Will Apple Bring Back a Larger iMac? Here's What the Latest Rumors Say

[Eriamjh1138@DAN]

The disappointing aspect of the 27” iMacs pre-retina is that their promised “use as a display” feature was somehow not compatible with the new M1 and up Macs. There’s conversion boards, now, even for Retina display Mac’s, but I guess Apple‘s great feature wasn’t great enough to stay supported.

 

[Funky_Alphonzo]

Folks just need to get used to the idea of buying your own monitor for a a mini or studio. You can get much better monitors for less money than what Apple sells with the Studio Display.

And for crying outloud bring macOS out of the stone age and fix the scaling issue. Windows has been able to do this for over 10 years.

What scaling issue? I worked on the same 4k monitor hooked up to a macbookpro and a Z8 workstation. The scaling on windows was problematic and inconsistent between applications. Fonts are aliased and not smooth. On Sonoma scaling doedn’t seem an issue at all, looks far better than windows, set to the same scaling.

 

[Bodhitree]

The thing is, the 27” Studio Display is still a fairly complex product. It contains a camera, speakers, microphones, basically everything that an iMac contains except the CPU. We will have to see how well it lasts, compared to just a display.

I think the basic decision of separating the display from the Mac is a sound one, even if it means a cable across the desk. Most people with an iMac have external storage as well. Having the ability to upgrade the devices separately is necessary, especially now that you no longer have upgradable RAM or internal storage.

 

[Funky_Alphonzo]

On windows you can set the UI scaling to any percentage you want without a performance penalty.

Most displays are 4K and there are issues on Mac.

No, you can perfectly scale 4k to 2560x1440 on mac without issues.

The scaling on windows has issues.
I’ve been testing this myself.

 

[picpicmac]

Apple has always been in the crosshairs of critics who second guess every move they make. Just because tech blog forums want a large screen iMac doesn’t mean the market does.

Doesn't stop websites from fluffing posts to draw eyes.

See from the keypost:

Apple's statement ruled out a new 27-inch iMac, but an even larger model is still possible one day. [...]

While there haven't been any rumors lately about this alleged 32-inch iMac [...]

Some day my Prince will come...

 

[Plerf]

32” seems crazy for an AIO.

 

[Vado]

I've been patiently waiting for a larger screen iMac but I've given up now! I've decided when the refreshed Mac mini with M4/M4 Pro is released I'm going to snap one up along with a Studio Display.

 

[InTeCredo]

I still have 27" iMac (Mid-2010) and use it for keeping track of parts during the car restoration. What I appreciate the most about the iMac is simplicity of having everything in one and one power cable. Sometimes, I have to move the iMac from one area of the workshop to other so it's lot easier than unplugging all of the cables from the monitor, mac mini, and electric points and replugging them after moving.

What I would like to see is the new iMac (and other desktop models) with the ability to upgrade the logic board and such without having to remove the monitor cover with one-time ahesive tapes and the monitor in order to access the logic board. I think this is a good environmental move if we can upgrade the logic boards in the iMac, mac mini, Mac Studio, and Mac Pro without discarding the housings or requiring new adhesive tapes and like.

 

[aknabi]

Apple left the display market years ago

Hmmm then I guess this is just a figment of our imagination :

Apple Displays

Actually since the studio display Apple is more into displays than ever in recent memory (they did have a few back in the CRT days... real Sony tube massive beasts).

 

[JimmyG]

Right on cue...always humorous to watch the never-AIO crowd dive into the comments section anytime talk of a new 32" iMac gets mentioned as if should someone say, "32" iMac" three times it would summon the evil demon back from limbo! Haw! Glad my TV''s don't come with separate tuners just so I can keep that beautiful OLED display when it comes time to upgrade to the next HDMI standard. LOL

32" iMac, 32" iMac, 32" iMa...

 

[theluggage]

And yes I have lots of peripherals plugged into my iMac (I too prefer wired mechanical keyboards and an Ethernet connection, along with a RAID Array and other specialized audio and hardware controllers.)

...but that's the point: the "elegance" of an all-in-one solution rapidly evaporates as you start hanging more peripherals off it - especially if you want to be able to adjust the position of the display. Ultimately, "lots of peripherals" is one of the main remaining reasons to get a desktop over a laptop (I hope Apple remember that when they hand out the ports on the new Mac Mini).

