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.
What to Expect at WWDC 2022: iOS 16, macOS 13, watchOS 9 and Possibly New Macs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I wouldn’t be surprised if iOS 16 had an “office” mode that let’s your employer limit which apps you could use during work hours. Businesses want their control back.
Configuration profiles already give administrators the ability to blacklist certain apps and user actions on company owned devices: https://mosen.github.io/profiledocs/payloads/restrictions.html
That's the right attitude. Watching YouTubers make their predictions based on rumors is fun, but they are responsible for much of the disappointment.
Can't wait for all the improved memojis that really capture my wild and wacky life. Apple R&D never ceases to amaze in this department!!
But what I actually think is that I referred to the main Apple personal computer categories, and how the imac category is now shorted one stage. My apologies if that idea wasn't well-phrased; I'll rephrase in bullet points:
LAPTOPS
1. Macbook Air for the budget-minded and light duty users.
2. Macbook Pro for heavier use, including beefier processors, bigger screens, more ports, and more internal options.
"HEADLESS" DESKTOPS i.e., the shrunken-down version of the tower (without the option to mod internally, of course):
1. Mac mini for budget-minded and light to maybe medium duty users.
2. Mac Studio for heavier use, including beefier processors, more ports, and more internal options.
AIO DESKTOPS
1. 24" iMac (iMac Air, IMO) for the budget-minded, light duty users... who also know Apple can match the computer to a monitor better than they can.
2. ...
Sorry, nothing to step up to anymore. Just that one entry level system that can be lightly optioned with 7 or 8 GPU cores and two low (by current standards) RAM options and a few different SSD sizes. But really, it's just the entry level system.
PRO (I didn't note this one previously, but in the interest of clarity and being complete, I'll include it now)
1. Really its own entity, made clearly for professional high-power applications, arguably not a consumer item like the above three types. Can (could) be customized across a wide spectrum to staggering heights of internal componentry and cost, adaptable to use multiple monitors in use-case unique display configurations.
WARNING: LONG MONOLOGUE AHEAD.
I'm not interested in being needlessly contradictory; I've been carefully considering a new purchase for a while.
But, Oy vey, where to begin here!
TOSS THE WHOLE THING
This idea about "something in the guts conks, and the WHOLE thing gets tossed," is quite a common anti-iMac "argument" around here, and honestly, pretty shallow. The key and incorrect assumption is that in the case of a hardware failure in an iMac, there is one response only and that is to "toss" the "WHOLE thing." I'll fairly assume that "toss" refers to throw in the trash, add to the landfill, etc. (Quick clarification - the "whole thing" in the case of an iMac would be the computer, a.k.a. "the guts," with its attached monitor, the bluetooth keyboard, and the mouse/trackpad.)
But it's obvious to me that this is not the only response to a hardware failure. Based on years of reading on this / other forums, as well as common sense, there are other responses to a hardware failure:
- DIY troubleshoot and repair the system
- Pay Apple to repair the system
- Pay a third party to repair the system
- Sell the system to a third party that can scavenge usable components
- Give to Apple to recycle (we didn't forget Apple's sophisticated disassembly / recycle system, right? We're modern MR members here and environmental impact is high on our list of priorities.)
- Give to a third party to recycle or scavenge
- DIY scavenge usable components for personal use or personal resale
I think we can fairly dispense with the argument that iMacs are bad because if one (presumably internal) part breaks, there is only one response which is to deposit the entire system in the garbage. (Or as a necessarily wasteful 'merican, to throw it out the window of a lifted 4x4 truck while speeding down the road, amirite? ahahahaha. j/k. I don't think my imac can fit through my truck window. But I digress.)
Are there other complex / expensive consumer items that we simply dispose of due to a component failure? Kitchen appliances? Audio/video systems? Automobiles? I guess that there are some lazily wasteful and/or very wealthy consumers that do just that, but I'd guess not as many as those who do not. And by the way, what happens to the mini/Studio when "something conks?" I can only imagine it gets tossed just as frequently as an iMac. And even more frequently for that monitor that conks. So, less environmental impact depending on which one gets the toss, sure, but in the grand scheme, still not the best - or only - move.
OBSOLETING
This argument against the concept of an AIO mac also is easily countered. Of course the system in this case is still functional or the "toss it" discussion would apply. By this argument, the system does not meet the needs (or often just the comfort level) of the user anymore. Let's use your number of 5 years until the internal hardware is "probably long in the tooth," with again your number of another 5 years of life left in the monitor. Are there 5 year old iMacs for sale now? Yes. What percentage of resale value do they normally retain? Hard to say without more research and considering specs, but a quick scan with a spitball estimate would be about 40% - let's just say for argument's sake. BTW, isn't that one of the long-standing bragging points of Apple fans - the great resale value? So amortizing that depreciation over 5 years comes out to about a 12% cost every year to use this asset. Obviously these are total off the cuff numbers but probably not too far off. In the case of say a $2000 iMac, the above would imply $240/year in use-cost. Seems reasonable to me. Whether the "old" system is of any use to YOU any more has zero bearing on whether the system is useful to others. (One of my favorite Michael Malice quotes: "You aren't entitled to speak for ANYone else, much less EVERYone else." Kinda applies.) Anecdotal example: my 2011 27" iMac, which has required no hardware repairs since new, still functions perfectly for so many common consumer uses just as well as any brand new system. And since no one in my household is either a high-level coder or audio/video professional, a new system would, pragmatically speaking, be a waste of money. Will a new system with the latest OS help my kids do their web-based homework any better? Will it read email better, or browse funny cat videos any better? No, no, and no. Store music collections? Calculate household budgets? Maintain photo libraries? In my really-not-isolated case, I've paid a bit over $10/month for a whole lotta use out of a neatly packaged, expertly integrated, big screened computer system with very little upgrading (added RAM, added external SSD boot drive) and a very clean office footprint. In fact, the only reason I'm shopping new macs now is that my budding hobby of video editing is getting to a point of being restricted, speed-wise, by the computing capacity of the 11+ year old CPU/GPU. It can still do the work, but at a slower pace than I'd like. For pretty much all other common consumer uses however (ok, not complex gaming, but we have game consoles for that), it is no less useful than a new system. So the counter to the obsoleting argument is: keep the system to use where upgrading is not necessary, or sell it to someone whose use doesn't require upgrading.
