Long custom iMac order times don't mean that a refresh is imminent

AppleInsider

A new report pointing out that configure-to-order iMac models have long lead times is firing up speculation that an update is imminent, but as has been the case for five years, there's no real correlation between long lead times and updates.

24-inch iMac

A report on Friday has taken a look at the availability of Apple Silicon iMacs. The report correctly points out that configure to order iMacs have about a month of lead time before delivery.

Unfortunately, the report by the normally well-informed Macotakara then immediately jumps to conclusions about it, and suggests that a New iMac with a M2 and M2 Pro processor is imminent.

While an iMac refresh before the end of the year may be happening, the conclusion drawn is a case of a maybe-correct conclusion drawn from bad data.

Apple's M1 iMac was released on May 21, 2021, so it has been some time since its introduction. To date, despite a long string of rumors about it, it has not received an M2 update, when everything else in Apple's Mac line has.

However, the inference that a configure-to-order long-lead time points to an imminent refresh is wrong. Lead times of M1 iMacs that sport custom configurations have been similar since November 2022, with lead times sometimes weeks longer than present on nine occasions in the last 11 months.

Every basic configuration is available for immediate shipment or pick-up from Apple retail. And some of the configure-to-order SKUs are available for pick-up from a local Apple Store, with how many available generally proportional to the overall sales volume of the store.

iMac has been a back-to-school computer for some time

Apple hasn't had a fall iMac release since 2014. More recent updates were in June 2017, March 2019, August 2020 for the last Intel iMacs and April 2021 for Apple Silicon. As of late, the iMac has mostly been a "back to school" computer, and not a Christmas season one.

The iMac Pro shipped in December 2017, but was previously announced at the 2017 WWDC.

The rear of the 24-inch iMac.

While Apple could launch an M2 iMac at any time and make logical sense, there are claims that it will instead skip the M2 generation entirely and be one of the earliest M3 devices.

24-inch iMac speculation has been going on for a long time

Rumors of an M2 24-inch iMac go back to February 2022, with speculation that Apple was going to launch a M2 model to match the rest of the range. Over 18 months later, that prediction has failed to come true.

A mere two months later, the rumor shifted to assume that a M3 iMac was on the way. That, obviously, also hasn't happened.

The rumor mill at this point has mostly coalesced around the prediction that M3 processors aren't coming until early 2024.

Read on AppleInsider

PauloSeraa

Newsflash: the iMac form factor is not attractive anymore, and that makes perfect sense. The iMac rose to popularity during an era where the alternative for a desktop computer was hideous, and despite the iMac's success, the competition remain hideous for a long, long time. Over 25 years it created some life-long iMac users. But here is the truth about iMac today: it's not portable, it's not upgradable and it's not reusable. The display on the iMac will outlast the PC inside it by several years. Heck, the 2014 5K iMac has a better display on it than most people are using on their desk today, and yet that machine is already obsolete. And because they are impossible to sell or trade in due to bulk and weight, these things become useless paperweights after a relatively short amount of time. Compare this to a Mac Mini or Mac Studio + a Studio display experience. The Studio display creates the same elegant look on the desk, and the small desktops take a up a minimal amount of space and can even be hidden inside/under a desk. The main selling point of the iMac becomes less attractive as a result. And now, you can upgrade the mini/studio several times while keeping the same display, which will surely outlast the computer in terms of usability over time.

The proof is in the sales. Apple hasn't even seen it worth their time to upgrade it to an M2 to keep it current, with M3 already on the horizon. Undoubtedly Apple is warring with itself right now over discontinuing its once-critical iMac, or spending money to update a Mac that doesn't sell.

appleinsideruser

Heck, my first gen 27” 5k 32G iMac still has a beautiful screen. And with continuity camera, I even look quite good on calls.

baconstang

I still use my 2007 iMac 24" for my music system, especially since it has an optical drive and and IR remote. My late 2015 5K was pretty much maxed out and works fine even while pushing an extra 4K screen...

chasm

I think PauloSeraa makes a compelling case, but I do still think there is a place for the iMac in the market — it’s just not the consumer market anymore, for the reasons he outlined.

Instead, it should be repositioned as a workstation computer. Yes, that means it would perhaps have to lose the colour options, but beefed up with an M3 and maybe a 25-27” screen it would make for a very attractive corporate workstation (which tend to get swapped out every 3-5 years for depreciation reasons anyway).

It could be called the WorkMac or something — and maybe Apple could reinvent the iMac yet again.

9secondkox2

I don’t know that Macotakara has it wrong. It seems that, though they only give one part of their thinking, that snowballs into some fairly obvious conclusions. 

