The Mac Studio isn't the xMac, but it's the closest we've ever been

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware
We've still not got the long, long hoped-for "xMac" mini-tower, but the new Mac Studio ticks a lot of boxes in that famous wishlist.




For at least two decades, the very longest of long-term Mac fans have been rooting for Apple to produce a spectacular machine that somehow along the way got called the xMac. It was speculated to deliver incredible performance, and it was said to be affordable.

This may explain why this remained a wishlist and rumored product, instead of an actual product.

Apple never actually released an xMac, obviously. We may never know if it tried. Apple is famous for prototyping products that never saw the light of day, and you just have to look at the now way-out-of-print Apple design book that documented them all.

And there is that famous image of Steve Jobs in his ridiculously untidy Apple office - with what looks like practically a toy version of the old cheese-grater Mac Pro on his desk.

Maybe that image, which is still hard to confirm provenance of, was the origin of this. Regardless of how it spawned, a certain segment of users longed for the xMac, and it was always seen as being an expandable mini-tower at the end of the PowerPC days and the dawn of Intel on Mac.

That said, this desire could also have been partly because there were a lot of mini-tower PCs around at the time. Or, maybe, because an entry-level G4 tower was $1499 for a while at the turn of the century.

Form follows function

Back in the 1990s, Apple itself had machines like the Macintosh Quadra 700, which came as a kind of mini-tower. That Quadra's 25MHz 68040 processor was never going to cut it as the fabled xMac, though.

Nor was the 2005 Mac mini, nor any of its successors. That machine was originally quite low-powered and, consequently, xMac fans became even more sure that a truly powerful new Mac was inevitable.

But now in 2022, maybe that is exactly what the new Mac Studio is.

It isn't a mini-tower, it's more like two Mac minis atop one another - or the greater part of a Mac G4 Cube with a bit sliced off. But if the desire for a mini-tower was ever anything more than aesthetic, it was with the notion that you could add more PCI-E cards and your own RAM to it.

That's not Apple today, not apart from the current Mac Pro. And even that in its Intel incarnation is on its last legs, as Apple seemed to relish pointing out.

"[Mac Studio joins] the rest of our incredible Mac lineup with Apple Silicon, making our transition nearly complete with just one more product to go Mac Pro," said John Ternus, senior vice president, hardware engineering, at the end of the March 8 event. "But that is for another day."


Mac Studio's xMac performance

So without the optional after-market cards, and the volume those would add, the Mac Studio's form factor offers both some of the desired aesthetics, and also the needed ventilation.

And, PCI-E cards aren't out of the question. Thunderbolt 3 enclosures are (generally) bigger than the Mac Studio is, and some cards do work. They just need proper drivers.

As for great performance, we will have to see and test the Mac Studio in the real world to be sure, but Apple's claims do seem to warrant the word "incredible."

"It's the first computer to put outrageous performance, extensive connectivity and entirely new capabilities into an unbelievably compact form that lives right on your desk where it's always within easy reach," said Colleen Novielli, product line manager, Mac, during the March 8 event.

"When you compare Mac Studio to our most powerful Mac desktops, the 27-inch iMac and Mac Pro, it takes performance to astonishing new heights," she continued. "For CPU performance, Mac Studio with M1 Max is up to 2.5 times faster than the fastest 27-inch iMac - and up to 50% faster than a Mac Pro with 16-core Xeon processor."

"[Then] CPU performance on Mac Studio with M1 Ultra is up to 3.8 times faster than the fastest 27-inch iMac," said Novielli, "and it's up to 90% faster than the Mac Pro with 16 cores. We can even compare Mac Studio with M1 Ultra to the Mac Pro with 28 cores - it's up to 60% faster."

Source: Apple
Source: Apple

The "xMac" was imagined to be headless

And while there never truly was a consensus over the precise specifications of the xMac, there was this. Waxing and waning for over a decade, fans wanted an xMac that was headless.

Mac Studio, like the entry-level Mac mini, and the top of the range - at least in price - Mac Pro, comes without a display. And Apple has launched quite the display to go with this new Mac.