VALUE
You vaguely noted the value advantage to the iMac, but that is quite meaningful in a purchase consideration. You understandably chose the anecdote of your system vs. an AIO iMac, albeit an older iMac. Unfortunately an updated comparison does not exist. The Studio (mini Pro
) is a minimum of $2000 US, and a "5K2K ultrawide monitor" is, what, $1500? $2000? More? A quick glance at Amazon puts it around there, but I haven't researched the higher end, which is a place that so many MR folk say they reside. So that system would be minimum of $3500, plus keyboard plus mouse/trackpad plus speakers plus webcam, if we're being fair about parity. So we're approaching $4000 here. It's difficult to make a fair comparison to an AIO that doesn't (currently) exist, but if we look at mini vs. iMac 24" at the very low end, the prices are $699 vs. $1299. So that means $600 for a 24" 4.5K screen plus keyboard plus mouse/trackpad plus good speakers plus webcam. The mini does have the advantage of the additional USB A, HDMI and ethernet ports, of which the iMac has been unfortunately gimped. To get those functions more in line would require the purchase of a hub of some sort, or at least an upgraded power block and a couple dongles, depending on how fancy one wants, but for parity let's say it's another $100. I think it's relatively easy to estimate the corresponding costs in an upscaled system, as in your Studio example. To go up to a 27" screen (based on previous iMacs) or even slightly larger, I would offer that $1000 would be a fair to generous corresponding cost, if $6-700 is what the difference is on the mini/Studio side, for a complete system with arguably perfectly matched components including an outstanding monitor. In this hypothetical case, a "Studio iMac" could easily start under $3000; it's just guessing at this point. For the vaguely-defined "power user," / prosumer, etc., the option of an upscaled iMac would be a welcome addition to the line up, and I'd say an obvious omission from the lineup."PRETTY"
Last point, but especially in the Apple world, is to your throw-away comment about "pretty," which is not something to dismiss. Jony Ive had his detractors due to his obsession with thinness (me among them), but boy you couldn't argue with his approach to hi-tech sophistication. Even the older stuff looks futuristic still. Apple undoubtedly revolutionized "pretty" in the personal computer world - heck, in their entire product lineup - and it continues to be a signature, core part of their DNA. Integrated, streamlined, minimalistic, clean, simple yet sophisticated. And probably some other design-oriented words I can't think of. The beauty of a well-sculpted Apple product, of any variety, has been a benchmark that other manufacturers continue to strive to approach, or often avoid altogether. One would have to work awful hard to match the "pretty" contained in an iMac when you're cobbling together disparate manufacturers' components and their cabling (assuming they all work well together of course; MR is filled with complaints and troubleshooters bemoaning their component compatibility issues). You'd certainly have to work harder than opening a box, placing the AIO on a desk, and plugging in its single cord. If Apple didn't invent the AIO, then they certainly elevated it to a superior standard.
To reiterate, I am not looking to be snarkily disagreeable, as is often the case in forum posting. I personally looked at the whole of Apple's options for this lowly consumer and concluded that there was an option missing in the lineup. This was the (previously-available) option that would fit my needs best. There are other options that clearly fit others' needs best, and God bless Apple for continuing to provide them. You need a 48" wraparound, super high-res monitor, or two? No problem! There's an Apple computer option for that! You need your sound coming out of an audiophile set of speakers? Rock on, man! You can do that too! I can hardly argue with someone else's purchase decision, especially their claim that it fits their needs the best. I can argue, however, that the choice I'd like to make, with my money, which I already #@(*ing made before, is equally valid. And I'll back it up with thoughtful consideration.
AFTERTHOUGHT
Yeah, I know there was a short-lived "IMac Pro" but that didn't really fit into any of the categories. It was kind of the black (err, space gray?) sheep of the family. Too "pro" for consumer AIO, too restricted for a true pro machine. If anything it was kind of a 3rd option in the AIO category that really went after a niche demographic. It should be clear that an upscaled version of the iMac, as in the past, has a bigger screen, and more powerful internal options as well as a wider port selection.
Last edited:
Guess I was misinformed ... my iPad Pro looks like it will get iPad OS 16.
Shouldn't have doubted myself! Apples design/features decisions have been so on point lately.
They already do that. macOS 12.1, 12.2, etc…
The major releases (e.g 13.0) incorporate all these changes made prior.
At some point they have to release a larger update to introduce core changes to the OS, mainly at a user facing level, and to align with their hardware release cycles. A slower cadence would be problematic for that approach.