"2017 4K, 5K iMacs won't support Target Display Mode".
Which means such expensive iMac is over after 7 years (not allowing further macOS updates). Apple should stop programmed obsolescence and release an affordable minitower Mac plus display. CPU may last for 7 years, but displays last more than 20 years. All-in-one desktops are a waste of energy, anti-ecological and aggression to planet Earth!
This is a ridiculous statement from top to bottom. They are no more or less "anti-ecological and aggression to planet Earth" than discrete monitors and towers are. Perhaps less so, because of less material used requiring rare earths in an AIO than in two units, two power supplies, et cetera.
"2017 4K, 5K iMacs won't support Target Display Mode".
Which means such expensive iMac is over after 7 years (not allowing further macOS updates). Apple should stop programmed obsolescence and release an affordable minitower Mac plus display. CPU may last for 7 years, but displays last more than 20 years. All-in-one desktops are a waste of energy, anti-ecological and aggression to planet Earth!
Other than you...nobody else uses a 20yr old display. You need to stop saying this BS every time something comes up about the iMac. You're really making yourself look extremely dumb. This comment doesn't make any sense at all and never has. I don't know why you need posting the same thing over and over.
Apple has tried a couple of times to make a lower cost tower...even a more capable one than the Mac mini and every time consumers still buy the iMac so what does that tell you? Apple is not Dell and will not create a $499 tower that is expandable. If you want that, you know where to look.
"2017 4K, 5K iMacs won't support Target Display Mode".
Which means such expensive iMac is over after 7 years (not allowing further macOS updates). Apple should stop programmed obsolescence and release an affordable minitower Mac plus display. CPU may last for 7 years, but displays last more than 20 years. All-in-one desktops are a waste of energy, anti-ecological and aggression to planet Earth!
Its called a Mac mini...nobody buys it. Got anymore bright ideas?
I've seen the quad core mini arbitraged on eBay... Is there an obvious void between a maxed out mini @ $1,400 and the now base tower at $2,999, despite the iMac ? Oddly on the mini the base 1.4 model appears to have faster graphics (entry level computer vs server rationale) than the i7? <p> Like an iMac Pro, could a Mini Pro offer a compelling option simply adding quad core i7, decent discrete graphics and industry standard user upgradable drive(s) and ram? All these have been available in past, so presumably feasible, yet discontinued by design in favour of...? <p> To me if sales represent perhaps <10% of the desktop market, is this one area where growth has been thwarted simply by limitations in design? <p> Also how can Apple know how many use or used Target Display ??? If so what else are they able to know ?
"2017 4K, 5K iMacs won't support Target Display Mode".
Which means such expensive iMac is over after 7 years (not allowing further macOS updates). Apple should stop programmed obsolescence and release an affordable minitower Mac plus display. CPU may last for 7 years, but displays last more than 20 years. All-in-one desktops are a waste of energy, anti-ecological and aggression to planet Earth!
Its called a Mac mini...nobody buys it. Got anymore bright ideas?
I've seen the quad core mini arbitraged on eBay... Is there an obvious void between a maxed out mini @ $1,400 and the now base tower at $2,999, despite the iMac ? Oddly on the mini the base 1.4 model appears to have faster graphics (entry level computer vs server rationale) than the i7?
Like an iMac Pro, could a Mini Pro offer a compelling option simply adding quad core i7, decent discrete graphics and industry standard user upgradable drive(s) and ram? All these have been available in past, so presumably feasible, yet discontinued by design in favour of...?
To me if sales represent perhaps <10% of the desktop market, is this one area where growth has been thwarted simply by limitations in design?
Also how can Apple know how many use or used Target Display ??? If so what else are they able to know ?
Apple collects a great deal of anonymous data from crash logs. What's attached to TB, USB, and FireWire chains is one of those things.
"2017 4K, 5K iMacs won't support Target Display Mode".
Which means such expensive iMac is over after 7 years (not allowing further macOS updates). Apple should stop programmed obsolescence and release an affordable minitower Mac plus display. CPU may last for 7 years, but displays last more than 20 years. All-in-one desktops are a waste of energy, anti-ecological and aggression to planet Earth!