Longer lead times now are due to a number of things:

1) labor prioritization. 

2) parts availability. 

3) custom silicon manufacturing. 

All three items seem to indicate a shift is in play. Labor prioritization is focused elsewhere because the old iMac “doesn’t matter” that much anymore in the product scheme, parts availability is an issue because  Apple has shifted to newer parts, and m1 has been almost entirely replaced my m2 for some time now, soon to be replaced again by m3. Spinning up the fabs to add RAM amounts, etc. gets a bit trickier with such small numbers for such an old product. 

Whether m2 or m3, it does seem logical and likely that Apple updates the iMac to a newer SOC anywhere from now through February. 

What has been puzzling is why Apple would choose to wait so long to update the iMac to m2 when they’ve clearly had the opportunity and inventory for so long. If anything, the part macotakara has wrong just may be a move to m3 instead of m2. The only other strategy I can see Apple using for delaying an iMac 24 update is to sell more Studio displays alongside updated Mac mini’s. That’s a strong possibility since Apple has forgone a large iMac entirely in order to sell Mac studios and studio displays as a combination at higher rates. 

In that case, an m2 iMac soft release is the easiest, lazirest, and “cheapest way apple could offer something “fresh” this fall via press release. Either way, mactakara likely has it right, regardless of limited insight into their thinking. 

dmskalnm

Disagree with almost all of PauloSeraa's post.

iMac has never been very portable or upgradeable, so this is nothing new. The M1 iMac is arguably the most portable iMac, as it weighs almost nothing compared to its predecessors. iMacs do keep their resale value better than non-Apple computers, so they are reusable. They aren't impossible to sell or trade at all. Just look at eBay. They do remain useful for a long time.

Until the M1 Mac mini, the mini has always been an underpowered machine with horrible value. The current mini and Studio basically can't be upgraded, besides replacing the entire machine. A big part of the value of the iMac since the Retina models has been getting a top of the line display included, so this is a positive, not a negative.

It is weird that Apple has taken so long to update the iMac, which used to get updates every year. The cadence of all Mac releases has slowed down since 2020. An iMac with more than 16GB RAM is definitely needed. The all-in-one form factor is extremely good for office use, and even office users can use more than 16GB RAM. As far as cost-benefit, we know that isn't the main consideration for development, otherwise they never would have made the 2019 or the 2023 Mac Pro.

9secondkox2

dmskalnm said:

Disagree with almost all of PauloSeraa's post.

iMac has never been very portable or upgradeable, so this is nothing new. The M1 iMac is arguably the most portable iMac, as it weighs almost nothing compared to its predecessors. iMacs do keep their resale value better than non-Apple computers, so they are reusable. They aren't impossible to sell or trade at all. Just look at eBay. They do remain useful for a long time.

Until the M1 Mac mini, the mini has always been an underpowered machine with horrible value. The current mini and Studio basically can't be upgraded, besides replacing the entire machine. A big part of the value of the iMac since the Retina models has been getting a top of the line display included, so this is a positive, not a negative.

It is weird that Apple has taken so long to update the iMac, which used to get updates every year. The cadence of all Mac releases has slowed down since 2020. An iMac with more than 16GB RAM is definitely needed. The all-in-one form factor is extremely good for office use, and even office users can use more than 16GB RAM. As far as cost-benefit, we know that isn't the main consideration for development, otherwise they never would have made the 2019 or the 2023 Mac Pro.

This. The whole “iMac can’t be upgraded and must be replaced at some point is so disengenuous as ALL Macs are this way. “Oh, but you have to replace the screen when you replace the iMac since it’s built in.” AS IF the MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, iphone, iPad, and Apple Watch are any different? Such sad excuses. Even standalone displays are often replaced when better tech, form factors, and sizes come along. No one wants the crappy resolution of an old Cinema Display these days (outside of some niche retro fans that are also ok with old crt monitors). iMacs last so long, you’ll be glad to replace not only the computer, but the display as well when the time comes. And that’s the magic of an iMac. You get EVERYTHING you need and want at once. Then, 7 years from now, you get to do it Al over again. 

I stil remember buying my original iMac 5k, upgraded as much as possible, then added 64GB RAM afterward. The upgrade from the office iMac I was using purchased just one year prior was INSANE. Performance was blazing. Absolutely lightspeed. The screen? Oh my gosh. I ended up taking my personal iMac to work and letting someone else use the other one. The entire office and many visitors could not believe what they were seeing looking at that kind of image quality. It simply didn’t exist in other products. Beyond that, my old iMac 5k is 8 years old, served me well for 6-7 years and is now being heavily used on the daily by multiple users - and still performs well in a commercial setting. Simply amazing. 

