it would not be the computer for the rest of us. Only those with enormous amounts of discretionary funds.
I think 27 inch is the max we could go and keep the RRP remotely real.
It SHOULD be 6k by now. Nearly a decade since the 5k iMac was a thing. A decade prior to the 5k, iMacs were only 17” and 20” and not even HD. The progress made in 2015 was astounding, yet the price was great. 6k from 5k another 9-10 years later is nothing compared to that.
If Apple could price the 27” 5k what they did in 2015, they most certainly can give us a reasonable 30-32” 6k today (next year). It’s the least it should be by now.
I bet the lack of 5K and 6K monitors is one of the bad decisions from Apple's beliefs in where the PC space was heading in the 2011 to 2016 time frame. Apple made a lot of bad Mac and iPad product decisions during this time that they are still recovering from in the Apple silicon era.
When they dropped selling Apple branded monitor+dock products in 2014 to 2015 time frame, I bet they were thinking that there would be a proliferation of 5K Thunderbolt monitors that would commoditize the market. Hence, Apple felt there was no benefit to make a Thunderbolt 3 monitor. Instead of that happening, the monitor market in the PC space stayed at 4K or less and all the display investment went into making 120 Hz to 240 Hz 2K to 4K monitors. No other PC product or company was driving the need for hi-DPI monitors.
This also convinced Intel to not increase bandwidth for Thunderbolt 4 imo. Apple really wants to sell a Thunderbolt monitor with a built-in dock. It's a 1 cable lifestyle. It's great. But without a bandwidth increase in TB4, it meant external monitor resolutions were capped to 5K/6K 60 Hz, and Apple's Pro Display XDR is so bandwidth limited, it only has USB2, 5 Gbyte/s, level ports.
So, Apple is the basically only company that is driving 220 DPI monitors. With Samsung now selling a 6K monitor - uh, is it HDMI or TB4 input? - this will hopefully drive down the cost of 6K panels. And, the proliferation of miniLED monitors has been super slow too. This level of product really needs 40,000 backlights with 10,000 dimmable zones.
So I don't think you will see a 6K 120 Hz monitors until Thunderbolt 5 or it's part of an iMac 32" product. A 6K 60 Hz miniLED with 10k zones? It isn't going to be cheap.
Agree with what you have to say here. I think it's probably correct that Intel had other priorities. The big step with Thunderbolt 4 (2020) was lengthening the cable to two meters. They used the total lack of competition for Apple's 6K (Dell's 8K didn't use Thunderbolt, and still doesn't) and the lack of an Apple standalone 5K display as an opportunity to stay ahead of USB4 (USB4 "Gen3" 40 Gbps cables are limited to less than one meter, while USB4 "Gen2" 20 Gbps cables can be two meters). This advance, in turn, arguably opened the door to the M1 Mac Studio, which supports Thunderbolt 4. A two-meter cable allows for a lot more flexibility in how you handle peripherals, including (but not only) displays.
NOTE: I can no longer edit my post above about the HD resolutions, but the second-to-last one on my list there left out the 720p multiple, it should read: "5400p = 9600x5400 (7.5x 720p; 5x 1080p)."
Just get a mini and a non-Apple screen. I'm telling ALL my clients not to buy iMacs any more. It's just ridiculous to buy a 24" all in one computer when you can get a computer that's just as powerful and a 30" screen for less money.
Yes. But I do like the all-in-one package as i can easily shift it around, which suits my work setup. At risk of going off topic, do you have a recommended hiDPI monitor that is as good as my 5k iMac?
General rule of thumb to retain the "Retina" DPI's 24" --> 4.5K (Apple's current 24 inch iMac)
27" --> 5K (Apple studio Display)
30" --> 5.5K (My estimate)
32" --> 6K (Apple Pro Display XDR)
But it always depends on what you do.
If you're in to the Visual Arts (Photography / Film / Video) then resolution is but one aspect of what you're looking for. Color accuracy, HDR/XDR, peak brightness, dimming zones (for non-OLED) are all things you should be looking at.
Just get a mini and a non-Apple screen. I'm telling ALL my clients not to buy iMacs any more. It's just ridiculous to buy a 24" all in one computer when you can get a computer that's just as powerful and a 30" screen for less money.
Yes. But I do like the all-in-one package as i can easily shift it around, which suits my work setup. At risk of going off topic, do you have a recommended hiDPI monitor that is as good as my 5k iMac?