Its called a Mac mini...nobody buys it. Got anymore bright ideas?
I've seen the quad core mini arbitraged on eBay... Is there an obvious void between a maxed out mini @ $1,400 and the now base tower at $2,999, despite the iMac ? Oddly on the mini the base 1.4 model appears to have faster graphics (entry level computer vs server rationale) than the i7? <p> Like an iMac Pro, could a Mini Pro offer a compelling option simply adding quad core i7, decent discrete graphics and industry standard user upgradable drive(s) and ram? All these have been available in past, so presumably feasible, yet discontinued by design in favour of...? <p> To me if sales represent perhaps <10% of the desktop market, is this one area where growth has been thwarted simply by limitations in design? <p> Also how can Apple know how many use or used Target Display ??? If so what else are they able to know ?
The thing is though is Apple has tried to offer a lower end tower back in the PowerMac G5 days and people end up buying either the Mac mini, iMac or a higher priced PowerMac G5 depending on their needs. They've offered a G4 Cube and the majority bought the iMac anyways. Even if Apple did this today, by the time you buy the tower, and then buy a display you're at the price of an iMac so why mess around with a cable mess when you can just take 1 thing out of the box and plug 1 cable in and you're off and running? Most are not going to just buy a new tower. Why do you think most PC manufacturers include a display with the tower? What Appex wants is for Apple to make a $799 tower so he can be cheap and get that to use with his supposed 20yr old display which is absolutely NOT what consumers do. This isn't ever going to happen. It didn't happen with Steve and its not going to happen with Tim. Apple is not in a race to the bottom. You can't make a good computer have it that cheap at the same time.
There has to be a reason why consumers just go toward the iMac in the end. In my opinion its all about value and in the end, you're getting more value for an iMac today versus a standalone tower/mini desktop (Mac mini) and a separate display.
I'd like to see some data on how many PC users buy just a tower rather than a new tower and display? If the majority of consumers get a new display with a new computer then its actually WORSE than what Appex claims the iMac is as PC's generally don't last as long as Macs do so more displays will end up in landfills and/or recycling centers depending on how someone chooses to get rid of their old equipment.
"2017 4K, 5K iMacs won't support Target Display Mode".
Which means such expensive iMac is over after 7 years (not allowing further macOS updates). Apple should stop programmed obsolescence and release an affordable minitower Mac plus display. CPU may last for 7 years, but displays last more than 20 years. All-in-one desktops are a waste of energy, anti-ecological and aggression to planet Earth!
Other than you...nobody else uses a 20yr old display. You need to stop saying this BS every time something comes up about the iMac. You're really making yourself look extremely dumb. This comment doesn't make any sense at all and never has. I don't know why you need posting the same thing over and over.
Apple has tried a couple of times to make a lower cost tower...even a more capable one than the Mac mini and every time consumers still buy the iMac so what does that tell you? Apple is not Dell and will not create a $499 tower that is expandable. If you want that, you know where to look.
What lower cost tower??
Consumers buy what is most aggressively marketed (the exception being conscientious consumers, few of whom exist because it takes giving a damn about things and investigating all options). How much marketing did Apple do for standalone computers and monitors compared to iMacs?
The market drives the consumers, not the other way around.
I was considering using target display mode on my recently acquired 2011 iMac so I could leave the PC display off my desk permanently. I wasn't happy about the notion of buying a converter device but considered a new GPU which has a DisplayPort on it. Double my benefit (improved GPU and one less display on the desk).
I really hope they don't remove target disk mode next. I wouldn't have been able to move to a newer Mac nearly as efficiently without it.
"2017 4K, 5K iMacs won't support Target Display Mode".
Which means such expensive iMac is over after 7 years (not allowing further macOS updates). Apple should stop programmed obsolescence and release an affordable minitower Mac plus display. CPU may last for 7 years, but displays last more than 20 years. All-in-one desktops are a waste of energy, anti-ecological and aggression to planet Earth!