So no, moving be to a display (which is pretty much the same 8 year old!) display, which must be entirely replaced in order to upgrade and a separate computer box, which must be entirely replaced to upgrade is not solving anything at all. On the other hand, it introduces setbacks such as now having to manage multiple pieces to get the same computing experience along with the extra wiring and extra hassle when relocating the setup. It also requires more materials to house the components rather than having it all under “one roof” so to speak. Moving from the sleek Mac type setup (as seen since apple iie, iMac itself, PowerBook, MacBooks, iPhone, and iPad, to a messier pc type of setup as commonly seen with Dell, hp, Lenovo, etc. is more of a backward step in many ways. 

There should be the option of a separate machine and display for sure. But in no way should that be a replacement for such a winning formula. The sooner a big, major horsepower iMac debuts, the better. 

charlesn

PauloSeraa said:

Newsflash: the iMac form factor is not attractive anymore, and that makes perfect sense. The iMac rose to popularity during an era where the alternative for a desktop computer was hideous, and despite the iMac's success, the competition remain hideous for a long, long time. Over 25 years it created some life-long iMac users. But here is the truth about iMac today: it's not portable, it's not upgradable and it's not reusable. The display on the iMac will outlast the PC inside it by several years. Heck, the 2014 5K iMac has a better display on it than most people are using on their desk today, and yet that machine is already obsolete. And because they are impossible to sell or trade in due to bulk and weight, these things become useless paperweights after a relatively short amount of time. Compare this to a Mac Mini or Mac Studio + a Studio display experience. The Studio display creates the same elegant look on the desk, and the small desktops take a up a minimal amount of space and can even be hidden inside/under a desk. The main selling point of the iMac becomes less attractive as a result. And now, you can upgrade the mini/studio several times while keeping the same display, which will surely outlast the computer in terms of usability over time.

The proof is in the sales. Apple hasn't even seen it worth their time to upgrade it to an M2 to keep it current, with M3 already on the horizon. Undoubtedly Apple is warring with itself right now over discontinuing its once-critical iMac, or spending money to update a Mac that doesn't sell.

This is a classic example of allowing one's personal POV to cloud your view of the target market for a product. "It's not for me, therefore this is a product for nobody." You read this a lot on AI forums. It's not that the OP is wrong, per se, about a Mac Mini or Mac Studio + Studio display being lovely, but the total price point and lack of all-in-one convenience make it a non-starter for the iMac target market. What is that market? The Apple business community for one, where iMacs are very popular on desks or, if not that, it's usually a Macbook + desktop display, so there's no need to supply employees with separate desktop and laptop computers. For the vast majority of Apple home users, it's either an iMac or a Macbook, in some cases both. Again, YOU may not care that a Studio display alone costs hundreds more than a whole iMac, or about the separate pieces and cabling to create a whole computer or about the fact that if you want even decent sound, you'll need to buy separate speakers... and that's fine... but that's why you're not in the iMac target market. As for the failure to upgrade it to M2: the base M2 chip was largely a nothing burger vs the M1 -- it would have made zero real world difference to iMac buyers. The base M3 will be the next upgrade--I'm not convinced even that iteration will make that much of a real world difference, but Apple needs to do it for marketing purposes. 

Rogue01

Totally disagree with PauloSeraa.  He just doesn't get it.  He prefers a MacBook Pro because it is portable.  That is his choice.

He thinks the form factor is not attractive.  The iMac is a desktop computer, and it has an award-winning form factor.  It is even better with a VESA mount because it can float over your desk and be positioned in every way possible.  My current 27" iMac 2020 has the VESA option and it floats over my desk without the stand taking up room, or a computer sitting on the desk.  The Studio Display (that replaced the iMac with the Mac Studio) has the same form factor as the iMac.  A Mac mini or Mac Studio and a separate display with all the cables coming off of them does not have the same elegant look as an iMac.

He thinks the iMac is not upgradable.  Does he know that the MacBook Pros are also not upgradable?  All Apple Silicon Macs are no longer upgradable.  You must buy what you want at the time of purchase.  Yes, the 24" iMac now falls under the category of non-upgradable, but now all Macs are not upgradable.  So that is a weak argument.

He specifically discusses the Intel iMacs as not upgradable and not reusable.  The Intel iMacs ARE upgradable!  The 27" had user-replaceable RAM and before the 2020 iMac with the T2 chip, the SSD was also upgradable, by the user!  I upgraded the RAM in my 27" iMac to 128GB for 1/4 the price of what Apple charges, and I did it two years after I bought it when RAM was at a low price.  The 21.5" iMac also had upgradable memory and upgradable drives, once you removed the display, which is not hard to do.