So iMac, Mini and Studio are fine but for upper end computing power we only have the Studio (if you want the memory) which is inordinately expensive.

Once you get to the upper end, a Studio + Studio Display combo is pretty much in the same $3k-$4k price bracket as the top-spec iMacs, and on some counts is more comparable to the $5k iMac Pro... if you include the price of upgrading the iMac's 8Gb standard RAM to 32GB at Apple prices - but the cheap 3rd party upgrade option was always going to go away with Apple Silicon. The Studio Ultra + Studio Display works out cheaper than the $7k+ iMac Pro models with comparable processors.

Add to that, the possibility of choosing a cheaper display setup which - even if it's not 5k - may be better for your needs. I got a pair of matching 4k+ displays for £900. For that matter, it's only because my previous system was a (reluctantly purchased) iMac that I needed to buy new displays at all.

What has been lost is the entry level $1800 5k iMac - which was always a rather un-Apple-like bargain - although that wasn't particularly powerful CPU/GPU wise.

The Mini solution is currently under powered with too little memory and the Studio is too expensive for a non upgradable box.

The Mini range runs from $700 to $1700 for a M2 Pro with 32GB and the Studio picks that up at $2000. (Theres a $2000 Mini BTO option but buying that doesn't make sense).

Any theoretical new "large" Apple Silicon iMac is only going to offer the same range of CPU and RAM configurations at the same price differentials - and isn't going to be any more upgradeable. Actually, an iMac is less upgradeable because you can't change the screen or the computer independently.

The Studio already has a modular SSD which would be upgradeable if Apple chose to allow it. The maximum RAM restrictions are there for solid performance reasons - the problem is Apple's pricing structure that charges a ridiculous premium for fairly modest RAM increments - otherwise, if RAM prices were realistic, any "power user" would max out the RAM at purchase (96 or 192GB are not huge, serious-callers only amounts of RAM in 2024) and there'd be no demand for after-market RAM upgrades. OK, so if wishes were horses... but none of that is going to change in an Apple Silicon iMac.

 

[BB8]

objectively, AIOs are wasteful. they're fine for the low end where consumers just want a space-saving complete package (receptionists etc). everyone else needs to move on to the studio.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Anything less than 32" I'm not wasting my money on.

 

[tenthousandthings]

Right on cue...always humorous to watch the never-AIO crowd dive into the comments section anytime talk of a new 32" iMac gets mentioned as if should someone say, "32" iMac" three times it would summon the evil demon back from limbo! Haw! Glad my TV''s don't come with separate tuners just so I can keep that beautiful OLED display when it comes time to upgrade to the next HDMI standard. LOL

32" iMac, 32" iMac, 32" iMa...

Yeah, tilting at windmills can be good fun, and these rumor threads are the right place for it. It’s annoying when it poisons larger threads talking about the product line, launch schedules, and such. But it’s entertaining here when someone using a three-display configuration comes on and says iMacs are useless.

I do wish Apple would state it outright when there are technical reasons for bad things happening, like the loss of target display mode in the original 5K iMac. The company’s silence on that front, not defending themselves, hurts them there. I get it, making excuses is not a good look, but sometimes things just need to be explained.

Plus, they could absolutely engineer an even simpler solution to the long-term, display-mode problem, with a port for that. Doing that and eliminating the chin at the same time (in two sizes, iMac and iMac Plus) would be electric. It wouldn’t be enough to get me to go back to an iMac, but it would be great for the plug-and-play crowd. And make no mistake, it is a crowd. There’s a market there.

 

[Ethosik]

Folks just need to get used to the idea of buying your own monitor for a a mini or studio. You can get much better monitors for less money than what Apple sells with the Studio Display.

And for crying outloud bring macOS out of the stone age and fix the scaling issue. Windows has been able to do this for over 10 years.

I have yet to run into any scaling issues with macOS. I have used 1080p, 1440p and 2160p. I have used 60Hz to 240 Hz. No issues at all. However, I continue to face scaling issues with Windows nonstop. Some apps don’t adhere to it and the UI is frustratingly small for a 4K display.

 

[Ethosik]

I don't get the point to an iMac. It locks you into your computer and monitor as a set. A monitor with a Mac mini, or, as I do, a laptop makes more sense to me.

I don’t understand either. Also iMacs have been horrible for a multi display setup. I like my monitors to match thank you. Having a non height adjustable iMac (by default) is just frustrating. And different size bezels, material, sizing pairing it with another display is too frustrating to me.