Maybe true xMac fans have always been the type who want to assemble their own choice of absolute optimum systems, based around this fabled Mac. So maybe they wouldn't be drawn to the Apple Studio Display.

Just looking at the Mac itself, though, this new Mac Studio is not very much bigger than a Mac mini - and yet it is much faster than a Mac Pro. And it costs from $1,999, where the cheapest Mac Pro starts at $5,999.

That means Mac Studio has incredible performance. If it's not exactly affordable, it's a lot more affordable than the Mac Pro for the money, at the cost of the PCI-E slots.

So if xMac dreams were always about the machine itself instead of peripherals like the display, this Mac Studio has got to be the closest Apple has ever been - and maybe will ever be.

Read on AppleInsider
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 46
    Great work by Apple! I wish the SDXC slot was inclusive of CFexpress Type B. I wish the Mac Studio was made in the USA.
    macikeMacCatHatterwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 46
    USB-A ports, finally!!
    williamlondonmacikecgWerkstdknox
  • Reply 3 of 46
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,889member
    Yeah, this pretty much ticks all the boxes for me, with the exception of expandability (which in my case is just entry-level cost-savings). I don't have any cards to put in it, and I wonder how many people really do anymore.

    The big point of having enough computing power in a machine that can actually cool itself adequately, looks to be addressed (I assume it cools itself well enough to run full-out for long periods w/o degrading the hardware).

    I do wish eGPUs would return, so I could add even more future GPU power (whereas an xMac could have done that). But, aside from that, this is perfect (or better, given the form-factor).

    Bravo, Apple!

    (And, apologies to everyone who had to put up with so many of us complaining for years or decades, but I'd like to think maybe we played some role in this finally coming to fruition. The reason I say that, is because they absolutely could have built this thing to be just a bit taller than the current mini, w/o adequate cooling... which is what they've been doing for decades!)
    edited March 2022 mobirdtdknoxwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 46
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,567administrator
    lam92103 said:
    USB-A ports, finally!!
    They've never left the Mac mini, or Mac Pro. Any of Apple's desktops prior to the Apple Silicon iMac, for that matter.
    edited March 2022 StrangeDaysstompycgWerkstdknoxwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 46
    mobirdmobird Posts: 710member
    Boy 'oh boy how we were told "NOPE, never going to happen". 

    cgWerks said:

    Bravo, Apple!

    (And, apologies to everyone who had to put up with so many of us complaining for years or decades, but I'd like to think maybe we played some role in this finally coming to fruition. The reason I say that, is because they absolutely could have built this thing to be just a bit taller than the current mini, w/o adequate cooling... which is what they've been doing for decades!)

    cgWerksmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 46
    I was really hoping for an M1 Pro or M1 Max Mac Mini. The Studio is $1000.00 more and leaves a big gap between a higher powered Mac Mini and the Mac Studio. Once again Apple has ignored the sweet spot of the average upper end consumer.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 7 of 46
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 1,577member
    This is basically what the iMac Pro was when it came out: a stopgap for those who truly could not wait for apple to finish the Mac Pro. 

    The new big boy iMac Pro or whatever it’s called is not ready in 2022 and neither is the Mac Pro. So this will fill in the gap. 

    The only issue is the price. For something that doesn’t come with a screen, the max version seems like a really crappy price proposition compared to MacBook Pro. And the ultra, though powerful, has ridiculous upgrade prices for those who don't want the binned/handicapped chip. Starting at FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS is something we’d expect of an m1 ultra iMac Pro - screen included. 

    This mini tower of power is certainly awesome, but it’s not looking great at the price. Here Apple has full control of its hardware assets and the price somehow gets worse than with Intel. Ouch. 

    27” being the only size for the display is a bit of a letdown as well. And the 5k resolution is ok. But nothing special. Some of us have had 27” iMac 5ks for 7 years already. 

    Hopefully this means that a monster iMac 27” or hopefully larger is still on the way and hopefully it doesn’t start at $5,000 dollars. 
  • Reply 8 of 46
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,457member
    This is basically what the iMac Pro was when it came out: a stopgap for those who truly could not wait for apple to finish the Mac Pro. 