Its called a Mac mini...nobody buys it. Got anymore bright ideas?
I've seen the quad core mini arbitraged on eBay... Is there an obvious void between a maxed out mini @ $1,400 and the now base tower at $2,999, despite the iMac ? Oddly on the mini the base 1.4 model appears to have faster graphics (entry level computer vs server rationale) than the i7? <p> Like an iMac Pro, could a Mini Pro offer a compelling option simply adding quad core i7, decent discrete graphics and industry standard user upgradable drive(s) and ram? All these have been available in past, so presumably feasible, yet discontinued by design in favour of...? <p> To me if sales represent perhaps <10% of the desktop market, is this one area where growth has been thwarted simply by limitations in design? <p> Also how can Apple know how many use or used Target Display ??? If so what else are they able to know ?
The thing is though is Apple has tried to offer a lower end tower back in the PowerMac G5 days and people end up buying either the Mac mini, iMac or a higher priced PowerMac G5 depending on their needs. They've offered a G4 Cube and the majority bought the iMac anyways. Even if Apple did this today, by the time you buy the tower, and then buy a display you're at the price of an iMac so why mess around with a cable mess when you can just take 1 thing out of the box and plug 1 cable in and you're off and running? Most are not going to just buy a new tower. Why do you think most PC manufacturers include a display with the tower? What Appex wants is for Apple to make a $799 tower so he can be cheap and get that to use with his supposed 20yr old display which is absolutely NOT what consumers do. This isn't ever going to happen. It didn't happen with Steve and its not going to happen with Tim. Apple is not in a race to the bottom. You can't make a good computer have it that cheap at the same time.
There has to be a reason why consumers just go toward the iMac in the end. In my opinion its all about value and in the end, you're getting more value for an iMac today versus a standalone tower/mini desktop (Mac mini) and a separate display.
I'd like to see some data on how many PC users buy just a tower rather than a new tower and display? If the majority of consumers get a new display with a new computer then its actually WORSE than what Appex claims the iMac is as PC's generally don't last as long as Macs do so more displays will end up in landfills and/or recycling centers depending on how someone chooses to get rid of their old equipment.
I agree the iMac is a fantastic value for features and performance. And for the 'consumer' as mentioned... A primary assumption yet does this reply shift the goal posts? <p> As someone who has used high end vertical apps for multiple decades and has generally needed / bought all 'pro' macs, I would refer again to the question of flexibility, for the non-consumer ie. (creative) pro users... I for one have 3 screens on my desk, all 27" or larger, 2 (pro) macs and a server linked to the non-Apple display that allows such, and target display is used, as well as VESA for portrait mode for spreadsheets and website research, and all at 110dpi vs retina. I suggest once portrait is tried, landscape seems quite a compromise... <p> If target display worked & VESA could be switched I'd buy an iMac. If the TB2/TB3 adapter had worked with mDP, or TB displays had been available, I'd still have the loaded rMBP returned. <p> I could see target display also working for families, where a house iMac gets put into target display service by a pro parent's laptop ? <p> So for those consumers, writers, and general users keep on trucking - you have an awesome value and computer in the iMac, but for some (many?) professionals, has the seemingly eroding flexibility thwarted rather than encouraged high end (and margin) hardware upgrades ? Such concerns seem easy to find online, and I have to ask if the 90% or so on PC would ever consider such an inflexible approach. Will the Surface Studio be interesting to watch in this regard...?
"2017 4K, 5K iMacs won't support Target Display Mode".
Which means such expensive iMac is over after 7 years (not allowing further macOS updates). Apple should stop programmed obsolescence and release an affordable minitower Mac plus display. CPU may last for 7 years, but displays last more than 20 years. All-in-one desktops are a waste of energy, anti-ecological and aggression to planet Earth!
Other than you...nobody else uses a 20yr old display. You need to stop saying this BS every time something comes up about the iMac. You're really making yourself look extremely dumb. This comment doesn't make any sense at all and never has. I don't know why you need posting the same thing over and over.