He claims they are not re-usable.  He thinks once a Mac is considered vintage or obsolete, you must throw them away.  My 2012 27" iMac would disagree.  I upgraded the memory to 32GB, replaced the spinning drive with a 1TB SSD, and also added the OWC 2TB blade SSD to the factory SSD slot.  It was not hard to remove the display and re-attach it with new adhesive.  Now this 2012 iMac can boot Mountain Lion, the original OS, Catalina, the latest version it can run, and also Windows 10 in Boot Camp.  If I want to try OpenCore, I could upgrade it to Monterey or Ventura.  I use it in my garage and iTunes also feeds to a stereo in the garage too.  So I can do lots of things with that 11 year old iMac.  I can also use my 'obsolete' Mac Pro 2008, QuickSilver G4, Power Mac G5, and Mac LC 575 for running vintage apps and games too.   I guess he thinks those are un-usable too.

All we wanted was a 27" 5K iMac with an M Pro or M Max CPU, just like in the MacBook Pros, and the iMac would have been a top seller with customers.  Instead, we got a bare-bones 24" iMac with a base model M1 chip that was hardly a valid replacement.  And Apple has done nothing with it for almost 2 1/2 years.  Sad.

My 27" 2020 iMac even has Parallels with Snow Leopard Server as a VM so I can run older PowerPC apps.  I guess that is un-usable too since it is an Intel iMac.

kellie

The latest Apple announcements emphasized Apple’s focus on being green and carbon neutral.  The entire Apple product line is not upgradeable. You can’t argue that the lack of upgradability is unique to the iMac. Sure you can have a Mac Mini and throw it out and replace it and keep your display, which isn’t possible with the iMac. But it’s criminal that you can’t add memory or disk capacity to all Mac products to extend their useful life.  This is also compounded by component failures which require the whole Mac to be replaced.  If you have an SSD failure you can’t replace that component.  The whole system is junked because of it.  The system on a chip architecture makes RAM upgradability a challenge from a design perspective.  But SSD’s are separate components on the motherboard and they should be designed to be replaced and/or upgraded.  Lots of Android phones have upgradeable storage.  Apple is so hypocritical when it comes to being green. The only green they are really interested in is green backs. 

darkvader

PauloSeraa said:

Newsflash: the iMac form factor is not attractive anymore, and that makes perfect sense. The iMac rose to popularity during an era where the alternative for a desktop computer was hideous, and despite the iMac's success, the competition remain hideous for a long, long time. Over 25 years it created some life-long iMac users. But here is the truth about iMac today: it's not portable, it's not upgradable and it's not reusable. The display on the iMac will outlast the PC inside it by several years. Heck, the 2014 5K iMac has a better display on it than most people are using on their desk today, and yet that machine is already obsolete. And because they are impossible to sell or trade in due to bulk and weight, these things become useless paperweights after a relatively short amount of time. Compare this to a Mac Mini or Mac Studio + a Studio display experience. The Studio display creates the same elegant look on the desk, and the small desktops take a up a minimal amount of space and can even be hidden inside/under a desk. The main selling point of the iMac becomes less attractive as a result. And now, you can upgrade the mini/studio several times while keeping the same display, which will surely outlast the computer in terms of usability over time.

The proof is in the sales. Apple hasn't even seen it worth their time to upgrade it to an M2 to keep it current, with M3 already on the horizon. Undoubtedly Apple is warring with itself right now over discontinuing its once-critical iMac, or spending money to update a Mac that doesn't sell.

Exactly.

The iMac concept is obsolete.  It's time for Apple to just drop it, and release a reasonably priced (under $500) 27" display to pair with a mini.

Marvin

Rogue01 said:

All we wanted was a 27" 5K iMac with an M Pro or M Max CPU, just like in the MacBook Pros, and the iMac would have been a top seller with customers.

It wouldn't have been a top seller due to price. The entry model would have been M2 with 8GB/256GB for around $2000. To get to M2 Pro, this adds 16GB (+$200), M2 Pro (+$300), 512GB (+$200) = $2700. To go to the base M2 Max, this goes up $900 because it uses 32GB RAM and the top M2 Max is $1100 so now it's $3800 with 512GB SSD.

You can roughly work out what the unit volume is at each price point by knowing that Apple's Mac ASP is ~$1300.