    The new big boy iMac Pro or whatever it’s called is not ready in 2022 and neither is the Mac Pro. So this will fill in the gap. 

    The only issue is the price. For something that doesn’t come with a screen, the max version seems like a really crappy price proposition compared to MacBook Pro. And the ultra, though powerful, has ridiculous upgrade prices for those who don't want the binned/handicapped chip. Starting at FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS is something we’d expect of an m1 ultra iMac Pro - screen included. 

    This mini tower of power is certainly awesome, but it’s not looking great at the price. Here Apple has full control of its hardware assets and the price somehow gets worse than with Intel. Ouch. 

    27” being the only size for the display is a bit of a letdown as well. And the 5k resolution is ok. But nothing special. Some of us have had 27” iMac 5ks for 7 years already. 

    Hopefully this means that a monster iMac 27” or hopefully larger is still on the way and hopefully it doesn’t start at $5,000 dollars. 
    Honestly, I don't think an iMac Pro really needs to exist anymore. This pretty much covers it and while yes its more expensive I think the benefits outweigh the extra price (see below). I think this is the iMac Pro replacement. 

    This is not comparable to a MacBook Pro. Not sure why you'd even try to compare the two. 

    You can also just go out and get whatever display you want. Apple isn't forcing you to get their display. If you want something cheaper then you can get that, if you wanted something more expensive such as the XDR Display then you can get that. It gives you more choices in the end. Also, if you do get the Apple display and want to replace the Mac later on you don't have to buy the display all over again every time. Or, if the display shits the bed you don't have to lose the entire Mac to get a fix. Just connect up a different display. 

    I do believe Apple will still make a 27" consumer level iMac even if it comes later this year after the new Mac Pro, but it won't be designed nor marketed as a Pro level iMac. 
    edited March 2022 watto_cobra9secondkox2
  • Reply 9 of 46
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,219member
    lilpir8 said:
    I was really hoping for an M1 Pro or M1 Max Mac Mini. The Studio is $1000.00 more and leaves a big gap between a higher powered Mac Mini and the Mac Studio. Once again Apple has ignored the sweet spot of the average upper end consumer.
    You are totally right, but the difference between a fully-equipped M1 Mac Mini and the lowest Studio is roughly $100 (in my currency.) That's not much of a gap between models.
    edited March 2022 watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 46
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,855member
    Kindof wish I had a legit reason to get one. I have a late 2012 Mini that is my home automation/security DVR and photo backup Mac. I have been planning to buy a new Mini so I can access some features in SecuritySpy that integrate with Homekit. The 2012 machine doesn't support those features. Now of course my wandering eye has landed here with the Mac Studio. The base config of the Studio would be more than enough to do everything I need, but I probably should wait for an upgraded Mini, which probably won't come soon.
    stompywatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 46
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,889member
    mobird said:

    Boy 'oh boy how we were told "NOPE, never going to happen". 
    To be fair, many wanted a mid-tower with slots and such. But, I think given the computing evolution that has happened since, and a practical solution to the actual issues, this is the xMac.

    lilpir8 said:
    I was really hoping for an M1 Pro or M1 Max Mac Mini. The Studio is $1000.00 more and leaves a big gap between a higher powered Mac Mini and the Mac Studio. Once again Apple has ignored the sweet spot of the average upper end consumer.
    Hmm... kind of, for the average consumer who needs more GPU power. The M1 mini should be fine for everyone else. And, if you go looking to buy a gaming PC, it is going to cost about what a entry level Studio costs. It would be nice to see something in-between mini w/ Pro chip, but I don't think the gap is that huge.

