Yes, its so obvious this market is here and is upscale (more profitable) - might have been supply chain issues they had at launch from back in the lock-in requiring them to make that choice though.
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.
Will Apple Release New Macs Soon? Here's What the Latest Rumors Say
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have an iMac Pro which works well, but if Apple releases an iMac (27" or bigger) with reasonable power and ram, I'd be in the market.
I'd love that, of course everything they make is talking to networks so you might not want to read too much into the posting.
I'm not too worried about support. The iMac Pro runs Sonoma -- the only 2017 model which does so. And 2025 is still a bit away...
I gave up on waiting for a new 27" or bigger iMac and ended up buying a Studio Display. Been using it with my work-issued Macbook Pro, but if I have to now I can just buy my own Macbook or a Mac Mini and use it with that same display.
It's basically a long-term investment at this point, as the display for my next few Macs. In a way it's better than tossing a perfectly good display with each iMac upgrade.
It's basically a long-term investment at this point, as the display for my next few Macs. In a way it's better than tossing a perfectly good display with each iMac upgrade.
Apple is really keeping things under wraps if something is about to be released and no one has any more definitive info on it.
It’s hard to imagine Apple not releasing anything new before the holiday season which often generates a sales boost. If not October then maybe November?
I don’t think iMac getting M3 would really cannibalize MacBook sales because they’re different markets even with M3 outperforming M2. Most people buying a MacBook want that element of mobility you don’t have with a desktop, and M2 MacBooks are hardly slouches in terms of performance. Hell, even the M1 MacBook Air is still a beast in its own right—still one of the best bang-for-the-buck computers on the market.
The M3 iMac is a given—it’s just a matter of when. At this point, though, a larger iMac would be a surprise as I expect it would be expensive though perhaps not as absurd as the old iMac Pro.
The MacBook Air situation is…messy. How much longer will the old M1 Air be kept around? Most everyone thought the new M2 Air would replace the M1, but that didn’t happen. As it is there are essentially two entry level MacBook Airs. Is it conceivable Apple will eventually drop the old Air and adjust the price accordingly on the new 13 and 15 models? Or are they going to revamp the old Air and keep it as the entry level MacBook?
It’s hard to imagine Apple not releasing anything new before the holiday season which often generates a sales boost. If not October then maybe November?
I don’t think iMac getting M3 would really cannibalize MacBook sales because they’re different markets even with M3 outperforming M2. Most people buying a MacBook want that element of mobility you don’t have with a desktop, and M2 MacBooks are hardly slouches in terms of performance. Hell, even the M1 MacBook Air is still a beast in its own right—still one of the best bang-for-the-buck computers on the market.
The M3 iMac is a given—it’s just a matter of when. At this point, though, a larger iMac would be a surprise as I expect it would be expensive though perhaps not as absurd as the old iMac Pro.
The MacBook Air situation is…messy. How much longer will the old M1 Air be kept around? Most everyone thought the new M2 Air would replace the M1, but that didn’t happen. As it is there are essentially two entry level MacBook Airs. Is it conceivable Apple will eventually drop the old Air and adjust the price accordingly on the new 13 and 15 models? Or are they going to revamp the old Air and keep it as the entry level MacBook?
Last edited:
MBA M1 vs M2 are differentiated by price.
3rd party Apple resellers offer M1 as low as $749.99.
They could have stuck with snapdragon. When apple decided to make their own chips that was long before intel had ran out of runway. This doesn't even take into account AMD which makes excellent CPUs for laptops. A lot of the M1/M2 is marketing. Might be hard to believe but there are things the AMD chips are even better at. Apple did it because they can tailor everything. The one thing that led to IBMs hardware downfall was trying to keep everything inhouse while the OS was still a 3rd party. Here Apple is at a critical mass point where they can do anything they want. With as many devices out there they have all the resources they need. It takes the same effort to create an OS whether it's used by 1million or 1billion people. Apple is now on the other side of the curve where they can basically step-by-step justify bringing everything in-house.
Mark my words, we will not get M3 until it releases via an event. It just does not make sense.
Apple has had problems with Qualcomm's pricing.
