Wow. Gurman figured out all by himself that M3 comes after M2. He should pat himself on the back. Apple should have used the Pro and Max CPUs in the iMac and made a 27”. Instead, they crippled the iMac with the gimped 24” model to upsell the Mac Studio and lousy 27” display. Just like the iPhone 14 and 10th gen iPad. Both designed to upsell the better units. Apple has too many SKUs in each category and that’s what led them close to bankruptcy in the 90s.
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's Next for the iMac? What We Know on a New Design, M3 Chip, and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd hardly call it pathetic. Do you happen to have the sales figures for the m1 iMac ?
Im guessing you have never seen a 5K vs 4K screen. OSX kinda hates 4K. Im running the full adobe suite on my 2020 27' iMac, w/3.8 i7/ 1 TB/128 GB RAM.
Good Dell 27" 4K screen next to its kinda blah in clarity, even scaled to 3840 x 2160. Running an additional 27" 2K screen, 3 total. Activity monitor often shows my ram over 100 GB. So need it.
mid spec Studio (max/64/1tb) + 5K screen = close to $5,000.
Sad thing is the MIM studio isn't any faster than the M1M 16 MBP...so the extra cooling did nothing.
Id rather have a 27" iMac w/M1M for $3500, same as 16" MBP.
I’ve registered to respond to this. Having been a Mac owner for 22 years, since I first bought an iMac G3, I just want to say that there’s many of us for whom the 24” M1 iMac is perfect. Not all of us are nerds/need moar powa, and I find 16Gb RAM more than adequate for my needs. I can run Lightroom, Photoshop, Premier Pro all simultaneously, whilst playing music/video, and doing FaceTime calls etc. It can run 3D softwares too. And play games! So it’s more than enough for my ‘pathetic’ requirements really. As for the screen size; I’ve also owned a MacPro using 19-21” CRTs, plus 19, 21, 24 and 28” flat displays, and 24” is the sweet spot for me. I love it, the display is fantastic. I’d been waiting 4-5 years to replace the 2006 MacPro, which was more than adequate in all ways except for the graphics card and OS, and I’d bought a s/h 2012 MacMini as a stop gap in 2020, so when the new M1 iMacs dropped, it was the perfect machine I’d been waiting for!
Not everyone is a nerd/‘prosumer’/‘power user’ or professional. Many of us just need something simple and affordable. Apple produces products for a market, not the individual needs of one person. There are far more happy customers than people moaning about them not making the perfect product for them. Everything’s a compromise. This is perhaps worth remembering.
Likewise, I picked a 2012 up for my parents about 5 years ago, I think it was about 900 euros. I popped the screen off, put a good bit more memory in it and swapped in an SSD. For their needs it is perfect, if a new 27" came along I'd probably say they'd be well to change over, newer webcam, faster, sleeker etc but the cost probably isn't worth it.
The voice of reason! If you've been lurking in the forums for a while you know full well that many posts are sheer hyperbole and there's a lot of nonsense. But I keep coming back here because there are helpful comments also that explain use cases and alternative perspectives.
Please don't take my comment as being patronising, but it's basically refreshing to see someone stand up for the M1 iMac, which is clearly targeted at the teenage bedroom/ light office worker, but which is actually far more capable than that.
I've been a fan of Apple's prosumer-level hardware in the past, but I feel priced out of Apple's recent lines (Studio/ Studio Display). As I get older I am much more productive with bigger screens, so a 27" M1 would have been ideal. People like to **** on the 24" M1 but with its screen, speakers, and M1 chip it's actually one of the best value Apple products right now, surely?
Subjective. But what's not subjective is that Apple has strict standards as to what pixel density they'll do in a display, and spreading 5K pixels over that much space would not meet that standard.
Exactly. Which is why it's a crap move for them to have disabled it on newer ones.This is possible with older iMacs:
Use your iMac as a display with target display mode - Apple Support
Target display mode is a feature available with certain older Mac models.support.apple.com
I have always thought the iMac Pro was a one-off, designed to fill the gap left by the discontinuation of the trashcan Pro. Did Apple not state this?
I hope there will be an iMac with a larger screen, but doubt it will be branded Pro. That ship has sailed, and for better or worse the Studio is its successor.
I hope there will be an iMac with a larger screen, but doubt it will be branded Pro. That ship has sailed, and for better or worse the Studio is its successor.
So is saying "sunsets are pretty", but I've yet to meet anyone who disagrees with that 😉 Likewise, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks a 32" 5K display looks "fuzzy". That would be 184 PPI which is more than my 4K 27" LG monitor (163 PPI) that I use with my Mac Mini, and I've never heard anyone describe 27" 4K monitors as fuzzy, lol! Scientifically not as sharp as a higher PPI? Sure, but I care about actual usage, not numbers on paper.
As for "strict standards", are you just assuming that based on previous releases, or has Apple actually stated that in writing somewhere?