General rule of thumb to retain the "Retina" DPI's 24" --> 4.5K (Apple's current 24 inch iMac)
27" --> 5K (Apple studio Display)
30" --> 5.5K (My estimate)
32" --> 6K (Apple Pro Display XDR)
But it always depends on what you do.
If you're in to the Visual Arts (Photography / Film / Video) then resolution is but one aspect of what you're looking for. Color accuracy, HDR/XDR, peak brightness, dimming zones (for non-OLED) are all things you should be looking at.
The new Samsung Retina 5K copycat (ViewFinity S9 5K, currently available in Asia) is a serious competitor, incorporating most of the things you pay extra for in the Studio Display, but at around the same price as the LG 5K UltraFine. I would be worried about build quality, but in every other respect it is highly competitive, probably (the US price is not yet known) $1000 less than Apple's with rotating, height-adjustable stand and nano-texture glass.
The Dell 6K is $3200, so I think at that level you have to start looking at the Pro Display XDR if the things thedba mentions are important to you. Also, just speaking for myself, I don't know if I could live with that camera. Yikes!
The iMac is a great computing appliance for work and for home if you have limited desk space and if it fully satisfies all of your needs in its out-of-the-box configuration. If the iMac configurations shown in Apple's advertising closely resemble your workspace you're going to love it. Otherwise, the limitations of the iMac will come back to haunt you at some point, most notably when its computing guts are no longer up to snuff but you cannot live without its gorgeous screen. I suppose you could turn it into a very large picture frame.
You need a second monitor for your iMac setup? No problem, as long as you don't mind the asymmetry that comes along with it because nobody makes a monitor that resembles the iMac's screen with its Jay Leno chin. Sure, a lot of folks don't care about aesthetic purity or symmetry, but suddenly your configuration isn't quite looking like the ones in Apple's ads. Not quite so "all in one" anymore.
Need more I/O? No problem, as long as you don't mind all those cables sticking out of the back of your Mac screen. Yeah, you can buy a big dock with a bunch of ports and potentially start hiding the nest of wires under your desk or behind the screen or curtain. People with notebook and laptop computers have been docking their boxes to compensate for too little I/O and to buy more and bigger screens and storage forever. But those are mobile devices that ostensibly have a second life away from the desk. The iMac's not going anywhere, especially if it takes on the dimensions we're seeing in this article.
All in all, my experience with iMacs has resulted in me realizing that what appears as one of Apple's simplest desktop solutions, at least based on what their ads show, turns out to be one of their least flexible, least adaptable, and most convoluted solutions once you deviate from how the thing comes out of the box. The simplest solution in my opinion is pretty straightforward: if you need a computing and I/O box, buy a computing and I/O box, if you need a great screen, buy a great screen, if you need a totally flexible screen mount that doesn't eat up desk space, get a VESA mounting arm and monitor(s) that are VESA compatible. Ditto for keyboards, mouse, trackpads, etc.
Buy exactly what you need, Yes, it costs more but what you're paying for is having exactly what you need, far fewer compromises, and far greater flexibility and adaptability. It comes down to deciding whether you want a component based computing solution versus a computing appliance. Plenty of folks, my wife included, are served very well with the appliance model (M1 iMac 24"). I will never buy another iMac for my use because of the limitations, and frankly, bringing my 27" iMac in to the Apple Store for service (twice) was a royal pain in the butt. I can't imagine having to tote a 32" or larger iMac around unless they make the thing out of titanium or some other lightweight alloy. I'd have to go back to owning a minivan, even without having any kids or dogs. The insanity of it all!
Finally, I do understand why people, myself included, fell in love with the 27" iMac, especially when Apple put a 5K screen on it and sold it for not much more than the cost of the screen alone. Was Apple taking a loss on these or cannibalizing some Mac Pro sales as a result? Probably a few, but probably only for the lower-spec Pros. The big question is whether Apple would repeat this feat of generosity again with a new and bigger iMac now that they have some very compelling component based solutions built around the Mac Pro, Mac Studio, Mac mini, Studio Display, Pro Display XDR, and of course the wide availability of third party 4K/5K displays? I suppose they could, but why would they?