 

[ScooterComputer]

The SINGLE THING Apple NEEDS to do NOW is to make the iMac work as a monitor through USB Type C. There is no technical reason this cannot be done.

Later, down the line, make it so that the M4 iMac can run future iOS versions as a second 'lite' "long term support" operating system.

That the Studio Display runs an iPad chip but cannot run iPadOS as a 'smart display' is infuriating.

KEEP THESE THINGS OUT OF LANDFILLS, APPLE! All of the other eco work pales compared to how many Apple devices end up in landfills, or in piles of consumer electronics in foreign lands. Apple's current environmental PR messaging is hypocritical, because they simply are not engineering devices to last for the lifespan of their components. The fact that 4K, 5K, and 4.5K iMacs with perfectly fine panels are being "recycled" is INSANE.

 

[Ethosik]

It's fixed scaling, either doubling of 1440p for (5K) or on the laptops it was doubling of 1280x800 for the 13" i dont remember the others.

On windows you can set the UI scaling to any percentage you want without a performance penalty.

Most displays are 4K and there are issues on Mac.

And there are still many apps that do not adhere to the scaling in windows I’ll never use a high resolution display with Windows. I tried recently with Windows 11 and still have issues with small UI or blurry text. Giant weird buttons. Etc.

 

[MadCar]

32” seems crazy for an AIO.

It's about the size of the old 27" iMac if it didn't have bezels so not really that big at all.

 

[NARNIA]

Here I sit in front of a 2017 iMac 27" that is badly needing replaced.
I like the screen, which hasn't really changed that much from what Apple sells today as the studio display.
It's just the cpu that's out of date.
Therefore I find myself reluctant to invest in another all-in-one machine and instead buy a separate display and a Mac mini or studio when then October event dust settles.
The rate of change in Apple's CPU offerings, compared to what we had with Intel, makes more regular refresh more likely for me.

Why pay for a screen each time I refresh?

I'm going to re-cycle my iMac into just a display with some mods. I don't want to have to do that again.

I also have a 2017 iMac 27". Are there any issues with using that as a monitor with a new Mac Mini?

 

[CWallace]

Can you point out a better & cheaper 27" 5K monitor for MacOS than the Studio Display? I would seriously like to know.

Some enterprising forum folks have been collating a list of 5K displays: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/the-complete-list-of-27-5k-displays.2390249/

The disappointing aspect of the 27” iMacs pre-retina is that their promised “use as a display” feature was somehow not compatible with the new M1 and up Macs. There’s conversion boards, now, even for Retina display Mac’s, but I guess Apple‘s great feature wasn’t great enough to stay supported.

The Retina iMac 5Ks never supported Target Display Mode because the custom display timing controller required to drive the display at 60Hz soaked up all the DisplayPort bandwidth so there was none left to allow TDM.

 

[SactoGuy18]

I think due to (in my opinion) an increasingly weak economy, Apple will likely NOT make an iMac larger than 24". They will, however, offer 27" and 30" displays to match the Mac mini and Mac studio models.

 

[CWallace]

We've been hearing reports of 32" and 27" MiniLED displays being tested by LG and Apple for years now, so it is a bit surprising Apple is still soldiering on with the Pro Display XDR (especially) and Studio Display.

 

[nt5672]

I'll never buy another iMac. It is just too wasteful to replace the display every few years to keep up with Apple managed obsolescence.

 

[Ethosik]

A lot of strange comments here.

The 27 inch imac was to be seen in thousands of film/graphic/music studios. It was all that was needed to make .. professional results. The Imac pro was even better but we are now in the apple M1 cpu era.

It seems obsolete now, as it has not been properly updated in over 5 years and has not seen the woomph apple has with its CPUs and new arch. To suggest that those were old and now one should go imac and buy the nice looking (its what we had in imac) yet gimped apple display with a mini.. well, no?

Apple loves money. Mac mini or studio plus the apple display will not cut it for most. Therefore here it is:

27 imac with M4
32 imac pro with M4

In next few weeks.

Only reason it was used is because the iMac was the best of the best. Why buy a 2013 trash can Mac Pro in 2018 or early 2019 when the iMac beats it? I hated that I was forced to use an all in one. I hate them with a passion. But Apple provided no alternatives for the performance I needed until the 2019 Mac Pro.