Where is the iMac Pro

[DJHB1980]

the logic says

iMac 24" - iMac Plus 27"

iMac Pro 27" - iMac Pro Max 32" or iMac Ultra Pro

it only has to be refreshed every 2 or 3 yrs or so to be relevant but would sell by the bucketload
bigger screen for the everyday and more power desktop for the power user
just to pre-empt - im not sure the Display and Studio's sales would be as cannibalised as people may want to suggest too

 

[mlayer]

When the iMac Pro was released many assumed it would have some sort of upgrade cadence, more frequent than Mac Pro and less frequent than the iMac. Now that the two Studio Displays have been released I am certain that the iMac Pro was a one-off. It was a brilliant beacon of hope in the late 2010's when Apple-Intel relationship went south. The clarity provided by Apple Silicon gives the company a great deal more leeway to develop its product lines. They don't want to deal with the whole "I have this useless 5k display problem" or "what about target display mode" questions 7 years down the road, so they'll choose not to make it an option. It's too bad, because an iMac Pro proudly and silently works as my second Mac.

 

[Titus]

All I know is that I still love my 27" iMac Pro. I would definitely upgrade if another 27" came out.

 

[theluggage]

it only has to be refreshed every 2 or 3 yrs or so to be relevant but would sell by the bucketload

Yes, but Apple doesn't like to sell computers by the bucketload if it can sell other computers by the shipping container-load.

1. The whole market trend is towards laptops rather than desktop systems. That's one bite out of the iMac market.
2. Intel iMacs usually had more powerful, higher-TDP CPUs and GPUs than comparable MacBooks. Post-Apple Silicon, they're running the same chips (until you get to the Mx Ultra). Many people who previously had a MacBook for mobility plus an iMac for heavy lifting can now just use a dockable MBP for everything. Another bite.
3. The 24" Mx iMac has a substantially bigger, better screen and, relatively speaking, better CPU+GPU than the preceding low-end 21.5" iMac. That's going to poach some low-end 27" iMac customers. Munch, munch...
4. Apple now offers a far better, up-to-date range of "headless" desktops - the Mx Mini, Mx Pro Mini, Mx Max Studio and Mx Ultra Studio (when I last bought a 27" iMac in 2017, the alternatives were the 2014 Worst Mini Ever or the 2013 Trashcan... 'nuff said). Guess what: not everybody likes all-in-ones when they're given a choice. Chomp chomp!
5. I'm not a great fan of the Studio Display on the value-for-money front - but it does offer a near-iMac experience at 5k and, by all accounts, is a very nice display. $4k gets you a better-than-base Studio Max and a Studio Display - cheaper than the $5000 base iMac Pro, and in the same ball park as a comparably tricked-out 2020 iMac. Plus... if you'd bought a Studio Max + Studio Display back in 2022 and now fancied an M4, you'd only need to replace the computer & keep the display.

The $1800 5k iMac was always a bargain and, yeah, a modern Mini + Studio Display combo would set you back $2200, so that's not so great. I agree we've lost that - but today there probably wouldn't be the volume to make that possible. Also, I suspect Apple bet the farm on 5k panel costs dropping as the wider PC market adopted them - something that has never really happened because 5k isn't such a big deal for Windows users.

 

[ADGrant]

Yes, but Apple doesn't like to sell computers by the bucketload if it can sell other computers by the shipping container-load.

1. The whole market trend is towards laptops rather than desktop systems. That's one bite out of the iMac market.
2. Intel iMacs usually had more powerful, higher-TDP CPUs and GPUs than comparable MacBooks. Post-Apple Silicon, they're running the same chips (until you get to the Mx Ultra). Many people who previously had a MacBook for mobility plus an iMac for heavy lifting can now just use a dockable MBP for everything. Another bite.
3. The 24" Mx iMac has a substantially bigger, better screen and, relatively speaking, better CPU+GPU than the preceding low-end 21.5" iMac. That's going to poach some low-end 27" iMac customers. Munch, munch...
4. Apple now offers a far better, up-to-date range of "headless" desktops - the Mx Mini, Mx Pro Mini, Mx Max Studio and Mx Ultra Studio (when I last bought a 27" iMac in 2017, the alternatives were the 2014 Worst Mini Ever or the 2013 Trashcan... 'nuff said). Guess what: not everybody likes all-in-ones when they're given a choice. Chomp chomp!
5. I'm not a great fan of the Studio Display on the value-for-money front - but it does offer a near-iMac experience at 5k and, by all accounts, is a very nice display. $4k gets you a better-than-base Studio Max and a Studio Display - cheaper than the $5000 base iMac Pro, and in the same ball park as a comparably tricked-out 2020 iMac. Plus... if you'd bought a Studio Max + Studio Display back in 2022 and now fancied an M4, you'd only need to replace the computer & keep the display.

The $1800 5k iMac was always a bargain and, yeah, a modern Mini + Studio Display combo would set you back $2200, so that's not so great. I agree we've lost that - but today there probably wouldn't be the volume to make that possible. Also, I suspect Apple bet the farm on 5k panel costs dropping as the wider PC market adopted them - something that has never really happened because 5k isn't such a big deal for Windows users.

I would say the Studio display gets you a better than iMac experience, certainly the second gen does.