My lovely 2014 27"er is still going strong and I pick it up and park it away most days. I couldn't do that as easily if it wasn't an all-in-one. I know the compromises, but it works for me. I don't need much connectivity. I have a ring light suckered to the back (for Zoom etc) and a 3D printed MagSafe holder hooked over the top to use my iPhone as a Continuity Camera. These, the dangly Apple Watch charger, and power lead stay attached all the time even when the iMac is stowed away. The wireless keyboard and mouse work a treat and neatly don't move.
The ViewFinity S9 5K looks great, but still no pricing I found in the UK or US. If Apple did make a newer Big Mac, it could still be luggable and no bigger and heavier with Apple Silicon. No fan and an SSD should make it lighter than its Intel forebearers. So maybe 30" in the same space. Wake up, you're dreaming!
I reckon I wait for something like the Viewfinity and strap a Mac mini to the back when I finally upgrade. I don't think Apple are going to scratch my itch...
My lovely 2014 27"er is still going strong and I pick it up and park it away most days. I couldn't do that as easily if it wasn't an all-in-one. I know the compromises, but it works for me. I don't need much connectivity. I have a ring light suckered to the back (for Zoom etc) and a 3D printed MagSafe holder hooked over the top to use my iPhone as a Continuity Camera. These, the dangly Apple Watch charger, and power lead stay attached all the time even when the iMac is stowed away. The wireless keyboard and mouse work a treat and neatly don't move.
The ViewFinity S9 5K looks great, but still no pricing I found in the UK or US. If Apple did make a newer Big Mac, it could still be luggable and no bigger and heavier with Apple Silicon. No fan and an SSD should make it lighter than its Intel forbearers. So maybe 30" in the same space. Wake up, you're dreaming!
I reckon I wait for something like the Viewfinity and strap a Mac mini to the back when I finally upgrade. I don't think Apple are going to scratch my itch...
I’ve always thought a “Mac nano” would be interesting. It might be possible now, with M3 and Thunderbolt 5. No built-in power supply. You attach it to a Thunderbolt 5 display/hub that provides power and ports.
There might be some technical reason this wouldn’t work, I don’t know, but it sounds like fun.
The product just doesn't make any sense. The iMac comes from a completely different time. A time where the look and feel of the iMac was a breathe of fresh air to computing, and was one of the few computers average people would actually want to look at in their homes. Those days are long gone, and a giant metal all-in-one Mac is huge burdern to bear. Moving it around is impossible. Getting service or support for it is impossible. Selling it (shipping it) down the road is impossible. It's wildly impractical. And the display itself will outlast the computer inside, turning it into a giant paperweight that can't be repurposed. I still have iMacs sitting in boxes in the garage because I don't know what to do with them. Can't reuse them for anything, and can't bear to just throw them away.
Displays on the other hand can be reused for a long, long time. I can't even count how many times I have packed an old display away in a closet only to drag it out again for some purpose at a later time.
The Mac mini/Mac Studio/Mac Pro approach to Apple desktops is how it should stay, and Apple should devote its efforts to making better displays, at varying sizes and resolutions.
The product just doesn't make any sense. The iMac comes from a completely different time. A time where the look and feel of the iMac was a breathe of fresh air to computing, and was one of the few computers average people would actually want to look at in their homes. Those days are long gone, and a giant metal all-in-one Mac is huge burdern to bear. Moving it around is impossible. Getting service or support for it is impossible. Selling it (shipping it) down the road is impossible. It's wildly impractical. And the display itself will outlast the computer inside, turning it into a giant paperweight that can't be repurposed. I still have iMacs sitting in boxes in the garage because I don't know what to do with them. Can't reuse them for anything, and can't bear to just throw them away.
Displays on the other hand can be reused for a long, long time. I can't even count how many times I have packed an old display away in a closet only to drag it out again for some purpose at a later time.
The Mac mini/Mac Studio/Mac Pro approach to Apple desktops is how it should stay, and Apple should devote its efforts to making better displays, at varying sizes and resolutions.
Yeah! Why would anyone buy an iMac? Especially since they already own one (or two)! Reminds me of the club no one goes to anymore because it's too crowded...
The iMac is a great computing appliance for work and for home if you have limited desk space and if it fully satisfies all of your needs in its out-of-the-box configuration. If the iMac configurations shown in Apple's advertising closely resemble your workspace you're going to love it. Otherwise, the limitations of the iMac will come back to haunt you at some point, most notably when its computing guts are no longer up to snuff but you cannot live without its gorgeous screen. I suppose you could turn it into a very large picture frame.
