the 486 in the early 1990s, it used to be very different. One year you had a 486 at 33 MHz, the next year there was a 486-DX2 at 66 MHz. The differences were huge. Nowadays not so much.

I think you can still argue for M1 as a transformative technology, because it changed the bottom end of the product lineup so much. Suddenly every low-end computer Apple sold had industry leading single-core performance, and pretty good multi-core performance too. You got a lot more computer in your 800 euro Mac Mini.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlyMackle, freedomlinux, Agile55 and 1 other person
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗 said:
A flagship 32" iMac would be amazing! Where’s the bigger model? 27” or even 32”? We need a bigger iMac 🖥️
Click to expand...
At Apple's standards for retina pixel density, at 32" iMac would need to be 6K, like the Pro Display XDR. Not saying it's not possible, but it would NOT be cheap.

Vado said:
My wallet will only open for a 27" or greater size iMac. I currently use a 27" iMac and it's impossible to move to the 24" when you're used to the extra screen size.
Click to expand...

I had the 27" one as well, but it was dying and I bit the bullet and got the M1 24". It was a step down, for sure, but I personally find 24" usable if a little tight. It's still enough room to work on a couple of things side by side, though. To me the step down from 27" to 24" is like going from a king sized bed and a queen: the queen is workable, but you can't quite spread out the way you can on a king.

Still, the minute a 27" becomes available I'll be very tempted to buy it since I sit in front of it upwards of 40 hours/week.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlyMackle
The Studio Display usually has a stand on which either a Mac mini or Mac Studio can be placed. The desk space required is actually the same as for an iMac of any screen size. So that is a false argument for either system.

The appropriate criteria is the differences in processing power, amount of memory and type supported, the number of I/O openings, screen size and finally cost.

The decision starts today on whether one wants a 24" or 27" screen to look at all day. If one likes 24" then there is but one choice from Apple with various price points.

If one wants a 27" display, then there are actually two "boxes" to choose from in addition to the 27" display. The choices are between either the new Mac mini or the Mac Studio. There is a tremendous range of processing power, memory and I/O ports between these two choices and the foot prints of both devices is the same.

That is far more flexibility than I ever had choosing iMacs at any given point in time.
 
Last edited:
andreyush said:
People wanting a 27/32 inch iMac are so funny. You realise that would instantly kill the Studio Display. Not saying the Mac Studio but the Display would get burned to a crisp. Why would Apple shoot themselves in the foot? That's why they discontinued the 27 iMac same day they announced the display and mac studio.
Even if they would release a 27/32 inch iMac the price would be something people would complain anyway.
24 iMac is in a safe and steady spot, not in the spotlight anymore but does its job for a fair price.
Requesting a 27/32 inch display with paper thin bezels 32gb min RAM and M3 3nm CPU for £2500 - 3000 is pure delusion.
Click to expand...
Not buying the Studio Display either unless it's 32". Apple is so behind on this.
 
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.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: ignatius345 and Agile55
I'm a bit perplexed. Just how large of a screen size do people really want on an iMac? A 27 inch monitor sounds good. Maybe even a 32 inch. Maybe. How much larger than that would anyone want? 48 inches? 96 inches?

Does anybody really want to sit in front of a monitor the size of a large flat screen TV?
 
  • Like
Reactions: johntherazz and Warped9
andreyush said:
People wanting a 27/32 inch iMac are so funny. You realise that would instantly kill the Studio Display. Not saying the Mac Studio but the Display would get burned to a crisp. Why would Apple shoot themselves in the foot? That's why they discontinued the 27 iMac same day they announced the display and mac studio.
Click to expand...
I agree that Apple couldn’t cancel the 27” iMac until they had a 27” display ready. Be interesting the see the sales data, but really how many people were still buying the 27” Intel iMac when it was obvious that AS is the future? I wonder how many people were buying that final Intel Mini sold next to the M1 Mini.
andreyush said:
Even if they would release a 27/32 inch iMac the price would be something people would complain anyway.
Click to expand...
Apple could release the perfect iMac and people would still complain about it.
andreyush said:
24 iMac is in a safe and steady spot, not in the spotlight anymore but does its job for a fair price.
Requesting a 27/32 inch display with paper thin bezels 32gb min RAM and M3 3nm CPU for £2500 - 3000 is pure delusion.
Click to expand...
Based on what we’ve seen from the M2 Minis, you’ll probably be able to get an M3-Pro iMac with at least 24GB RAM.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlyMackle
Essentially, it's the current iMac but with an improved fan cooling system to accommodate the M2 or M2 Pro SoC. Or Apple could wait until the M3 and M3 Pro SoC arrives in October 2023.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back