Updated 24-inch iMac may not arrive until late 2023

AppleInsider

Apple's update to the 24-inch iMac may not arrive until the M3 generation, a report claims, one that could wait until the end of 2023 to turn up.

24-inch iMac

The 24-inch iMac was launched by Apple in May 2021, but it has yet to receive any major updates to its specification. Approaching two years after its introduction, it seems the wait could end up being a lot longer, with Apple apparently timing it for the M3 chip launch.

According to Mark Gurman in his "Power On" newsletter for Bloomberg on Sunday, Apple is expected to completely skip the M2 generation of chips for the updated iMac. Instead, a launch is anticipated for the M3.

"I haven't seen anything to indicate there will be a New iMac until the M3 chip generation," writes Gurman, which means a launch would happen near the end of 2023 at the earliest, or early in 2024.

Current rumors puts Apple at shipping an M3-based MacBook Air in the second half of 2023, as part of what would be the fastest upgrade cycle for an Apple Silicon Mac so far.

Gurman previously said in April 2022 that an M3 iMac, as well as a new iMac Pro, were on the way but scheduled for a 2023 launch. By July, Gurman doubled down on the M3 claims, specifically mentioning a "larger-screened iMac aimed at the professional market" that could use an M3 Pro or M3 Max, but that there was still a long wait for their arrival.

Read on AppleInsider

dutchlord

Waiting for the 27 inch M3 iMac

charlesn

This makes sense. If you need a faster desktop than the current fastest iMacs, Apple has you well-covered with the Mac Mini and Studio models. (And it's not as if current iMacs are slow for standard business applications.) Plus, we know the standard M2 is not a big leap over the standard M1. 

The Macbook Air M3 rumor gets a poop emoji from me. No way will Apple upgrade the first total Air redesign in 14 years less than 18 months after it debuted. 

rods5

I too am waiting for a M3 iMac 27” or larger all in one Mac.  The Mac Mini is OK, but what other 27” or larger display will be good to great and not cost you a arm and a leg like the Apple Studio display @ $1,599, which is the cost of an iMac all by itself.  

And the Mac Studio starts at $1,999, plus the Studio display, brings the total to $3,598 for a entry version of the Mac Studio. 

Where is the M2 or M3 27” iMac?  I want two of them!  I am waiting!!!  What say you, Apple?

9secondkox2

Probably won’t upgrade my max until the larger iMac is relaunched. My last iMac 5k was a dream. 

The studio is ok in a Mac mini on steroids kind of way, but nothing does it for me like a beastly all in one made by apple. 

With the stopgap  studio tiding things over for a Mac Pro launch and the Mac mini getting a decent update, I can see a path forward for the iMac where the 24” and a 32” or so iMac are announced at the same time late this year on the M3 SOC family. The 24 will get a nice m3 and m3 pro update whereas the iMac would do nicely with 3 nm m3 max and ultra chips. The m2 seems destined for a shorter cycle?  a Mac Pro debuting the x series for no compromise desktop performance in both cpu and GPU arenas would be the exclamation point. No more Intel and Nvidia beating apple at the extreme high end. 

Got a feeling that late ‘23 and early ‘24 will be a nice resurgence for Mac fans. 

macxpress

dutchlord said:

Waiting for the 27 inch M3 iMac

It is interesting how Apple doesn't have a standard 27" consumer iMac. Maybe someday they'll release a 27" M3 iMac with maybe a M3 Pro option on the higher tier. 

Marvin

rods5 said:

I too am waiting for a M3 iMac 27” or larger all in one Mac.  The Mac Mini is OK, but what other 27” or larger display will be good to great and not cost you a arm and a leg like the Apple Studio display @ $1,599, which is the cost of an iMac all by itself.  

And the Mac Studio starts at $1,999, plus the Studio display, brings the total to $3,598 for a entry version of the Mac Studio. 

Where is the M2 or M3 27” iMac?  I want two of them!  I am waiting!!!  What say you, Apple?

The prices aren't all that much different from before.

The earlier 27" iMac had a core-i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD, Radeon 5300 for $1799.
Studio Display is $1599, Mac mini M2 is faster than a core-i9, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD, GPU same as 5300 for $599 = $2198.

A higher-end iMac was core i9, 8GB, 512GB, 5700XT for $3199 (32GB RAM was $600 = $3799). An M2 Pro will rival a 5700XT, M2 Max will be faster.