    Starting at FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS is something we’d expect of an m1 ultra iMac Pro - screen included. 
    The entry level Studio is just one spec-bump down from the top 14/16" MBP (24 core GPU Max instead of 32). So, it is more comparable to the $1999 one, not the $4,000 one. The $4000 one is two MBPs of power.

    macxpress said:
    You can also just go out and get whatever display you want. Apple isn't forcing you to get their display. If you want something cheaper then you can get that, if you wanted something more expensive such as the XDR Display then you can get that. It gives you more choices in the end. 
    Yeah, as nice as it looks, I'd have a hard time justifying it. One can buy nearly a half-dozen regular 4k monitors if you just need the screen space, or a couple really good ones. But, if you do splurge, it might be the last display you need to invest in for a long, long time. I honestly can't see ever needing more than 5k display. I get some high-res video editors need more, but I doubt I'll ever go beyond 27 or 28" and 5k. And, while i've never had one, I don't think one 5k really replaces 2x 4k for screen-space for CAD, 3D, etc.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 46
    rundhvidrundhvid Posts: 89member
    What is going on here?
    • Weight (M1 Max): 5.9 pounds (2.7 kg)2
    • Weight (M1 Ultra): 7.9 pounds (3.6 kg)2
    cgWerkswelshdogiqatedoargonautwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 46
    rezwitsrezwits Posts: 839member
    This is basically what the iMac Pro was when it came out: a stopgap for those who truly could not wait for apple to finish the Mac Pro. 

    This mini tower of power is certainly awesome, but it’s not looking great at the price. Here Apple has full control of its hardware assets and the price somehow gets worse than with Intel. Ouch. 

    27” being the only size for the display is a bit of a letdown as well. And the 5k resolution is ok. But nothing special. Some of us have had 27” iMac 5ks for 7 years already. 

    Hopefully this means that a monster iMac 27” or hopefully larger is still on the way and hopefully it doesn’t start at $5,000 dollars. 
    27" iMac (Pro/Not) is never coming out... unless the 24 gets phased out and transitioned to a 27"
    They are going colors with MacBook Airs and iMacs... they have basically cemented their "Color Lineup"

    Why didn't you get an MacMini M1?
    Why don't you wait till a MacMini M2 comes out? (and not buy that)
    Then you can complain that the M2 isn't enough?
    and just keep going on and on with these grapes man...
    watto_cobra9secondkox2
  • Reply 14 of 46
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,889member
    rundhvid said:
    What is going on here?
    • Weight (M1 Max): 5.9 pounds (2.7 kg)2
    • Weight (M1 Ultra): 7.9 pounds (3.6 kg)2
    Huh? I wonder if the Max has less power-supply/cooling/heatsink, etc. than they showed, as it doesn't need them? Interesting.
    iqatedorezwitswatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 46
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 1,577member
    The Mac Studio serves the same purpose that the old iMac Pro did - satiate customers who cannot wait for the Mac Pro.

    Intel Alder Lake and AMDs 64 core Trheadripper are actually fast. Fast enough that Apple moving the Mac Pro to those in order to provide an upgraded experience for the Mac Pro would cause the marketing charts to show less performance improvement when Apple finally releases the top dog in their performance lineup.

    The Studio is able to keep pace with and beat Intels and AMDs best chips due to the M1 Ultra, but the performance upgrade would not be so dramatic if Apple was upgrading from the latest CPUs from the aforementioned. 

    Once the Mac Pro is released, we may not see an update to the Mac Studio - or not many updates - similar to the OG iMac Pro. It serves a purpose but does not fit neatly into Apple's product roadmap.

    All signs pointed to a new iMac Pro or at least redesigned upgrade to the iMac 5k, and that is most likely the market Apple is aiming for, but cannot do it right just yet. Apple feels the YouTube generation may be into this Studio Mac, and it may be something of a testing-the-waters situation, but the reality is that a larger iMac can do everything the Studio can do but has a built in screen and actually comes with a keyboard and mouse. The Studio is basically a ripped apart and more expensive alternative to the larger iMac - great for profit margins, sucky for end users.