You need a second monitor for your iMac setup? No problem, as long as you don't mind the asymmetry that comes along with it because nobody makes a monitor that resembles the iMac's screen with its Jay Leno chin. Sure, a lot of folks don't care about aesthetic purity or symmetry, but suddenly your configuration isn't quite looking like the ones in Apple's ads. Not quite so "all in one" anymore.
Need more I/O? No problem, as long as you don't mind all those cables sticking out of the back of your Mac screen. Yeah, you can buy a big dock with a bunch of ports and potentially start hiding the nest of wires under your desk or behind the screen or curtain. People with notebook and laptop computers have been docking their boxes to compensate for too little I/O and to buy more and bigger screens and storage forever. But those are mobile devices that ostensibly have a second life away from the desk. The iMac's not going anywhere, especially if it takes on the dimensions we're seeing in this article.
All in all, my experience with iMacs has resulted in me realizing that what appears as one of Apple's simplest desktop solutions, at least based on what their ads show, turns out to be one of their least flexible, least adaptable, and most convoluted solutions once you deviate from how the thing comes out of the box. The simplest solution in my opinion is pretty straightforward: if you need a computing and I/O box, buy a computing and I/O box, if you need a great screen, buy a great screen, if you need a totally flexible screen mount that doesn't eat up desk space, get a VESA mounting arm and monitor(s) that are VESA compatible. Ditto for keyboards, mouse, trackpads, etc.
Buy exactly what you need, Yes, it costs more but what you're paying for is having exactly what you need, far fewer compromises, and far greater flexibility and adaptability. It comes down to deciding whether you want a component based computing solution versus a computing appliance. Plenty of folks, my wife included, are served very well with the appliance model (M1 iMac 24"). I will never buy another iMac for my use because of the limitations, and frankly, bringing my 27" iMac in to the Apple Store for service (twice) was a royal pain in the butt. I can't imagine having to tote a 32" or larger iMac around unless they make the thing out of titanium or some other lightweight alloy. I'd have to go back to owning a minivan, even without having any kids or dogs. The insanity of it all!
Finally, I do understand why people, myself included, fell in love with the 27" iMac, especially when Apple put a 5K screen on it and sold it for not much more than the cost of the screen alone. Was Apple taking a loss on these or cannibalizing some Mac Pro sales as a result? Probably a few, but probably only for the lower-spec Pros. The big question is whether Apple would repeat this feat of generosity again with a new and bigger iMac now that they have some very compelling component based solutions built around the Mac Pro, Mac Studio, Mac mini, Studio Display, Pro Display XDR, and of course the wide availability of third party 4K/5K displays? I suppose they could, but why would they?
Um… perhaps you haven’t heard, but ALL Macs these days only exist in an “as advertised” out-of-the-box configuration. That’s all you get for better or worse. The Mac Studio is limited to its out of the box configuration. So is the studio display. So it’s not a drawback.
If anything, it’s more of a case for why the iMac makes more sense than ever in the apple silicon era.
Musk can build rockets faster than Apple can build a simple all-in-one computer. Aluminum chassis, system board and display. What takes 2 years?
The right chipset. Apple likely wants the iMac to be thin and exceptional to look at while also being able to pack a punch. They have the 2020 iMac 5k powerhouse as well as the iMac Pro monster to live up to. It won’t be feasible until the m3 series is out. At the larger sizes, a max snd ultra lineup makes the most sense.
The iMac is a great computing appliance for work and for home if you have limited desk space and if it fully satisfies all of your needs in its out-of-the-box configuration. If the iMac configurations shown in Apple's advertising closely resemble your workspace you're going to love it. Otherwise, the limitations of the iMac will come back to haunt you at some point, most notably when its computing guts are no longer up to snuff but you cannot live without its gorgeous screen. I suppose you could turn it into a very large picture frame.
You need a second monitor for your iMac setup? No problem, as long as you don't mind the asymmetry that comes along with it because nobody makes a monitor that resembles the iMac's screen with its Jay Leno chin. Sure, a lot of folks don't care about aesthetic purity or symmetry, but suddenly your configuration isn't quite looking like the ones in Apple's ads. Not quite so "all in one" anymore.
