Please a larger iMac - but make it work as a fancy display as well
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.
Pro Display XDR 2 and Larger iMac: Here's What the Latest Rumors Say
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My feelings on a larger iMac have changed a lot in the past few years; I was initially bummed by the loss of a decked-out power-user iMac, but now feel like the extreme power in MacBook Pros combined with the higher-end Mini more or less covers the same ground for my use cases.
I used to be a beefy desktop Mac type--had one of the first-generation dual-CPU G4s followed by a first-gen G5. At some point around then, the high-end iMac started to have enough power to do anything I realistically wanted it to, and it came with a 27" monitor attached for a very reasonable price, so I ended up switching to high-end iMacs. With the jump to 5K screens, which even now aren't that common, you were getting an amazingly good deal on a really nice monitor with a computer attached to it. I got really used to not having the computer take up any extra space on the desk too.
The issue, of course, was that the 5K monitor outlasted the CPU, so it always felt kind of wasteful to hand them down. At work, in particular, we've retired a lot of iMacs that have perfectly serviceable or even nice monitors, but with guts that are otherwise too old to be useful in the office.
The Pro-series Minis have changed the calculation, though: You can now get an incredibly compact, fairly beefy desktop to pair with whatever monitor you want. A loaded Mini is not quite as proportionately loaded as the last generations of 27" iMacs could get, but it's good enough for the large majority of tasks, so when my final-gen i9 goes away in the near future, that's where I'm headed.
Of course, the other side of that equation is the Max CPUs in MacBook Pros. I've had a beefy laptop + iMac for years in the house, but the Max series was the point at which the laptop wasn't the nice-but-not-as-powerful-as-the-desktop computer, it became the beast I could throw anything I want at. Even at 4 years old, my M1 Max is entirely up to whatever I throw at it.
So I can now absolutely justify my "high power" machine being the laptop, with a solid Mini doing desktop duty, and a nice monitor (or monitors) that I can use with either, and keep when I replace either.
I used to be a beefy desktop Mac type--had one of the first-generation dual-CPU G4s followed by a first-gen G5. At some point around then, the high-end iMac started to have enough power to do anything I realistically wanted it to, and it came with a 27" monitor attached for a very reasonable price, so I ended up switching to high-end iMacs. With the jump to 5K screens, which even now aren't that common, you were getting an amazingly good deal on a really nice monitor with a computer attached to it. I got really used to not having the computer take up any extra space on the desk too.
The issue, of course, was that the 5K monitor outlasted the CPU, so it always felt kind of wasteful to hand them down. At work, in particular, we've retired a lot of iMacs that have perfectly serviceable or even nice monitors, but with guts that are otherwise too old to be useful in the office.
The Pro-series Minis have changed the calculation, though: You can now get an incredibly compact, fairly beefy desktop to pair with whatever monitor you want. A loaded Mini is not quite as proportionately loaded as the last generations of 27" iMacs could get, but it's good enough for the large majority of tasks, so when my final-gen i9 goes away in the near future, that's where I'm headed.
Of course, the other side of that equation is the Max CPUs in MacBook Pros. I've had a beefy laptop + iMac for years in the house, but the Max series was the point at which the laptop wasn't the nice-but-not-as-powerful-as-the-desktop computer, it became the beast I could throw anything I want at. Even at 4 years old, my M1 Max is entirely up to whatever I throw at it.
So I can now absolutely justify my "high power" machine being the laptop, with a solid Mini doing desktop duty, and a nice monitor (or monitors) that I can use with either, and keep when I replace either.
I'm guessing both are fairly niche.
If you are going to buy a high quality, large display, you are probably going to be using heavy duty software with it, which means you need a fairly good Mac behind it... So putting it in an iMac means replacing that very expensive display every 3-4 years, even though it is working fine, because the iMac part of the equation has become to slow, it needs to be upgraded.
90% of the iMacs I see these days are in reception areas or doctors offices (often running an RDP session into a Windows Server somewhere). These things can run for much longer and they are in places where making a good impression with few cables and an elegant design counts. But if you are into heavy workloads that need a big, high quality display, it makes more sense to use a separate display and base (Mac mini, Mac Studio, or a MacBook Pro), where you can switch out the compute side, when it gets slow, or the display side if it becomes defective or a newer, better quality display is needed.
I knew a photographer who was still working on an iMac Pro in his shop, but using Mac Studio out the back, and cursing that the Pro was so slow and he wanted something faster for the shop, but there wasn't anything... Using the Studio + a decent display was out of the question!
These people are few and far between, but they make a lot of noise, but probably not very high sales in overall terms.
Likewise, very few people, and not many businesses either, have 5-6K to spend on just a monitor. Whilst big ticket items, they are also incredibly low volume.
If you are going to buy a high quality, large display, you are probably going to be using heavy duty software with it, which means you need a fairly good Mac behind it... So putting it in an iMac means replacing that very expensive display every 3-4 years, even though it is working fine, because the iMac part of the equation has become to slow, it needs to be upgraded.
90% of the iMacs I see these days are in reception areas or doctors offices (often running an RDP session into a Windows Server somewhere). These things can run for much longer and they are in places where making a good impression with few cables and an elegant design counts. But if you are into heavy workloads that need a big, high quality display, it makes more sense to use a separate display and base (Mac mini, Mac Studio, or a MacBook Pro), where you can switch out the compute side, when it gets slow, or the display side if it becomes defective or a newer, better quality display is needed.