Studio Display + M2 Pro mini = $3298 (old iMac was $3199)
Studio Display + Mac Studio (32GB RAM) = $3598 (old iMac was $3799)

If Apple made a 27" iMac again, they'd likely have an entry model with M2 mini internals at $1999.

mpschaefer

Marvin said:

rods5 said:

I too am waiting for a M3 iMac 27” or larger all in one Mac.  The Mac Mini is OK, but what other 27” or larger display will be good to great and not cost you a arm and a leg like the Apple Studio display @ $1,599, which is the cost of an iMac all by itself.  

And the Mac Studio starts at $1,999, plus the Studio display, brings the total to $3,598 for a entry version of the Mac Studio. 

Where is the M2 or M3 27” iMac?  I want two of them!  I am waiting!!!  What say you, Apple?

The prices aren't all that much different from before.

The earlier 27" iMac had a core-i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD, Radeon 5300 for $1799.
Studio Display is $1599, Mac mini M2 is faster than a core-i9, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD, GPU same as 5300 for $599 = $2198.

A higher-end iMac was core i9, 8GB, 512GB, 5700XT for $3199 (32GB RAM was $600 = $3799). An M2 Pro will rival a 5700XT, M2 Max will be faster.

Studio Display + M2 Pro mini = $3298 (old iMac was $3199)
Studio Display + Mac Studio (32GB RAM) = $3598 (old iMac was $3799)

If Apple made a 27" iMac again, they'd likely have an entry model with M2 mini internals at $1999.

I have long been a fan of the AIO factor but have been contemplating the switch to a Mac Mini + Studio Display combination given the pricing is not vastly different and I can then choose to independently upgrade the screen or the unit if needed.

It would just be nice for Apple to explicitly state if the 27" iMac is permanently dead or only in some HomePod temporary hiatus...

danox

Mac sales were down in the last quarter. I bet the short fall is all in the desktop area.

DVDIsDead

Man if only you could separate the Computer from the monitor, and use a different monitor.... Apple could call it iChoice. Or like. iOptions. Maybe even iFreedom. Then they could overcharge for two things, the computer and the monitor!

tht

danox said:

Mac sales were down in the last quarter. I bet the short ball is all in the desktop area.

It was all laptops. There was a drop of about 30% in revenue. The split in laptop to desktops is about 80:20. You really can't make a dent in revenue, in either direction, without most of it coming from laptops.

It was basically a pandemic bust in laptops. The M2 MBA couldn't make up for it, while Apple was starving the retail channels out of M1 MBP14/16 models. They predicted the quarter was going to have less Mac sales. That basically means they knew they could compare to Q4 21 during the pandemic boom and the availability M1 MBP14/16 models. Q4 22 was the opposite. Pandemic bust combined with the M2 MBP14/16 not being available.

Now, there really aren't any good reasons for Apple to have not updated the M1 iMac 24 to an M2 model or have an M1 Pro option. Who knows why this is so. Kind of mysterious imo. Same with the Mac mini. It could have had an M1 Pro SoC option, but nope.

eightzero

I struggled with this for some time, as my 27" 2009 iMac was in need of replacement, not because of its specs, but because it was suffering from thermal issues. It always did (and still does to some extent) all I needed. However, the one thing I really wanted was an improved 4K screen. I ultimately opted for an M1 mac mini and HP 27" 4k display. I now have all I need or want...and more flexibility that I would have with an iMac. I've has just about every iMac model since they debuted. 

My wife opted for the 24" M1 iMac to replace a bad intel configuration It too is exactly what she needs, as her work flow doesn't need (and she does not want) 27" screens.

IMO, it is all about what you value, and I don't see value in a 27" iMac compared to what is available in other mac combos now. YMMV, of course, but I'm guessing Apple doesn't see a huge demand for a 27" iMac in the lineup either. 

Boy, do I like this mew M1 iMac and 27" HP screen. Got a good price on it too. 

Hedware

mpschaefer said:

Marvin said:

rods5 said:

I too am waiting for a M3 iMac 27” or larger all in one Mac.  The Mac Mini is OK, but what other 27” or larger display will be good to great and not cost you a arm and a leg like the Apple Studio display @ $1,599, which is the cost of an iMac all by itself.  

And the Mac Studio starts at $1,999, plus the Studio display, brings the total to $3,598 for a entry version of the Mac Studio. 

Where is the M2 or M3 27” iMac?  I want two of them!  I am waiting!!!  What say you, Apple?

The prices aren't all that much different from before.

The earlier 27" iMac had a core-i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD, Radeon 5300 for $1799.
Studio Display is $1599, Mac mini M2 is faster than a core-i9, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD, GPU same as 5300 for $599 = $2198.