Need more I/O? No problem, as long as you don't mind all those cables sticking out of the back of your Mac screen. Yeah, you can buy a big dock with a bunch of ports and potentially start hiding the nest of wires under your desk or behind the screen or curtain. People with notebook and laptop computers have been docking their boxes to compensate for too little I/O and to buy more and bigger screens and storage forever. But those are mobile devices that ostensibly have a second life away from the desk. The iMac's not going anywhere, especially if it takes on the dimensions we're seeing in this article.
All in all, my experience with iMacs has resulted in me realizing that what appears as one of Apple's simplest desktop solutions, at least based on what their ads show, turns out to be one of their least flexible, least adaptable, and most convoluted solutions once you deviate from how the thing comes out of the box. The simplest solution in my opinion is pretty straightforward: if you need a computing and I/O box, buy a computing and I/O box, if you need a great screen, buy a great screen, if you need a totally flexible screen mount that doesn't eat up desk space, get a VESA mounting arm and monitor(s) that are VESA compatible. Ditto for keyboards, mouse, trackpads, etc.
Buy exactly what you need, Yes, it costs more but what you're paying for is having exactly what you need, far fewer compromises, and far greater flexibility and adaptability. It comes down to deciding whether you want a component based computing solution versus a computing appliance. Plenty of folks, my wife included, are served very well with the appliance model (M1 iMac 24"). I will never buy another iMac for my use because of the limitations, and frankly, bringing my 27" iMac in to the Apple Store for service (twice) was a royal pain in the butt. I can't imagine having to tote a 32" or larger iMac around unless they make the thing out of titanium or some other lightweight alloy. I'd have to go back to owning a minivan, even without having any kids or dogs. The insanity of it all!
Finally, I do understand why people, myself included, fell in love with the 27" iMac, especially when Apple put a 5K screen on it and sold it for not much more than the cost of the screen alone. Was Apple taking a loss on these or cannibalizing some Mac Pro sales as a result? Probably a few, but probably only for the lower-spec Pros. The big question is whether Apple would repeat this feat of generosity again with a new and bigger iMac now that they have some very compelling component based solutions built around the Mac Pro, Mac Studio, Mac mini, Studio Display, Pro Display XDR, and of course the wide availability of third party 4K/5K displays? I suppose they could, but why would they?
Um… perhaps you haven’t heard, but ALL Macs these days only exist in an “as advertised” out-of-the-box configuration. That’s all you get for better or worse. The Mac Studio is limited to its out of the box configuration. So is the studio display. So it’s not a drawback.
If anything, it’s more of a case for why the iMac makes more sense than ever in the apple silicon era.
A Mac Studio will always be a far better performing Mac out of the box versus an iMac, even if Apple happened to release an iMac Pro. And you're not rebuying a display every time you buy a replacement Mac. If you're a regular consumer then maybe the iMac is better but it's still cheaper to get a Mac mini in the end.
The product just doesn't make any sense. The iMac comes from a completely different time. A time where the look and feel of the iMac was a breathe of fresh air to computing, and was one of the few computers average people would actually want to look at in their homes. Those days are long gone, and a giant metal all-in-one Mac is huge burdern to bear. Moving it around is impossible. Getting service or support for it is impossible. Selling it (shipping it) down the road is impossible. It's wildly impractical. And the display itself will outlast the computer inside, turning it into a giant paperweight that can't be repurposed. I still have iMacs sitting in boxes in the garage because I don't know what to do with them. Can't reuse them for anything, and can't bear to just throw them away.
Displays on the other hand can be reused for a long, long time. I can't even count how many times I have packed an old display away in a closet only to drag it out again for some purpose at a later time.
The Mac mini/Mac Studio/Mac Pro approach to Apple desktops is how it should stay, and Apple should devote its efforts to making better displays, at varying sizes and resolutions.
I wouldn’t go as far as saying what Apple should or shouldn’t do because there is a market for all-in-ones and the iMac is the cream of the crop. The iMac is a great family computer to be shared in a common area. But for technology fans like us the iMac is not so optimal. In fact, if you really love the all-in-one approach Apple has two full lines of amazing all-in-one computers that are substantially lighter, more portable, and still deliver great stuff in the performance department - MacBook Pro and MacBook Air.
In my opinion, the real challenge for performance oriented Mac buyers today is choosing between the Mac Studio and the MacBook Pro. Either one can serve as the core of a high performance component based computing solution. The lack of discrete graphics support and limited upgradability of all current Apple Silicon based Macs makes for a lot of overlapping capabilities across across all platforms, even though each platform still has its unique and specialized performance and/or capacity attributes to address edge cases.