Apple has tried a couple of times to make a lower cost tower...even a more capable one than the Mac mini and every time consumers still buy the iMac so what does that tell you? Apple is not Dell and will not create a $499 tower that is expandable. If you want that, you know where to look.
What lower cost tower??
Consumers buy what is most aggressively marketed (the exception being conscientious consumers, few of whom exist because it takes giving a damn about things and investigating all options). How much marketing did Apple do for standalone computers and monitors compared to iMacs?
The market drives the consumers, not the other way around.
Well considering Apple doesn't really market any of its Macs thats really a moot point. The bottomline is Apple offered this and people don't buy it. Apple today offers a Mac mini today which is a standalone desktop Mac so you can use ANY display you want. The issue is, by the you get one and then get a display that isn't a piece of shit you're right back into the territory of an iMac. Its been stated that the Mac mini is at or near the bottom of Mac sales. When you walk into a Best Buy, Apple Retail store or any other store that sells Macs you see right on the table a Mac mini and iMac. You have just as much opportunity to see and use a Mac mini vs an iMac.
"2017 4K, 5K iMacs won't support Target Display Mode".
Which means such expensive iMac is over after 7 years (not allowing further macOS updates). Apple should stop programmed obsolescence and release an affordable minitower Mac plus display. CPU may last for 7 years, but displays last more than 20 years. All-in-one desktops are a waste of energy, anti-ecological and aggression to planet Earth!
Its called a Mac mini...nobody buys it. Got anymore bright ideas?
I've seen the quad core mini arbitraged on eBay... Is there an obvious void between a maxed out mini @ $1,400 and the now base tower at $2,999, despite the iMac ? Oddly on the mini the base 1.4 model appears to have faster graphics (entry level computer vs server rationale) than the i7? <p> Like an iMac Pro, could a Mini Pro offer a compelling option simply adding quad core i7, decent discrete graphics and industry standard user upgradable drive(s) and ram? All these have been available in past, so presumably feasible, yet discontinued by design in favour of...? <p> To me if sales represent perhaps <10% of the desktop market, is this one area where growth has been thwarted simply by limitations in design? <p> Also how can Apple know how many use or used Target Display ??? If so what else are they able to know ?
The thing is though is Apple has tried to offer a lower end tower back in the PowerMac G5 days and people end up buying either the Mac mini, iMac or a higher priced PowerMac G5 depending on their needs. They've offered a G4 Cube and the majority bought the iMac anyways. Even if Apple did this today, by the time you buy the tower, and then buy a display you're at the price of an iMac so why mess around with a cable mess when you can just take 1 thing out of the box and plug 1 cable in and you're off and running? Most are not going to just buy a new tower. Why do you think most PC manufacturers include a display with the tower? What Appex wants is for Apple to make a $799 tower so he can be cheap and get that to use with his supposed 20yr old display which is absolutely NOT what consumers do. This isn't ever going to happen. It didn't happen with Steve and its not going to happen with Tim. Apple is not in a race to the bottom. You can't make a good computer have it that cheap at the same time.
There has to be a reason why consumers just go toward the iMac in the end. In my opinion its all about value and in the end, you're getting more value for an iMac today versus a standalone tower/mini desktop (Mac mini) and a separate display.
I'd like to see some data on how many PC users buy just a tower rather than a new tower and display? If the majority of consumers get a new display with a new computer then its actually WORSE than what Appex claims the iMac is as PC's generally don't last as long as Macs do so more displays will end up in landfills and/or recycling centers depending on how someone chooses to get rid of their old equipment.
So for those consumers, writers, and general users keep on trucking - you have an awesome value and computer in the iMac, but for some (many?) professionals, has the seemingly eroding flexibility thwarted rather than encouraged high end (and margin) hardware upgrades ? Such concerns seem easy to find online, and I have to ask if the 90% or so on PC would ever consider such an inflexible approach. Will the Surface Studio be interesting to watch in this regard...?