($1000 x U1 + $2000 x U2 + $3000 x U3 + $4000 x U4) / (U1 + U2 + U3 + U4) = $1300

U1 = 0.65, U2 = 0.30, U3 = 0.04, U4 = 0.01

Even with these numbers weighting 95% of units below $3k, it's still above Apple's ASP. This means unit sales above $3k are < 5% and the M2 Pro 27" iMac would start around $2700.

Apple's been in the business a long time and they know what sells and what doesn't. With the Mac Studio, they can sell M2 Max for $2k and hit a larger volume of buyers who already own monitors or buy cheaper ones.

They still sell the Mac Pro at a much higher price point so they could choose to make a 27" iMac but the Mac Pro is due to important customers that have requirements for PCIe cards. There are no essential customers for an M2 Max 27" iMac who wouldn't buy a Macbook Pro or Studio instead.

If people would be prepared to spend $3800 on a 27" iMac, there are deals on M1 Max Macbook Pros that are in the same price range:

https://prices.appleinsider.com/macbook-pro-16-inch-2021
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1668190-REG/apple_mk1a3ll_a_16_2_macbook_pro_with.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1694969-REG/apple_mk0u3ll_a_studio_display_standard.html

M1 Max, 32GB/1TB = $2400 + $1449 Studio Display = $3849.

Here's one connected to a 3rd party 34" 4K OLED:

https://www.amazon.com/SAMSUNG-DisplayHDR-FreeSync-Streaming-LS34BG850SNXZA/dp/B0BLF2RWNV/ ($999)



You only really need one USB-C cable to the MBP as it will provide power. One power cable to the display, one to the MBP, everything else can be wireless.

As for the iMac update, it makes sense for the 24" model to get M2 chips before M3 launches in 2024.

Xed

PauloSeraa said:

Newsflash: the iMac form factor is not attractive anymore, and that makes perfect sense. The iMac rose to popularity during an era where the alternative for a desktop computer was hideous, and despite the iMac's success, the competition remain hideous for a long, long time. Over 25 years it created some life-long iMac users. But here is the truth about iMac today: it's not portable, it's not upgradable and it's not reusable. The display on the iMac will outlast the PC inside it by several years. Heck, the 2014 5K iMac has a better display on it than most people are using on their desk today, and yet that machine is already obsolete. And because they are impossible to sell or trade in due to bulk and weight, these things become useless paperweights after a relatively short amount of time. Compare this to a Mac Mini or Mac Studio + a Studio display experience. The Studio display creates the same elegant look on the desk, and the small desktops take a up a minimal amount of space and can even be hidden inside/under a desk. The main selling point of the iMac becomes less attractive as a result. And now, you can upgrade the mini/studio several times while keeping the same display, which will surely outlast the computer in terms of usability over time.

The proof is in the sales. Apple hasn't even seen it worth their time to upgrade it to an M2 to keep it current, with M3 already on the horizon. Undoubtedly Apple is warring with itself right now over discontinuing its once-critical iMac, or spending money to update a Mac that doesn't sell.

1) Reusable is not the correct word here. I reused my Macs several times a day for many years. I'd have gone with noting that the useful life for your needs or the ROI for you isn't good enough that you wouldn't choose an iMac over one of the headless Mac options. That's a perfectly valid reason not to choose an iMac over a headless Mac... and no Mac over any other vendor or OS.

2) If you want to keep upgrading your devices so you can get 20(?) years of use out of an old logic board or even a new logic board in an old case to save a small amount of money then maybe Apple isn't the best option for you. My advice is to buy the device that best suits your needs, which is why my MBP gets updated more than my iPhone, and why it's perfectly fine if you want to build your own Windows or Linux PC or feel that Android is a better OS. There are plenty of legitimate reasons out there that facile arguments don't need to be made. Jejune arguments like calling a working iMac a "useless paperweight" as if the components all fail as soon as the warranty has expired or suggesting that a desktop AIO with a 24" display is suppose to be portable don't help any point you may have been making.

dmskalnm said:

Disagree with almost all of PauloSeraa's post.

iMac has never been very portable or upgradeable, so this is nothing new. The M1 iMac is arguably the most portable iMac, as it weighs almost nothing compared to its predecessors. iMacs do keep their resale value better than non-Apple computers, so they are reusable. They aren't impossible to sell or trade at all. Just look at eBay. They do remain useful for a long time.

Until the M1 Mac mini, the mini has always been an underpowered machine with horrible value. The current mini and Studio basically can't be upgraded, besides replacing the entire machine. A big part of the value of the iMac since the Retina models has been getting a top of the line display included, so this is a positive, not a negative.