The 27" iMac started at $2,000. I paid $2,400 for processor and SSD upgrades + an additional 100ish for external RAM.
The 24" iMac starts at $1,300.
The Studio Display is the only display I've come across so far that is en par with the quality of...well... displays used in macs. When you spend 8-10 hours a day five+ days a week in front of your monitor, you want good quality.
I already priced out in a different comment how a Studio Display alone + mac mini would not only be substantially more expensive (starting at ~$2500) but also lacking in specs.
Mac Mini and Studio Display are not for the same demographic. Mac Mini is considered as the "entry mac" into the Appleverse and/or for those infrequent users for some web browsing and mailing. Those people will not ever spend $1600 on a monitor.
And, you price the Studio at $1,600 but keep forgetting that one also needs a keyboard, a mouse, ... so we're looking at minimum $1,800 and that's still without any computer...
If they can sell a 24" iMac starting at $1,300, they very much can sell a 27" iMac with similar specs starting at $2k.
I mentioned it because you didn't seem to be aware it was ever a thing. I'm sure there's a logical reason for Apple not implementing it in newer Macs.
I haven't tried these workarounds myself, but here you go:
Use iMac as monitor: 5 Solutions - 9to5Mac
This in-depth guide covers how to use iMac as monitor with Apple's target display mode, with third-party software, and more.
9to5mac.com
He probably doesn't and merely dislikes the white bezels and 'chin'. Considering how many 24" iMacs I randomly come across in the wild, I'm with you and willing to bet it's nowhere even close to being pathetic but well received and loved by sufficiently many people.
Well, you can push the current price for a Studio Ultra to over $6,000.00 depending on memory and hard drive size but for my needs you would be correct, $3600 for a Studio Max and a 5k screen makes a lot more sense than $6000.
I'm a prosumer. I'm the target demographic of the 24" iMac on any given day. I'd probably prefer to be able to get 24GB RAM over 16 just to future-proof (I use my iMacs 7+ years on average). But after 10 years on 27" (following 7 on 24"), I don't want to go smaller. I run my iMac at the native resolution and I actually do need the screen real estate more often than not (multiple simultaneous windows, LARGE tables etc.).
What I do not need? A M Pro or M Ultra Chip.
People here in the comments continue conflating a 'larger iMac' with an 'iMac Pro' and it's really annoying the heck out of me. The standard iMac is an extremely capable machine for pretty much all consumers and most prosumers.
There is a gap for people like you and me and others here in the comments with Apple's current lineup. And for some reason, people in the comments refuse to see it and keep trying to convince us how it's not actually really there and how a larger iMac would start at $3000 (because they clearly mentally spec it like if it were an iMac Pro).
Everytime I come across a 24" in the real world, I'm really really debating budging and getting it instead of continuing waiting...
Actually, there is most likely. Going to a 2020 27” iMac would give you greatly increased performance over a 2012 and are available in the refurbished store at Apple from $1450 - $5700. Likely available from other sources as well but Apple’s refurb’d warranty is hard to beat.
I thank you.
It is! It may not be über powerful for hardcore 3D, video etc type work, but it is far more capable than some people seem to imagine it is. I know people doing all sorts of very creative things, on much older, far less capable machines. I think the fixation on specs is unnecessary a lot of the time; just get on and do stuff, stop worrying about the size of your floppy or whatever...
The 24" screen is perfect for me; I tried a 28" but that was just a bit too much. I have a small desk, so am not sitting miles from the screen. I can swipe between desktops for different apps etc; I'm not a fan of multi display set ups as that can involve too much moving about really. You can plug a 6k display into the iMac anyway, if you so wish.
I think so. I bought one just after they were released, so the Studio options weren't available. Having had a MacPro, I had thought that a similar route was what I needed, but it really isn't. If I started getting more into video work, or 3D etc, then perhaps I'd consider a different set up, but I cannot fault the 'value' of my iMac; I went for the up-specced model at the time, so 16Gb, slightly better graphics etc. Got an Ed. Disc., so was around £1780 I think. Had a larger screened version been available at the same time, I might have gone for it, but then the extra £500+ would have perhaps been a little too much. A studio combo would be north of £3500, so that really is a bit much, and a MacMini/Studio Display combo would also have been a lot more, so the iMac sat nicely in my price bracket. My first G3 iMac was £1000 in 2000, so what I paid in 2021 was about the same, if you factor in inflation. That, I'm very happy with. My MacPro was £2250 in 2006 (computer only, no display of course), so that's around £3500 now. A lot of money. The MP was always overkill anyway. My iMac is probably overkill now! My new iPad Air is probably equally overkill! My iPhone is probably all I need in terms of 'power'!
But hey.