Intel did not believe in the smartphone business when Apple approached them to make chips for it.
AMD does not have the resources Apple needed. It was only Intel.
AMD dGPU got picked by Apple because Nvidia did them bad. If Nvidia did not fail Apple they'd stick with them.
Apple goes with the largest player but when they fail them they look for alternatives.
Their chips are designed for their singular use case. It isn't diluted for other use cases.
That may be true but they may not fit 100% to Apple's present & future needs.
Apple's quarterly results do not reflect this. Perhaps in IBM's case it does.
We all know that all we ever get are incremental improvements.
In a consumer society, we have to keep buying stuff, so huge leaps are not desirable.
Separate box makes sense to me. I always hated having to toss the display, just because I needed to update the processor.
Plus this way people who have different display needs can budget their situation accordingly.
A “pro” all-in-one always seemed like such a waste.
I'm starting to think the iMac is going to start getting less love moving forward. Perhaps the way to go is Mac Mini and get a great monitor. Since the Monitor will always be usable when it's time to upgrade to another Mac Mini in the future.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Separates IS the best way to go because a good screen will easily outlast ANY Mac. Apple quits on even a loaded Mac Pro in about 7 years. But a good screen can go 10-15 years (or perhaps over TWO Macs entire lifetimes). Buy it married to Mac hardware and it's a "throw baby out with the bathwater" proposition when Apple vintages the Mac or any part of that Mac conks. Separates will let the screen continue to be used when it's over for the connected Mac.
I enjoyed iMac 27" form factors for more than a decade. But the best part about them is going in. At the end, you know that you are tossing a perfectly good screen because there's no further way to keep using it and no way to update the Mac guts. As far as I'm concerned, there's no way I go back to iMac.
It's still sad because there isn't anything that would prevent Apple from designing an iMac that could also be repurposed as external monitor. Or even perform double duty as a monitor for a game console with PiP mode or something like that.
I'm not a fan of the all-in-one form factor but still it's weird to see Apple neglect it.
It has been the core of its philosophy since 1984.
Usually the monitor is usable. Try connecting an old Cinema Display with that odd Apple Display Connector (DVI plus USB and power) to anything. That was one of Steve's screwups. Mostly because of the power connection, putting the USB and the video in the same cable was a good idea, but making the computer power the monitor limited both to no real gain. The computer power supply cost more and couldn't run a bigger monitor, and the monitor couldn't switch around between machines.
Try finding an ADC (from the video card) to DVI (on the monitor) adapter to keep a G4 running. But yet VGA is still widely available.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Right. And/or make the Mac guts upgradable. Basically remove the back cover, pull the Mac "on a card" that is now vintaged/old/"long in tooth", insert "latest/greatest" Mac on a card and reattach back cover. And/or do this as a service at Apple stores: bring in old iMac, they update the guts to latest Mac tech, leave with updated iMac.
Both options (use it as a monitor AND upgradable Mac guts) would be even better.
However, I expect Apple will never do either for some 💰💰💰 reason. So separates for the win.
Last edited:
A separate box is better. The Dell I had at former work had a good idea, the ultra-small form factor PC clipped into the back of a special monitor stand with a standard monitor clipped into the front. You could carry both around with a common handle.
The weak spot was the PC still connected to the monitor with cables; video, USB, sound, and separate power cords. This was before HDMI which would get rid of the sound cable.
A double ended power cord would get one cable to go away without making one power supply that had to handle handle both loads like the old ADC did. Everything else could run through a Thunderbolt port.
By the time I’d need to update the Mac Studio they’ll probably have new display tech out and I’ll want to update that as well so it kinda depends. Display tech moves a lot faster these days. That being said i wish i coulda just kept my 2017 imac as a display for my studio cus its virtually identical to the studio display itself.
It moves so fast that the $1599 Studio Display mounts the same panel as the original 2014 Retina iMac... and you could buy that same panel for $999 in 2016 as the LG UltraFine 5K.
Monitors are absolutely the slowest aging tech. Also high-end monitors from a decade or more ago, will still blow out of the water cheap models from the current market.