It is weird that Apple has taken so long to update the iMac, which used to get updates every year. The cadence of all Mac releases has slowed down since 2020. An iMac with more than 16GB RAM is definitely needed. The all-in-one form factor is extremely good for office use, and even office users can use more than 16GB RAM. As far as cost-benefit, we know that isn't the main consideration for development, otherwise they never would have made the 2019 or the 2023 Mac Pro.

I did have one of the first flatscreen iMac G4s (with the adjustable display arm). Like all iMacs back then and their PowerBooks you could upgrade a great deal. That iMac was certainly a challenge for anything other than RAM. The HDD was high up in the dome housing so it wasn't easy to get to. it was all simple sliding in and out of components would I still have it today and give my other Macs? Not a change. it's very odd when people long for a past that is gone for very good reasons. It's like saying you hate WiFi and cellular data because it's more finicky or requires more knowledge than simply plugging in an Ethernet cable. That may be true but it's objectively more useful with how well we can access data for entertainment, knowledge, and safety. For instance, I  hope never have to use my Satellite SOS feature on my iPhone but I'm glad I have it and want it for everyone while also not being so foolish to compare it's speed to WiFi or 4G/5G.

tht

kellie said:

The latest Apple announcements emphasized Apple’s focus on being green and carbon neutral.  The entire Apple product line is not upgradeable. You can’t argue that the lack of upgradability is unique to the iMac. Sure you can have a Mac Mini and throw it out and replace it and keep your display, which isn’t possible with the iMac. But it’s criminal that you can’t add memory or disk capacity to all Mac products to extend their useful life.  This is also compounded by component failures which require the whole Mac to be replaced.  If you have an SSD failure you can’t replace that component.  The whole system is junked because of it.  The system on a chip architecture makes RAM upgradability a challenge from a design perspective.  But SSD’s are separate components on the motherboard and they should be designed to be replaced and/or upgraded.  Lots of Android phones have upgradeable storage.  Apple is so hypocritical when it comes to being green. The only green they are really interested in is green backs. 

Apple claims that if you trade it in, if it is repairable, they'll repair it and sell it used. If it is not repairable, they will recycle it. They have the ultimate goal of having a closed supply chain, where the vast majority of product materials will come from recycled or sustainable sources. Since the iMac is basically 80% aluminum and glass by weight, that seems quite the easy goal. This Apple 2030 carbon neutral goal is achievable. They'll need something like 10 to 20% carbon credits, and this will have to be watched and verified.

Only a minuscule fraction of the customers actually use their computer products for a 6, 7, ..., to 10+ years, with a similar minuscule fraction actually upgrading. Perhaps someone can go prove otherwise, but if you improve the reliability of the product, and the installed base of that product has fewer repairs and dead units than a modular system with upgradable parts, the more reliable product line would have an overall lower carbon footprint. Reliability is improved with Apple's system integration.

For modular and upgradeable products, there needs to be a larger footprint of parts. Having something modular decreases reliability, further increasing the footprint of parts. A modular and upgradeable product is also more carbon intensive due to increased weight and size. So, you have to really wonder if it is actually more "green" than an integrated system like Apple's. I don't think it would be.

One interesting point about NAND and SSDs. They appear to be the most carbon intensive component of a computer. 2 TB of NAND storage will actually have the largest carbon footprint in a laptop. 1 TB of NAND storage in a phone is close to half the carbon footprint. So, wondering if Apple does on-the-fly compression, decompression, and reduces the need for NAND storage, it may have a rather large impact on reducing carbon footprint.

mpantone

I know some people here don't understand this but iMac (and the all-in-one form factor) still has considerable value in the education market. This is also a market that doesn't require upgrading with the latest and greatest technology which is why the iMac is allowed to age.

Apple has a pretty good idea of which markets their Macs end up in. For institutional buyers -- especially school district purchasing agents -- there's a pretty established pattern based on an academic school years, budget deadlines, etc. If Apple defers the M2 iMac until calendar 2024, they would know how many unit sales they would be missing out on in Q4 (CY 2023). It's not like this is Apple's first rodeo.

Remember that >85% of Macs sold are notebook models; this is nothing new, it has been this way for 10-15 years. From a unit sales standpoint, desktop Macs aren't a top priority. The entry level iMac is the biggest unit seller for desktop Macs and they clearly know the sales velocity of their current offerings.

eriamjh

I think I read that the iMac was 3% of Mac sales.  3%.   

I really wanted a 30-32" iMac.   Now, I'm leaning Mac Studio and a decent 4K display or wider.

I'll miss my 30" Cinema Displays.  Nah... probably not.