I doubt the Surface Studio would be anything interesting to watch. Its so overpriced for what you get its not even funny. Microsoft wants to think they're Apple and they're not. Not even close...
I'm sure it wasn't. Wizard's right; the complexity (meaning: costs associated therewith) of implementing it is likely why it was removed. I would say it was also removed so that Apple could sell more external displays, but they don't make those anymore, do they…
Which wouldn't make any more sense even if they did since there are a hundred other display manufacturers and in this paranoid conspiracy narrative there'd be no way for Apple to ensure you'd buy one of theirs over a competitors.
Also, Schiller said they're working on their next monitor.
With no better explanation from Apple it just feels user-hostile. Removing a really nice benefit without any clear reason just feels like Apple doesn't love us anymore.
They would do well to tell us more than what they have so far.
Nicely put: Apple doesn't love us anymore. It's a more money driven company than before.
You guys are hilarious. No matter how reasonable Apple execs are in interviews and explaining other things, you always invent these mustache-twirling conspiracies on how they're trying to screw you.
"2017 4K, 5K iMacs won't support Target Display Mode".
Which means such expensive iMac is over after 7 years (not allowing further macOS updates). Apple should stop programmed obsolescence and release an affordable minitower Mac plus display. CPU may last for 7 years, but displays last more than 20 years. All-in-one desktops are a waste of energy, anti-ecological and aggression to planet Earth!
This is pure nonsense or the highest order. Nobody is using 20 year old monitors -- their resolution is crap and you'd need many dongles.
My AIO is 6 years old and still on my desktop. Macs get much longer useful lifespans and thus fill less landfill than PCs. Plus they are highly recyclable. Apple gets the highest marks from Green peace.
Apple is hilarious. Keep taking use away and sell it off as a plausible reason like nobody uses it anyway after first saying it was removed because of inability, then saying it's never coming back. Just another reason to people not to upgrade and keep it up and soon people will have no reason to need you as Google is giving us enough to do without your ecosystem and we can then grab real hardware and enter an ecosystem that allows optimal workflow instead of this VIP fashionista club Apple is turning into. Sincerely, Proud Owner of All 2011 Steve Job products that are upgradable, work, can be fixed, has ports, has Target display mode, antiglare screens, 17", Ethernet, optical drives, battery indicators, MagSafe, digital audio in and outs. All MIA on your new useless crap. Tim Cook sucks.
Troll trope nonsense -- Jobs hated slots and worked to make the original Mac not user serviceable. Fact.
"2017 4K, 5K iMacs won't support Target Display Mode".
Which means such expensive iMac is over after 7 years (not allowing further macOS updates). Apple should stop programmed obsolescence and release an affordable minitower Mac plus display. CPU may last for 7 years, but displays last more than 20 years. All-in-one desktops are a waste of energy, anti-ecological and aggression to planet Earth!
Other than you...nobody else uses a 20yr old display. You need to stop saying this BS every time something comes up about the iMac. You're really making yourself look extremely dumb. This comment doesn't make any sense at all and never has. I don't know why you need posting the same thing over and over.
Apple has tried a couple of times to make a lower cost tower...even a more capable one than the Mac mini and every time consumers still buy the iMac so what does that tell you? Apple is not Dell and will not create a $499 tower that is expandable. If you want that, you know where to look.
What lower cost tower??
Consumers buy what is most aggressively marketed (the exception being conscientious consumers, few of whom exist because it takes giving a damn about things and investigating all options). How much marketing did Apple do for standalone computers and monitors compared to iMacs?
The market drives the consumers, not the other way around.
This is victim mentality nonsense. The market votes with its dollars. Jobs explained why they stopped selling Xservers -- "People weren't buying them." plenty of other examples....if something doesn't sell it gets shitcanned. Consumers are not helpless lemmings.
I have an iMac at home for a personal machine and I use Target Display Mode when I worked from home with my corporate computer. It's a must have feature for me to justify the cost of the iMac for home. Now I'll probably just buy a nice monitor and a used Mac Mini. But I also don't have a lot of faith that Apple is going to continue to support the Mac Mini.