    The Studio is a great computer - it's awesome actually. but it's also a MASSIVE backward step from a 27-32" iMac in the following ways:
    • Aesthetics. It's just not a very pretty machine. Reminiscent of the trash can Mac Pro, but more squared off, and with a non-uniform port arrangement on the front.
    • It's priced well, but not nearly the VALUE PROPOSITION as the iMac which includes a screen, keyboard, and mouse.
    • Portability. Yes, the iMac and the Studio are desktops. But, as in the LAN party days of yore, many os us transport our iMacs to various locations to get stuff done. Whether it's a weekend conference, hosting an event, meeting up for collaboration over a week or so, laptops can feel restricting, so we quickly pack up the iMac and head out. It's great. With the Studio, you have to add tear-down time, extra packing, and set up hassle. The iMac is a better solution here. 
    • Clutter. The iMac doesn't need a cable for the display, so that's one more cable gone from your desk. 

    Another reason it may be taking Apple a while to get the grown up iMac out is that the M1 Ultra must generate some significant heat - not the Alder Lake stupid kind of heat mind you, but notable amounts of heat nonetheless. If the Ultra needs the kind of cooling engineered for the Studio, then heat management is an honest to goodness engineering challenge. Apple must feel they have not yet mastered the thermal challenge needed to be overcome in order to responsibly insert such a chip into a recognizably svelte iMac chassis. 

    That said, they will. Everything from change in silicon nanometers to more efficient cooling designs, to improved architecture in subsequent M series generations and even rethinking the iMac enclosure will allow the heat to be managed as we would expect. but this takes time to accomplish and so we wait. 

    In the meantime, the Studio is a nice stopgap and may eliminate the need for an iMac in some offices, studios, and homes. But for the reasons mentioned above, it will never truly be a replacement for the iMac and it would make sense for Apple to be engineering the larger 27-32" iMac as we speak, but not launching until 2023 as some rumors have stated. Personally, I was so spoiled by the truly amazing combination of performance, longevity, aesthetics, absence of clutter, and integration that the iMac 5k provided that I simply cannot settle for a bigger and better Mac Mini. The iMac is the way to go. I've considered the Studio as it is really great, but if I am spending that money, I am going to save a bit more and splurge on the iMac I really want. 

    Finally, it does not make sense that Apple would  produce a 24" iMac and then leave that as the only option. No one would. buy a 21" in 2022 and beyond, so 24" made sense.  but 24" is also inadequate for many, so there is the pent up demand for something bigger. That is where the future iMac comes in. Should be worth the wait. 

    Yes, Apple will have technically transitioned all product lines (and added a new one) when it gets to Mac Pro later this year - as was admitted in the Spring Event. But that does not mean that other variations of such product lines won't also be coming. 

    Of. course, I. could be wrong and Apple may have crushed the iMac fanbase by replacing it with a more PCesque desktop, but I doubt it. Guess we will find out by Spring 2022. They just can't go talking that up while trying to sell this brand new Studio and Display as that would be shooting themselves in the foot.
  • Reply 16 of 46
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 1,577member
    macxpress said:
    This is basically what the iMac Pro was when it came out: a stopgap for those who truly could not wait for apple to finish the Mac Pro. 

    The new big boy iMac Pro or whatever it’s called is not ready in 2022 and neither is the Mac Pro. So this will fill in the gap. 

    The only issue is the price. For something that doesn’t come with a screen, the max version seems like a really crappy price proposition compared to MacBook Pro. And the ultra, though powerful, has ridiculous upgrade prices for those who don't want the binned/handicapped chip. Starting at FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS is something we’d expect of an m1 ultra iMac Pro - screen included. 

    This mini tower of power is certainly awesome, but it’s not looking great at the price. Here Apple has full control of its hardware assets and the price somehow gets worse than with Intel. Ouch. 

    27” being the only size for the display is a bit of a letdown as well. And the 5k resolution is ok. But nothing special. Some of us have had 27” iMac 5ks for 7 years already. 

    Hopefully this means that a monster iMac 27” or hopefully larger is still on the way and hopefully it doesn’t start at $5,000 dollars. 
    Honestly, I don't think an iMac Pro really needs to exist anymore. This pretty much covers it and while yes its more expensive I think the benefits outweigh the extra price (see below). I think this is the iMac Pro replacement. 

    This is not comparable to a MacBook Pro. Not sure why you'd even try to compare the two. 