I knew a photographer who was still working on an iMac Pro in his shop, but using Mac Studio out the back, and cursing that the Pro was so slow and he wanted something faster for the shop, but there wasn't anything... Using the Studio + a decent display was out of the question!
These people are few and far between, but they make a lot of noise, but probably not very high sales in overall terms.Likewise, very few people, and not many businesses either, have 5-6K to spend on just a monitor. Whilst big ticket items, they are also incredibly low volume.
You want a larger iMac but are also prepared to to use as a monitor as well, so would be attaching a mini later on to the iMac so would be running a Monitor and Mini/Studio/MBA/MBP. I am presuming here that not looking to share with a PC like I share my screen between Studio and PC.
At which point you throw the aesthetic argument for an AIO out the window. You are willing LATER to have the cables and computer alongside what is essentially become a monitor.
In which case how come not willing to do so NOW.
Apple are not going to sell a larger iMac for less then they would sell an equivalent Studio Display, especially if the iMac worked in Target Mode.
I get that the 27” iMac was cheaper then the ASD and Mini however that won’t convince Apple especially when they can sell the ASD to Mini, Studio buyers and also as a Dock Monitor to the laptop buyers as well.
This sums up exactly where Apple come to dropping the larger iMacs. You are telling Apple that you are Ok with the cables from display to a computer, hence from Apples perspective why do they need the larger AIO if a person will deal with the extra cabling and the Studio Display is more flexible in terms of sales.
Not expecting a new Pro Display XDR at least for the new few years. As for a larger iMac, would love to see it but not sure whether it will ever happen.
People who flip out about the (lack) of need for a larger iMac are funny to me ... like ... I bet there's quite a bit of a market for a massive, 32" iMac. Myself included! The all-in-one form factor is about as "Apple" as it gets, and some of us just kinda like that simplicity and don't want or need to be constantly tinkering and updating internals....
You're not tinkering or updating internals on anything but a MacPro these days, and that's priced out of reach for most.
What would this 32" iMac-buying demographic look like? If they're willing to pay that kind of money, they're probably not content with low end gear, but if they try to use the thing for 10-years to recoup their investment, that last 5-years will be lackluster. On the other hand, if after 5 or 6-years they ditch it for a new and improved Mac, they toss the 32" retina-class display and presumably buy a system with another built in.
So it's wasteful for the power user (ditching displays too fast).
Last edited:
It’s also a divide by zero error, which most accountants frown upon.
An LCD screen with mini-LED backlighting is still an LCD screen.
“While no other features have been rumored for the next Pro Display XDR, customers are hopeful for a camera, speakers, and a higher refresh rate.”
Uh, no. Definitely not! Higher refresh rate, sure. The other two make the display less interesting to me. If you want a toy, buy a toy. Okay, I exaggerate but I have the Studio Display on my daily machine and I want something better from a Pro Display. The only thing that matters to me there is the display as display.
Uh, no. Definitely not! Higher refresh rate, sure. The other two make the display less interesting to me. If you want a toy, buy a toy. Okay, I exaggerate but I have the Studio Display on my daily machine and I want something better from a Pro Display. The only thing that matters to me there is the display as display.
Apple should continue to hold back and not release a larger iMac. The reason for this is that it is not logical to include screen and chip in the same form factor and the 27" high quality screen of an iMac is so much value in the screen. Yes, Apple has made these and sold these and folks have liked them. But they have also ended up with lots of nice screens that still have life in them being thrown out because the CPU in the machine is outdated. The mini exists and is small and excellent. The Mac Studio now exists and is relatively small and also powerful. Apple should continue to guide purchasers back to the desktop and screen being two devices. The initial leap for your first set up is going to cost more than the iMac. But replacing the mini is then cheap. The leap pays off in time.
As a side note, it would be fairly trivial to mount the current mini form factor behind a screen creating basically the same look as an iMac if the back of your screen faces a wall (which is a very typical desk set up).
As a side note, it would be fairly trivial to mount the current mini form factor behind a screen creating basically the same look as an iMac if the back of your screen faces a wall (which is a very typical desk set up).
Rumors suggest a tandem OLED next year along with the M5 chips.
What would the benefit be of more resolution on the built-in display? It is already 254 pixels per inch. Any additional resolution would be pretty much indistinguishable at the normal viewing distance. Or did you mean that you want a bigger/wider screen? That would require a bigger case.
The notch was added to MacBooks to be able to expand the display into the bezel area without making the MacBook case larger. A stand alone display doesn’t have that constraint. A camera or faceID can fit within a reasonable sized bezel and there is no compelling reason to eliminate bezels in that scenario.
"probably eventually get around to it" is the most amazing non-definitive description I've ever read. I'm going to start using that from now on, including to my boss and my wife
Having at least 4K horizontal pixels would let you watch 4K movies and TV shows at full resolution. The new MBPs changed the long standing aspect ratio of 16:10 which would create enough vertical space for a 4K 16:9 video to play fullscreen while still having the dock and menu bar visible.
I've been waiting on a larger iMac for 7 years, but it's too late now. Bought the Studio Display and Mac Studio, probably for the better. At least I have two separate products now and am not stuck with a giant computer screen.
There's no notch in the current studio display camera, so there wouldn't need to be a notch in a new desktop display with FaceID. The FaceID module could be hidden in the bezel like the current camera is.