 

[ADGrant]

the logic says

iMac 24" - iMac Plus 27"

iMac Pro 27" - iMac Pro Max 32" or iMac Ultra Pro

Apple no longer offers a 32" standalone monitor so I can't see a 32" iMac ever being a thing.

 

[conmee]

The ASD is 80% of the way there. It already has a camera. And speakers. And TB5 ports. And USB-C ports. And a couple fans (which I wasn't even aware my ASD had until this week). Just need to swap out the A19 for an M5 Pro.

But the ASD is $1,599. A Mac Mini is $1,599 (M4 Pro 14-core, 24GB, 512GB). So the iMac Pro would come in around $3,200 give or take for a "base" model based on Apple's current pricing, right? Would that be competitive enough to sell? I don't recall the original price of the iMac Pro.

 

[Tagbert]

The ASD is 80% of the way there. It already has a camera. And speakers. And TB5 ports. And USB-C ports. And a couple fans (which I wasn't even aware my ASD had until this week). Just need to swap out the A19 for an M5 Pro.

But the ASD is $1,599. A Mac Mini is $1,599 (M4 Pro 14-core, 24GB, 512GB). So the iMac Pro would come in around $3,200 give or take for a "base" model based on Apple's current pricing, right? Would that be competitive enough to sell? I don't recall the original price of the iMac Pro.

The original iMac Pro had a Xeon processor and was intended to take the place of the Mac Pro. It was priced starting at $4900 with an 8-core chip and went up another couple thousand for one with 18-cores. That kind of machine and at a price like that would sell in the dozens today. Though it might outsell the Mac Pro.

There was the 27” non-pro iMac with an i5 processor that started at $1800. If you are going to wishcast an iMac that might be a better target. Of course the price would be more, perhaps as much as the $3200 you estimated. I’m not sure that one would sell in the numbers that iMac fans expect, either and probably not enough to convince Apple to make them.

 

[mlayer]

The original iMac Pro had a Xeon processor and was intended to take the place of the Mac Pro. It was priced starting at $4900 with an 8-core chip and went up another couple thousand for one with 18-cores. That kind of machine and at a price like that would sell in the dozens today. Though it might outsell the Mac Pro.

There was the 27” non-pro iMac with an i5 processor that started at $1800. If you are going to wishcast an iMac that might be a better target. Of course the price would be more, perhaps as much as the $3200 you estimated. I’m not sure that one would sell in the numbers that iMac fans expect, either and probably not enough to convince Apple to make them.

I have to look at the prospect of a future iMac Pro through the lens of the CPU cooling solutions on the Mac Studio and high-end MacBook Pros. I can't see Apple fitting a huge honking heatsink and cooling fan combo in an enclosure like the current flat-sided iMac, so they would have to do the MBP's fans, pipes, and maybe a heat exchanger like the new iPhone. That's all well and good, but at this point how large of an audience is that? In 2017 when the iMac Pro was released there were no alternatives. In 2026 there's the Mac Studio and even the Mac Pro if Apple wants to keep it going, plus the MBPs are world-beaters and the Mac mini is a value champ. So it becomes a question of whether whatever they engineer will pay for itself through those incremental sales of iMac Pros. I don't see it, which is too bad because the cooling system developed for the iMac Pro is chef's kiss elegant. I just checked iStat menus and in the 4 hours since I turned on the 32 GB iMac Pro, it's been running silent with 8% memory pressure and hasn't touched the swap once.

 

[Adelphos33]

But the ASD is $1,599. A Mac Mini is $1,599 (M4 Pro 14-core, 24GB, 512GB). So the iMac Pro would come in around $3,200 give or take for a "base" model based on Apple's current pricing, right? Would that be competitive enough to sell? I don't recall the original price of the iMac Pro.

Amazon is selling a pink M4 iMac, with 24GB of RAM and 512GB of storage, for $1,799. Apple sells it for $1,899. Is an extra three inches of screen, and an M4 Pro Chip, really worth $1,200 to $1,300?

 

[just!ns]

With the new Samsung 6K G80HS supposedly coming out this year I think apple could use the same panel as the G80HS for a 32" iMac Pro (if they ever make one again) ... the G80HS offers 165Hz which is a perk.

 

[ADGrant]

With the new Samsung 6K G80HS supposedly coming out this year I think apple could use the same panel as the G80HS for a 32" iMac Pro (if they ever make one again) ... the G80HS offers 165Hz which is a perk.

Apple generally uses LG panels I think. I doubt they have any plans for even a 32" stand alone monitor using that panel.

 

[just!ns]

Apple generally uses LG panels I think. I doubt they have any plans for even a 32" stand alone monitor using that panel.

True ... maybe LG Display has something up their sleeve that's different from their current 32" panel. I can't see Apple offering a 32" iMac Pro with only 60Hz.

 

[DJHB1980]

there is definitely a market for this product.
the components are all there in Apples inventory or within their supply chain. Could be the last big hurrah for Cook before he departs or conversely the 1st big ticket item for John Ternus to launch

 

[underthere]

I would be interested in one for sure.

 

[krazzix]

Apple should make one. Not just for us, but also for them.

If there is no iMac Pro I will buy a studio for ~€3.200 and a third party monitor.

If there is an iMac Pro for let's say ~€5.000, I will buy it.

 

[azentropy]

As others point out, the iMac Pro was a really poor value compared with pairing an ASD and a Mac Studio of today. It is on the lower end of the 27" iMac that lost out on the value position.