    You can also just go out and get whatever display you want. Apple isn't forcing you to get their display. If you want something cheaper then you can get that, if you wanted something more expensive such as the XDR Display then you can get that. It gives you more choices in the end. Also, if you do get the Apple display and want to replace the Mac later on you don't have to buy the display all over again every time. Or, if the display shits the bed you don't have to lose the entire Mac to get a fix. Just connect up a different display. 

    I do believe Apple will still make a 27" consumer level iMac even if it comes later this year after the new Mac Pro, but it won't be designed nor marketed as a Pro level iMac. 
    The Studio is literally a bigger Mac Mini. So the Studio actually did not need to exist at all.  The Studio display, sure. The Studio Mac? Nah. 

    We have an M1 Macbook and and M1 MAx version. Now an M1 Mac Mini and and Ultra version.

    So an M1 or M2 Ultra would. be perfect for the larger iMac as an upgrade to the M1 iMac.

    Saying the iMac doesn't need to exist because of the bigger Mac Mini is like saying the Macbook Pro 16 doesn't need to exist because of the IPad or the 14" Macbook Pro.

    Or like saying the Mac Pro won't need to exist because of the Studio.

    The iMac is a different device as it is all-inclusive, which is more desirable for many reasons. The Studio may fill a niche for those who just want things seperate, but it's no replacement for the iMac.

  • Reply 17 of 46
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 1,577member
    rezwits said:
    • This is basically what the iMac Pro was when it came out: a stopgap for those who truly could not wait for apple to finish the Mac Pro. 
      This mini tower of power is certainly awesome, but it’s not looking great at the price. Here Apple has full control of its hardware assets and the price somehow gets worse than with Intel. Ouch. 
      27” being the only size for the display is a bit of a letdown as well. And the 5k resolution is ok. But nothing special. Some of us have had 27” iMac 5ks for 7 years already. 
      Hopefully this means that a monster iMac 27” or hopefully larger is still on the way and hopefully it doesn’t start at $5,000 dollars. 
    • 27" iMac (Pro/Not) is never coming out... unless the 24 gets phased out and transitioned to a 27"
    • They are going colors with MacBook Airs and iMacs... they have basically cemented their "Color Lineup"
    • Why didn't you get an MacMini M1?
    • Why don't you wait till a MacMini M2 comes out? (and not buy that)
    • Then you can complain that the M2 isn't enough?
    • and just keep going on and on with these grapes man...
    Well, gee... let's see... 

    • I'd be fine with a 27" iMac not coming out if it is replaced by a larger screen (and hopefully higher resolution) version. 
    • I guess you missed where the Mac Studio and Studio Display launched with.... one color. 
    • Why did I not get an M1 Mac Mini? Simple.  It's not the device I am saving for. There are two Macs I will buy: 1) 16" Macbook Pro 2) large iMac.. the Mini is neither of those.  I have never owned one and never will. It's simply not for me.
    • Why don't I wait until a newer Mac Mini comes out? See the above answer.
    • I am not talking about M2 and I never had complaints about Apple Silicon, so you should probably stop trying to project words, agendas, and motivations onto others.

    There are no sour grapes. Simply conjecture concerning a product that no one asked for and doesn't seem to flow with the lineup. Sure, it may be that this is an addition to the tried and true lineup that appeals to a specific set of YouTubers, garage bands, etc.  But then again, an M series Ultra powered iMac would do this just as well or better.  Thus, I hypothesized that the Mac Studio is the "iMac Pro" of this. generation - a stopgap to buy development time - and processor generation time. As it is, the Mac Studio will be in a rough spot for cross shoppers when the Mac Pro comes out - Those who really want a Mini will buy a Mini. those who want true Pro power will skip the Studio and buy the Pro. It's too expensive to beat the Mini on price and will be underpowered compared to the Pro. Therefore, it is my hypothesis that this is a special stopgap that gives a semblance of Mac Pro power for those who want/need a future-proof Apple Silicon system NOW and cannot wait for the Pro to come out. It's. not a replacement for the Pro and not. a replacement for the larger iMac. It satisfies a special need to have high-performing Apple Silicon while avoiding serious criticism by being a new product and not having to live up to expectations that a Mac Pro or iMac would need to live up to.  