I love mine. 🥰🤗🖥️
Apple made a stupid term called "Retina display", which apply to every single product including Mac and iphone and ipad. So, whatever monitor they made on iphone/ipad/mac/macbook, they have to be "Retina" level, that is about 217-250 PPI depends on their product line. That's the reason why every single monitor in the world have 3840 x 2160 for 27 inch monitor while iMac 27 inch is having resolution at 5120x2880. They have this standard and they are required to make their product to comply with these standard.
So, in order to have a 32 inch monitor with "retina display", they would need a minimum of resolution better than 6144 x 3456. I wouldn't expect any resolution like this would come cheap.
Sigh. Unfortunately for both of us, I have a work chore I'm avoiding so I'll break it down.
Apple's "retina" standard appears to be this, from when Steve Jobs introduced the term:
I don't know where that's written down, but in practice every Apple Retina computer display has come in at a minimum of around 220 ppi (lower than 300 because most people use a computer more than 10-12" away). iPads have a higher pixel density, and iPhones higher still because they're used closest of all.
So, on to your proposed 5K 32" iMac. A 5K display at 16:9 would be 5120px wide. A 32" display at that ratio would be 28" in width. Doing the math, that puts you around 183 ppi -- quite far below any retina computer display Apple has released. Besides, there's a current precedent for an Apple-branded 32" display: the Pro Display XDR, which is 6K and has a pixel density of 218 ppi, exactly the same as the 24" M1 iMac and the 27" iMac 5K. So yeah, I am assuming a larger iMac M-series would follow this, based on previous releases. It would be pretty shocking if Apple broke with a decade of precedent.
You can argue all day that 5K at 32" is perfectly fine -- and I'm sure for a lot of uses it totally is. But based on every computer display they've sold in the past decade, Apple clearly disagrees. Happily, there are gobs of third-party monitors out there!
Last edited:
Limited ports, only 16GB RAM, only 2TB storage, integrated graphics that are slower than the dedicated GPU offered in the prior model, kludge Ethernet in a power brick, non-upgradable RAM. Audio output on the side, so you have a cable sticking out. What more do you want to know? What do sales figures have to do with a crappy design? Have you seen how many there are on Apple's refurb page? Those are all customer returns. Sorry you can't seem to figure that out.
Exactly what I was thinking. With the introduction of separate displays (as well as other 4K/5K ones out there), the Mac Studio & then updating the Mac Mini with Apple Silicon, the iMac is getting squeezed. About the only problem it solves is helping people who just can't or don't want to decide on a separate monitor. (if the internals go kaput though, you're SOL here too - which isn't a problem if the machine/monitor are kept separate)
I'm sorry you're so exasperated.
I just see people claim things about Apple all the time that as far as I can tell are simply assumptions. For example, with the recent articles about Apple getting into the ad business, many people are claiming this violates Apple's principles, yet no one has yet been able to point me to where these supposed principles are codified. A pattern doesn't necessarily indicate a principle, thus Apple doing something they haven't done before (or at least in a while) doesn't necessarily mean they're violating a principle.
I can't see individual pixels on my 27" 4k monitor at a normal viewing distance, so a 32" 5k at an even higher PPI and even further viewing distance would be just as "Retina" in practical terms as my current monitor. I simply can't imagine anyone but the most persnickety individual being unhappy with that. I'd much rather them stick with 5k than bump up to 6k and increase the price even more.
In practical terms, I thought the whole idea of Retina was that the human eye would not be able to distinguish individual pixels at a normal viewing distance. As I told the other poster, I can'd distinguish individual pixels on my 163 PPI display, so obviously I wouldn't be able to distinguish them on a 183 PPI display either, especially since I'd probably have the display even further away due to the larger size.
I know but the thing is I won't invest in another intel Mac that's going to be obsolete in the following years (above all when I have to spend at least 1.5K for it). I keep my Macs for a decade and over.
We get it. *You* don't like the iMac. Thousands and thousands and thousands if not millions of happy iMac users worldwide disagree. Maybe stop interpolating from you onto others.
Oh good grief, y'all, just stop with this argument that's been brought up over and over and over again. In the lifetime of my iMacs? From first to second we got introduced to Retina Displays, for example. Now the latest trends are OLED. In the TV world everyone is raving about HDR. Who knows what the next best thing is.
I remember a time when 17" monitors were considered BIG. Within the average life span of an iMac 7-10 years for many people, you bet there will be monitor developments happen.
So yes, while in theory monitors may last longer than the computer internals, just be honest, most everyone is not keeping their monitors for that long without updating at some point unless they already spent thousands and thousands of pro dollars on the best possible latest state of the art monitor to begin with.
With your argument, you'd expect to still have people actually use tiny 17"s or CRTs or whatever we had 10, 15, 20 years ago, because, sure, they still work....
It's called percentages. More sales? You're expected to proportionally have more refurbs for a **** ton of different reasons (no, they're not all returns, some are repairs, and even with a return, you can't just assume it's solely in all cases out of dissatisfaction)