A higher-end iMac was core i9, 8GB, 512GB, 5700XT for $3199 (32GB RAM was $600 = $3799). An M2 Pro will rival a 5700XT, M2 Max will be faster.

Studio Display + M2 Pro mini = $3298 (old iMac was $3199)
Studio Display + Mac Studio (32GB RAM) = $3598 (old iMac was $3799)

If Apple made a 27" iMac again, they'd likely have an entry model with M2 mini internals at $1999.

I have long been a fan of the AIO factor but have been contemplating the switch to a Mac Mini + Studio Display combination given the pricing is not vastly different and I can then choose to independently upgrade the screen or the unit if needed.

It would just be nice for Apple to explicitly state if the 27" iMac is permanently dead or only in some HomePod temporary hiatus...

Yes it is beyond comprehension why Apple didn’t bring out the Studio Display as a 32” screen as that size would have been more useful to the professional buyers and users. That would leave a spot for a 27” iMac for users, particularly those who have had the 27” Intel version for a long time. The 24” iMac screen is just too small for these users.

Daft hardware design decisions have always been an Apple feature. The unusable wireless mouse while it is recharging is just one of many examples. Hiring out-of-touch with reality  ice Presidents seems to be an Apple forte. 

9secondkox2

Just wish Apple would get their pricing to reasonable places. I’m not talking about base model pricing either. 

They seem to price base models well, then stick it to you and then some in order to upgrade to a good spec. 

My iMac 5k with the best cpu available, the best GPU available, 3tb Fusion Drive was 3,299. That was WITH an absolutely phenomenal 5k display that blew away everyone who saw it. The catch is that I could upgrade my own RAM, so I bout only 8 gb from apple and swapped it out for 64 GB. And that was about $400 more at the time. I think if I maxed out ram from apple is was like $800. So I had $4,000 worth of iMac 5k. It was a maxed out system with the top of the line everything. 

To get a top of the line Mac Studio plus apple 5k display, you’re spending 8 grand. Twice as much. 

Heck. No. 

That’s a terrible, terrible “deal.”

Especially when the m1 ultra has a design flaw that causes a performance bottleneck. 

That’s Mac Pro money with upgrades. 

Probably the real reason why Apple held back on the top level iMac was wanting to figure out new economies of scale now that they are spending the money on their own chips. The part that really is tough to swallow is that they are paying way less on RAM now due to buying so much of the same kind and charging way more for it - especially since consumers can’t get their own. 

I think it will calm down by the time m3 gets here. Pricing beyond bottom of the barrel models is too far out of hand at the moment. 

Marvin

9secondkox2 said:

My iMac 5k with the best cpu available, the best GPU available, 3tb Fusion Drive was 3,299. That was WITH an absolutely phenomenal 5k display that blew away everyone who saw it. The catch is that I could upgrade my own RAM, so I bout only 8 gb from apple and swapped it out for 64 GB. And that was about $400 more at the time. I think if I maxed out ram from apple is was like $800. So I had $4,000 worth of iMac 5k. It was a maxed out system with the top of the line everything. 

To get a top of the line Mac Studio plus apple 5k display, you’re spending 8 grand. Twice as much.

While Apple's upgrade prices could be less expensive, this isn't comparing like for like. The top of the line Mac Studio has a dual SoC, which wasn't an option on the 27" iMac. The iMac Pro was close to 2x the speed of the top iMac and the Mac Studio is faster than the top-end $8000 iMac Pro. Just because they managed to fit the 27" iMac and iMac Pro into a single product doesn't mean they should top the price out at the lower one.

Fusion hard drives were also dirt cheap and they were much slower than 5GB/s SSDs.

The equivalent model to the 27" iMac is the entry Max version of the Mac Studio or possibly even the M2 Pro mini.

27" Studio Display + 2TB, 64GB M1 Max Studio = $4798, nowhere near $8k.

Charging $400 for a 16GB RAM upgrade, $400 for 1TB SSD is excessive considering you can get 4TB PCIe SSD for $250 now ( https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-PCIe-NAND-NVMe-3500MB/dp/B0B25P44CL ).

But it's easy to see why they do. If Apple charges $600 more than 3rd parties, the market will allow for it and they can sell 5 million units. 5m x $600 = $3b. Somebody at Apple probably gets a good bonus for making that $3b.

The Mac mini and Studio Max are very reasonably priced as is the Macbook Air. The Studio Ultra and MBPs could be cheaper. $200 per 32GB RAM ($100 for 16GB->32GB or make the entry models 24GB) and $200 per 1TB storage would be ok.