    There.  That wasn't so difficult to grasp. 
    edited March 2022 rezwits
  • Reply 18 of 46
    rezwitsrezwits Posts: 839member

    • I'd be fine with a 27" iMac not coming out if it is replaced by a larger screen (and hopefully higher resolution) version. 
    • I guess you missed where the Mac Studio and Studio Display launched with.... one color. 
    • Why did I not get an M1 Mac Mini? Simple.  It's not the device I am saving for. There are two Macs I will buy: 1) 16" Macbook Pro 2) large iMac.. the Mini is neither of those.  I have never owned one and never will. It's simply not for me.
    • Why don't I wait until a newer Mac Mini comes out? See the above answer.
    • I am not talking about M2 and I never had complaints about Apple Silicon, so you should probably stop trying to project words, agendas, and motivations onto others.

    There are no sour grapes. Simply conjecture concerning a product that no one asked for and doesn't seem to flow with the lineup. Sure, it may be that this is an addition to the tried and true lineup that appeals to a specific set of YouTubers, ... ...  not a replacement for the Pro and not. a replacement for the larger iMac. It satisfies a special need to have high-performing Apple Silicon while avoiding serious criticism by being a new product and not having to live up to expectations that a Mac Pro or iMac would need to live up to.  

    There.  That wasn't so difficult to grasp. 
    I liked your response.  I guess I just saw the term "stopgap" with a negative connotation.  Where as in my mind this is more like a puzzle piece fitting right in.  Mac Mini -> Mac Studio -> Mac Pro

    I am just curious tho; You would't buy an M2 MacMini with 32GB of RAM and 1TB for say $1199 to $1399?
    You gotta have that "All-in-One" build still?  There may be the YouTubers etc, but man there are some people who just are on the other side of the fence on the All-in-One subject, besides a laptop being such.  And making a full color lineup of iMacs with P3 Displays is pretty rugged.

    The "Color Ways" I was referring to were the (iDevices) iPhone, iPad Air, iMac, and the possible future M2 MacBook (Air) (or iBooks if renamed sweetly) in a color array.
    The higher cost models are mostly likely gonna be one metal or the other, except maybe the laptops, i.e. Silver or Space...

    Late
    cgWerks
  • Reply 19 of 46
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,889member
    The Mac Studio serves the same purpose that the old iMac Pro did - satiate customers who cannot wait for the Mac Pro.

    ... Once the Mac Pro is released, we may not see an update to the Mac Studio - or not many updates - similar to the OG iMac Pro. It serves a purpose but does not fit neatly into Apple's product roadmap.

    All signs pointed to a new iMac Pro or at least redesigned upgrade to the iMac 5k, and that is most likely the market Apple is aiming for, but cannot do it right just yet. ...
    Hmm, I think (and hope) you're wrong on this. While I hope they do add some form of more powerful iMac to the mix, I think Apple's product line finally makes sense. Having a Mac mini, a Mac Studio, and then a Mac Pro is finally a reasonable product lineup. I see no reason they wouldn't just maintain this going forward with an M2, M3, etc. upgrade each year like the iPhones.

    The iMac future is less certain to me, but it would make sense to eventually either give the screen-size as a BTO option, and/or add more powerful chips. Certainly, having an iMac Pro to go with the iMac makes sense. The question will be whether that will be a 'Pro' in the sense of MacBook vs MBP (ie. Pro/Max chips), or 'Pro' in the sense of the previous iMac Pro, having similar/near Mac Pro performance. My hunch is that the stopgap here isn't the Studio, but the previous iMac Pro.

    9secondkox2 said:
    The Studio is literally a bigger Mac Mini. So the Studio actually did not need to exist at all.  The Studio display, sure. The Studio Mac? Nah.
    ...
    The iMac is a different device as it is all-inclusive, which is more desirable for many reasons. The Studio may fill a niche for those who just want things seperate, but it's no replacement for the iMac.
    There has been a huge gap, though, between the mini and Mac Pro. So, the Studio is *finally* a gap-filler. It makes perfect sense.