The lack of differentiation, or stated another way, the broad overlap, between different Mac platforms has never been at the level it is today. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing because buyers may be able to fine tune their expectations to fit into lower cost options, like a Mac mini instead of a Mac Studio or a MacBook Air instead of a MacBook Pro. If you blur your expectations a little more, the iPad Pro may even be in play.
So where does a jumbo iMac fit into this landscape? It does provide a “comfortable” upgrade path for customers who are still in love with their 27” iMacs but not attracted to the 24” iMac. I do trust that if Apple actually delivers on the jumbo iMac speculation, they will have arrived at an answer that makes sense for both their business and their customers.
A 30” iMac is reasonable as it will be smaller than the old 30” cinema displays of the mid-2000s.
32” would be nice, but 42” just seems like a typo to me. No way.
That said, a 30” iMac with a M3+Pro or Max chip is all I can imagine Apple putting in it to justify the price. It would have to be $2999 or more.
iMacs, Mac Studios, and Mac Pros only make up 1% each of Mac sales. I don’t understand why Apple would even bother with another iMac beyond the 24”. Nostalgia?
2 24 inch displays side by side would be 43.5 inches 42 inch but no taller than the 24inch could be a really popular option instead of 2 screens. It would be to me a similar visual workspace to the VisionPro or at least as close as a desktop could get.
The LG and Samsung super ultrawide sat 49” are the equivalent of multiple 27” monitors side by side. That’s more likely what they’d do than 24” heaight.
Not seen anyone doing resolutions Apple would be happy with 49inch Ultrawides. Shame they can't Ultrafusion display panels together.
The iMac is a great computing appliance for work and for home if you have limited desk space and if it fully satisfies all of your needs in its out-of-the-box configuration. If the iMac configurations shown in Apple's advertising closely resemble your workspace you're going to love it. Otherwise, the limitations of the iMac will come back to haunt you at some point, most notably when its computing guts are no longer up to snuff but you cannot live without its gorgeous screen. I suppose you could turn it into a very large picture frame.
You need a second monitor for your iMac setup? No problem, as long as you don't mind the asymmetry that comes along with it because nobody makes a monitor that resembles the iMac's screen with its Jay Leno chin. Sure, a lot of folks don't care about aesthetic purity or symmetry, but suddenly your configuration isn't quite looking like the ones in Apple's ads. Not quite so "all in one" anymore.
Need more I/O? No problem, as long as you don't mind all those cables sticking out of the back of your Mac screen. Yeah, you can buy a big dock with a bunch of ports and potentially start hiding the nest of wires under your desk or behind the screen or curtain. People with notebook and laptop computers have been docking their boxes to compensate for too little I/O and to buy more and bigger screens and storage forever. But those are mobile devices that ostensibly have a second life away from the desk. The iMac's not going anywhere, especially if it takes on the dimensions we're seeing in this article.
All in all, my experience with iMacs has resulted in me realizing that what appears as one of Apple's simplest desktop solutions, at least based on what their ads show, turns out to be one of their least flexible, least adaptable, and most convoluted solutions once you deviate from how the thing comes out of the box. The simplest solution in my opinion is pretty straightforward: if you need a computing and I/O box, buy a computing and I/O box, if you need a great screen, buy a great screen, if you need a totally flexible screen mount that doesn't eat up desk space, get a VESA mounting arm and monitor(s) that are VESA compatible. Ditto for keyboards, mouse, trackpads, etc.
Buy exactly what you need, Yes, it costs more but what you're paying for is having exactly what you need, far fewer compromises, and far greater flexibility and adaptability. It comes down to deciding whether you want a component based computing solution versus a computing appliance. Plenty of folks, my wife included, are served very well with the appliance model (M1 iMac 24"). I will never buy another iMac for my use because of the limitations, and frankly, bringing my 27" iMac in to the Apple Store for service (twice) was a royal pain in the butt. I can't imagine having to tote a 32" or larger iMac around unless they make the thing out of titanium or some other lightweight alloy. I'd have to go back to owning a minivan, even without having any kids or dogs. The insanity of it all!