Applejacs

9secondkox2 said:

dmskalnm said:

Disagree with almost all of PauloSeraa's post.

iMac has never been very portable or upgradeable, so this is nothing new. The M1 iMac is arguably the most portable iMac, as it weighs almost nothing compared to its predecessors. iMacs do keep their resale value better than non-Apple computers, so they are reusable. They aren't impossible to sell or trade at all. Just look at eBay. They do remain useful for a long time.

Until the M1 Mac mini, the mini has always been an underpowered machine with horrible value. The current mini and Studio basically can't be upgraded, besides replacing the entire machine. A big part of the value of the iMac since the Retina models has been getting a top of the line display included, so this is a positive, not a negative.

It is weird that Apple has taken so long to update the iMac, which used to get updates every year. The cadence of all Mac releases has slowed down since 2020. An iMac with more than 16GB RAM is definitely needed. The all-in-one form factor is extremely good for office use, and even office users can use more than 16GB RAM. As far as cost-benefit, we know that isn't the main consideration for development, otherwise they never would have made the 2019 or the 2023 Mac Pro.

This. The whole “iMac can’t be upgraded and must be replaced at some point is so disengenuous as ALL Macs are this way. “Oh, but you have to replace the screen when you replace the iMac since it’s built in.” AS IF the MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, iphone, iPad, and Apple Watch are any different? Such sad excuses. Even standalone displays are often replaced when better tech, form factors, and sizes come along. No one wants the crappy resolution of an old Cinema Display these days (outside of some niche retro fans that are also ok with old crt monitors). iMacs last so long, you’ll be glad to replace not only the computer, but the display as well when the time comes. And that’s the magic of an iMac. You get EVERYTHING you need and want at once. Then, 7 years from now, you get to do it Al over again. 

I stil remember buying my original iMac 5k, upgraded as much as possible, then added 64GB RAM afterward. The upgrade from the office iMac I was using purchased just one year prior was INSANE. Performance was blazing. Absolutely lightspeed. The screen? Oh my gosh. I ended up taking my personal iMac to work and letting someone else use the other one. The entire office and many visitors could not believe what they were seeing looking at that kind of image quality. It simply didn’t exist in other products. Beyond that, my old iMac 5k is 8 years old, served me well for 6-7 years and is now being heavily used on the daily by multiple users - and still performs well in a commercial setting. Simply amazing. 

So no, moving be to a display (which is pretty much the same 8 year old!) display, which must be entirely replaced in order to upgrade and a separate computer box, which must be entirely replaced to upgrade is not solving anything at all. On the other hand, it introduces setbacks such as now having to manage multiple pieces to get the same computing experience along with the extra wiring and extra hassle when relocating the setup. It also requires more materials to house the components rather than having it all under “one roof” so to speak. Moving from the sleek Mac type setup (as seen since apple iie, iMac itself, PowerBook, MacBooks, iPhone, and iPad, to a messier pc type of setup as commonly seen with Dell, hp, Lenovo, etc. is more of a backward step in many ways. 

There should be the option of a separate machine and display for sure. But in no way should that be a replacement for such a winning formula. The sooner a big, major horsepower iMac debuts, the better. 

+1

9secondkox2

Xed said:

PauloSeraa said:

Newsflash: the iMac form factor is not attractive anymore, and that makes perfect sense. The iMac rose to popularity during an era where the alternative for a desktop computer was hideous, and despite the iMac's success, the competition remain hideous for a long, long time. Over 25 years it created some life-long iMac users. But here is the truth about iMac today: it's not portable, it's not upgradable and it's not reusable. The display on the iMac will outlast the PC inside it by several years. Heck, the 2014 5K iMac has a better display on it than most people are using on their desk today, and yet that machine is already obsolete. And because they are impossible to sell or trade in due to bulk and weight, these things become useless paperweights after a relatively short amount of time. Compare this to a Mac Mini or Mac Studio + a Studio display experience. The Studio display creates the same elegant look on the desk, and the small desktops take a up a minimal amount of space and can even be hidden inside/under a desk. The main selling point of the iMac becomes less attractive as a result. And now, you can upgrade the mini/studio several times while keeping the same display, which will surely outlast the computer in terms of usability over time.

The proof is in the sales. Apple hasn't even seen it worth their time to upgrade it to an M2 to keep it current, with M3 already on the horizon. Undoubtedly Apple is warring with itself right now over discontinuing its once-critical iMac, or spending money to update a Mac that doesn't sell.

1) Reusable is not the correct word here. I reused my Macs several times a day for many years. I'd have gone with noting that the useful life for your needs or the ROI for you isn't good enough that you wouldn't choose an iMac over one of the headless Mac options. That's a perfectly valid reason not to choose an iMac over a headless Mac... and no Mac over any other vendor or OS.