    I hope you get your iMac Pro. I see a market for that as well, and I don't think Apple should be deciding not to fill market holes just because a model isn't popular enough (cf. my rants on the iPhone mini!). The product lineup needs to make sense, not just sales figures. The Mac Pro needs to exist as well, even if many aren't sold.

    So, I totally support your idea an iMac Pro of some form needs to exist, even if one can buy a Studio or Mac Pro with a separate display. Having *just* the 24" iMac doesn't make much sense. But, they need BOTH, not one or the other. If one has to give (a choice I don't think that needs to be), I'd argue the Studio is more important than the pro iMac, because at least you *CAN* do the box + display. If you only get the iMac option, and then then it can't perform enough, cool itself properly, or have features like video input, then a whole range of users are totally screwed with the Mac Pro being the only option (as it has been for decades!).

    9secondkox2 said:
    It satisfies a special need to have high-performing Apple Silicon while avoiding serious criticism by being a new product and not having to live up to expectations that a Mac Pro or iMac would need to live up to.  
    It is a big special need though... and a primary reason so much of the Apple community has been screaming for the xMac. If you any kind of professional, or serious hobbyist work, there has been a major problem with Apple's lineup. Most of us can't afford a Mac Pro, especially in a serious enough configuration to make a difference. The laptops and iMacs have barely been a choice either. The new 16" MBP kind of fit (finally) if we want something that big primarily for a desktop. The iMac Pro was close, but kind of pricy, and still an edge-case in terms of cooling/longevity from what I understand.

    Yes, it is a new product to the lineup, but one that has been seriously needed. I'm not arguing there shouldn't ALSO be a pro iMac, but I don't think anyone is expecting the Studio to be the new Mac Pro. We all know a Mac Pro is coming (probably at similar pricing to current) if we need that kind of extreme performance.

    rezwits said:
    I liked your response.  I guess I just saw the term "stopgap" with a negative connotation.  Where as in my mind this is more like a puzzle piece fitting right in.  Mac Mini -> Mac Studio -> Mac Pro
    ...
    The "Color Ways" I was referring to were the (iDevices) iPhone, iPad Air, iMac, and the possible future M2 MacBook (Air) (or iBooks if renamed sweetly) in a color array.
    The higher cost models are mostly likely gonna be one metal or the other, except maybe the laptops, i.e. Silver or Space...
    Same here. Didn't Apple even admit the iMac Pro *was* a stopgap effort? I'm arguing for *both* as I think both have good customer-bases, even if an iMac Pro is rather easily replaced in end-output by a Mac Studio + display. I'm a form-factor/aesthetics kind of person though, so just like I'm not happy with a MBP + display + docks in place of a good desktop, I understand the people wanting a more powerful iMac as well. I think Apple should *reasonably* cover the product line, just like they should with phones (but might not).
    rezwits
  • Reply 20 of 46
    thttht Posts: 4,720member
    cgWerks said:
    rundhvid said:
    What is going on here?
    • Weight (M1 Max): 5.9 pounds (2.7 kg)2
    • Weight (M1 Ultra): 7.9 pounds (3.6 kg)2
    Huh? I wonder if the Max has less power-supply/cooling/heatsink, etc. than they showed, as it doesn't need them? Interesting.
    The Mac Studio with a M1 Ultra uses a copper heatsink while the Mac Studio with the M1 Max uses an aluminum heatsink. That accounts for the vast majority of the weight difference.

    Kind of disappointing that they resorted to copper. There is still a bit of designing a product from the outside in. So, they choose a Mac mini footprint of 7.7 x 7.x7 inches and very purposefully choose 3.7 inch height before they knew how hot the Ultra was going to be. 3.7 inch is very deliberate because they wanted it to be able to sit underneath a Studio Display. And 7.7 x 7.7 footprint seems sacrosanct because of the Mac mini and the ecosystem developed around it?
    williamlondoncgWerks
Sign In or Register to comment.