Finally, I do understand why people, myself included, fell in love with the 27" iMac, especially when Apple put a 5K screen on it and sold it for not much more than the cost of the screen alone. Was Apple taking a loss on these or cannibalizing some Mac Pro sales as a result? Probably a few, but probably only for the lower-spec Pros. The big question is whether Apple would repeat this feat of generosity again with a new and bigger iMac now that they have some very compelling component based solutions built around the Mac Pro, Mac Studio, Mac mini, Studio Display, Pro Display XDR, and of course the wide availability of third party 4K/5K displays? I suppose they could, but why would they?
Um… perhaps you haven’t heard, but ALL Macs these days only exist in an “as advertised” out-of-the-box configuration. That’s all you get for better or worse. The Mac Studio is limited to its out of the box configuration. So is the studio display. So it’s not a drawback.
If anything, it’s more of a case for why the iMac makes more sense than ever in the apple silicon era.
A Mac Studio will always be a far better performing Mac out of the box versus an iMac, even if Apple happened to release an iMac Pro. And you're not rebuying a display every time you buy a replacement Mac. If you're a regular consumer then maybe the iMac is better but it's still cheaper to get a Mac mini in the end.
Ridiculous. An iMac with m3 ultra would perform equivalent to a tower with m3 ultra. And when you buy a new Mac, you don’t want to be stuck with some old monitor. Most people buying the studio bought a new monitor to go with it. The great thing about iMac is when it’s time to buy new, you get new and improved across the board. You may even get a better display than otherwise due to the non-thunderbolt limited display options from an internally connected screen.
One of the reasons to get an iMac is to outperform the mini. Same reason to get a studio. The big iMac is the Mac Studio minus the mess.
A 30” iMac is reasonable as it will be smaller than the old 30” cinema displays of the mid-2000s.
32” would be nice, but 42” just seems like a typo to me. No way.
That said, a 30” iMac with a M3+Pro or Max chip is all I can imagine Apple putting in it to justify the price. It would have to be $2999 or more.
iMacs, Mac Studios, and Mac Pros only make up 1% each of Mac sales. I don’t understand why Apple would even bother with another iMac beyond the 24”. Nostalgia?
2 24 inch displays side by side would be 43.5 inches 42 inch but no taller than the 24inch could be a really popular option instead of 2 screens. It would be to me a similar visual workspace to the VisionPro or at least as close as a desktop could get.
The LG and Samsung super ultrawide sat 49” are the equivalent of multiple 27” monitors side by side. That’s more likely what they’d do than 24” heaight.
Not seen anyone doing resolutions Apple would be happy with 49inch Ultrawides. Shame they can't Ultrafusion display panels together.
That’s what I’m saying. No one is. All the ultrawide resolutions kind of suck for a Retina display. But Apple could make it happen.
Comments
NOTE: I can no longer edit my post above about the HD resolutions, but the second-to-last one on my list there left out the 720p multiple, it should read: "5400p = 9600x5400 (7.5x 720p; 5x 1080p)."
24" --> 4.5K (Apple's current 24 inch iMac)
The Dell 6K is $3200, so I think at that level you have to start looking at the Pro Display XDR if the things thedba mentions are important to you. Also, just speaking for myself, I don't know if I could live with that camera. Yikes!
My lovely 2014 27"er is still going strong and I pick it up and park it away most days. I couldn't do that as easily if it wasn't an all-in-one. I know the compromises, but it works for me. I don't need much connectivity. I have a ring light suckered to the back (for Zoom etc) and a 3D printed MagSafe holder hooked over the top to use my iPhone as a Continuity Camera. These, the dangly Apple Watch charger, and power lead stay attached all the time even when the iMac is stowed away. The wireless keyboard and mouse work a treat and neatly don't move.
The ViewFinity S9 5K looks great, but still no pricing I found in the UK or US. If Apple did make a newer Big Mac, it could still be luggable and no bigger and heavier with Apple Silicon. No fan and an SSD should make it lighter than its Intel forebearers. So maybe 30" in the same space. Wake up, you're dreaming!
I reckon I wait for something like the Viewfinity and strap a Mac mini to the back when I finally upgrade. I don't think Apple are going to scratch my itch...
There might be some technical reason this wouldn’t work, I don’t know, but it sounds like fun.
Displays on the other hand can be reused for a long, long time. I can't even count how many times I have packed an old display away in a closet only to drag it out again for some purpose at a later time.
The Mac mini/Mac Studio/Mac Pro approach to Apple desktops is how it should stay, and Apple should devote its efforts to making better displays, at varying sizes and resolutions.
Reminds me of the club no one goes to anymore because it's too crowded...