Comments
"Programmed obsolescence" isn't even a thing.
Apple has tried a couple of times to make a lower cost tower...even a more capable one than the Mac mini and every time consumers still buy the iMac so what does that tell you? Apple is not Dell and will not create a $499 tower that is expandable. If you want that, you know where to look.
<p>
Like an iMac Pro, could a Mini Pro offer a compelling option simply adding quad core i7, decent discrete graphics and industry standard user upgradable drive(s) and ram? All these have been available in past, so presumably feasible, yet discontinued by design in favour of...?
<p>
To me if sales represent perhaps <10% of the desktop market, is this one area where growth has been thwarted simply by limitations in design?
<p>
Also how can Apple know how many use or used Target Display ??? If so what else are they able to know ?
For thousands of dollars more.
lol BSOD and hundreds of dollars in tech support per person per year.
Target display mode is something I've only used a handful of times in a pinch.
There has to be a reason why consumers just go toward the iMac in the end. In my opinion its all about value and in the end, you're getting more value for an iMac today versus a standalone tower/mini desktop (Mac mini) and a separate display.
I'd like to see some data on how many PC users buy just a tower rather than a new tower and display? If the majority of consumers get a new display with a new computer then its actually WORSE than what Appex claims the iMac is as PC's generally don't last as long as Macs do so more displays will end up in landfills and/or recycling centers depending on how someone chooses to get rid of their old equipment.
You're welcome!
Consumers buy what is most aggressively marketed (the exception being conscientious consumers, few of whom exist because it takes giving a damn about things and investigating all options). How much marketing did Apple do for standalone computers and monitors compared to iMacs?
The market drives the consumers, not the other way around.
I really hope they don't remove target disk mode next. I wouldn't have been able to move to a newer Mac nearly as efficiently without it.
<p>
As someone who has used high end vertical apps for multiple decades and has generally needed / bought all 'pro' macs, I would refer again to the question of flexibility, for the non-consumer ie. (creative) pro users... I for one have 3 screens on my desk, all 27" or larger, 2 (pro) macs and a server linked to the non-Apple display that allows such, and target display is used, as well as VESA for portrait mode for spreadsheets and website research, and all at 110dpi vs retina. I suggest once portrait is tried, landscape seems quite a compromise...
<p>
If target display worked & VESA could be switched I'd buy an iMac. If the TB2/TB3 adapter had worked with mDP, or TB displays had been available, I'd still have the loaded rMBP returned.
<p>
I could see target display also working for families, where a house iMac gets put into target display service by a pro parent's laptop ?
<p>
So for those consumers, writers, and general users keep on trucking - you have an awesome value and computer in the iMac, but for some (many?) professionals, has the seemingly eroding flexibility thwarted rather than encouraged high end (and margin) hardware upgrades ? Such concerns seem easy to find online, and I have to ask if the 90% or so on PC would ever consider such an inflexible approach. Will the Surface Studio be interesting to watch in this regard...?
I doubt the Surface Studio would be anything interesting to watch. Its so overpriced for what you get its not even funny. Microsoft wants to think they're Apple and they're not. Not even close...
Also, Schiller said they're working on their next monitor.
You guys are hilarious. No matter how reasonable Apple execs are in interviews and explaining other things, you always invent these mustache-twirling conspiracies on how they're trying to screw you.
This feature hasnt been with us for three years.
Nonsense, MBP has USB ports.
This is pure nonsense or the highest order. Nobody is using 20 year old monitors -- their resolution is crap and you'd need many dongles.
My AIO is 6 years old and still on my desktop. Macs get much longer useful lifespans and thus fill less landfill than PCs. Plus they are highly recyclable. Apple gets the highest marks from Green peace.
So so what are you smoking?
Troll trope nonsense -- Jobs hated slots and worked to make the original Mac not user serviceable. Fact.
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Diagnostic_Port.txt
So so you don't even know what you're talking about when it comes to Jobs.