2) If you want to keep upgrading your devices so you can get 20(?) years of use out of an old logic board or even a new logic board in an old case to save a small amount of money then maybe Apple isn't the best option for you. My advice is to buy the device that best suits your needs, which is why my MBP gets updated more than my iPhone, and why it's perfectly fine if you want to build your own Windows or Linux PC or feel that Android is a better OS. There are plenty of legitimate reasons out there that facile arguments don't need to be made. Jejune arguments like calling a working iMac a "useless paperweight" as if the components all fail as soon as the warranty has expired or suggesting that a desktop AIO with a 24" display is suppose to be portable don't help any point you may have been making.

dmskalnm said:

Disagree with almost all of PauloSeraa's post.

iMac has never been very portable or upgradeable, so this is nothing new. The M1 iMac is arguably the most portable iMac, as it weighs almost nothing compared to its predecessors. iMacs do keep their resale value better than non-Apple computers, so they are reusable. They aren't impossible to sell or trade at all. Just look at eBay. They do remain useful for a long time.

Until the M1 Mac mini, the mini has always been an underpowered machine with horrible value. The current mini and Studio basically can't be upgraded, besides replacing the entire machine. A big part of the value of the iMac since the Retina models has been getting a top of the line display included, so this is a positive, not a negative.

It is weird that Apple has taken so long to update the iMac, which used to get updates every year. The cadence of all Mac releases has slowed down since 2020. An iMac with more than 16GB RAM is definitely needed. The all-in-one form factor is extremely good for office use, and even office users can use more than 16GB RAM. As far as cost-benefit, we know that isn't the main consideration for development, otherwise they never would have made the 2019 or the 2023 Mac Pro.

I did have one of the first flatscreen iMac G4s (with the adjustable display arm). Like all iMacs back then and their PowerBooks you could upgrade a great deal. That iMac was certainly a challenge for anything other than RAM. The HDD was high up in the dome housing so it wasn't easy to get to. it was all simple sliding in and out of components would I still have it today and give my other Macs? Not a change. it's very odd when people long for a past that is gone for very good reasons. It's like saying you hate WiFi and cellular data because it's more finicky or requires more knowledge than simply plugging in an Ethernet cable. That may be true but it's objectively more useful with how well we can access data for entertainment, knowledge, and safety. For instance, I  hope never have to use my Satellite SOS feature on my iPhone but I'm glad I have it and want it for everyone while also not being so foolish to compare it's speed to WiFi or 4G/5G.

The articulating arm was unfortunately a trouble spot with those models. Hence its ancient history. New iMacs and apple displays have the “L” shaped “foot” as a base and it’s the way to go. No one is longing for ancient stuff. If we were, we’d be longing for an old ibm workstation/power mac/PC style setup, which involves a collection of pieces such as what we have now with Mac mini and Mac Studio, and Mac Pro. But since we are in an age where macs are basically non-upgradeable integrated systems, an iMac form factor makes more sense than ever. Can’t wait to see what Apple comes up with for the next true iMac evolution. 

9secondkox2

eriamjh said:

I think I read that the iMac was 3% of Mac sales.  3%.   

I really wanted a 30-32" iMac.   Now, I'm leaning Mac Studio and a decent 4K display or wider.

I'll miss my 30" Cinema Displays.  Nah... probably not.

Where did you find that stat? I’ve been looking for data on iMac sales. Of note: 3% of Mac sales in 2021 is nearly one million units. But I can’t find anything to back up the 3% claim. 

I think the 24” iMac was a bit of a disaster. They got rid  of the big iMac which was a mistake and those coming from the big iMac were not going to downgrade. The smaller iMacs were never really that popular. They also made the new baby iMac feel kind of cheap with the power supply now being a brick that just plops on your floor and has nasty white bezels. The new iMac was quite polarizing at launch. So that is an issue. Add to that the fact that they are still on m1 and that’s compounding the issue. I don’t want one of those myself, no matter how affordable. Interestingly, Best Buy had a sale a couple months back and I thought to get one for my sister. But they were sold out snd I would have had to wait. I went to a different ambers buy and they only had one. And it was blue, so she wouldn’t want that. Turns out she just wanted an m1 iPad Pro, so she got that instead (and it was more expensive). 

xyzzy01

I'm hoping that a refresh comes out soon.

My sister  needs to replace her family's old imac, but I told them to wait for a refresh. That was a year ago.

Hoping they refresh it with the M3, which is probably coming to Macbooks and Mac mini in the not too distant future