Updated 24-inch iMac expected in 2024, 32-inch iMac in 2025

AppleInsider

Apple's next update to the 24-inch iMac will occur in 2024, a famed analyst forecasts, as well as offering the prospect of a 32-inch model one year later.

24-inch iMac

Apple's 24-inch iMac is long overdue for an update, with it languishing on M1 chips when practically everything else in the Apple Silicon range has moved on to M2. In an update to predictions from TF Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, there may be a while longer to wait for an upgrade.

Posting to X on Tuesday, Kuo references a predictive tweet from March 2022 that claimed 2023 would be the year of the iMac Pro. In the latest posting referencing that tweet, Kuo instead offers a "New iMac prediction update."

In his prediction, he now says a 24-inch iMac refresh will occur in 2024. The tweet flies in the face of numerous rumors that a shipment in late 2023 was on the cards, but after the October event rumors resulted in the launch of just a new Apple Pencil, a 2024 release now seems more likely.

Kuo's comment correlates with Mark Gurman's October 15 claim that new MacBook Pro and MacBook Air lines running on M3 are at important stages of mass production, but won't surface until early 2024.

New iMac prediction update:
1. 24-inch iMac refresh in 2024.
2. Higher-end 32-inch mini LED display iMac in 2025. https://t.co/l7jzEecwZi

-- (Ming-Chi Kuo) (@mingchikuo)

October 17, 2023

Kuo's posting also discusses the occasionally rumored large-screened iMac, with Kuo proposing a "higher-end 32-inch mini LED display iMac in 2025."

The 32-inch size has been mentioned before in reports, forecasts, and leaks, but 2025 is a little later than expected. For example, in July, Mark Gurman wrote that the model probably wouldn't surface until the end of 2024.

Read on AppleInsider

davebarnes

My wife will go crazy if a 32-inch iMac appears.

Price is not important.

Afarstar

I’ll go crazy when the M3 iMac is launched. I’m desperate to upgrade. 

eightzero

I'll go crazy when a new Airport with VPN service is announced. Shut up and take my money.

rsantana

I’m sure the same guy who decided to discontinue the original HomePod also had the dreadful idea of killing the 27” iMac.
Please give us back the 27”…! A true flagship computer. I just don’t want to spend $1,500 on an Apple monitor, nor buy an ugly Samsung one…

9secondkox2

32” iMac all the way. The pent up demand is ridiculous. 

24” should have been on m2 already. Might as well launch m3 with it asap. 

 It the big iMac is where it’s at. 

27” came out 8+ years ago. 32” is about right for 2024-2025. 

I think Apple has sold the Studio to the folks they’d sell it to in appreciable numbers. Might as well bring the real iMac out in 2024. Just be sure to bring the big horsepower. 

Applejacs

32” iMac is what I’ve been waiting for. Hope that it happens sooner than ‘25.

fastasleep

AppleInsider said:

Kuo's comment correlates with Mark Gurman's October 15 claim that new MacBook Pro and MacBook Air lines running on M3 are at important stages of mass production, but won't surface until early 2024.

That's not what he said. From your previous article, they:

"...are at the DVT stage. Standing for Design Validation Test, the stage is one that's close to the start of the models entering mass production."

tht

Curious how they are going drive down the price on an iMac with a 32" miniLED.

ProDisplay XDR is $5000. Mac Studio base model is $2000. Hard to believe this thing will start at $7000. The ProDisplay XDR is an early version of a miniLED with only 656 FALD zones or so. If it is like the iPP12.9 or MBP14/16, it could have 40,000 zones. Imagine four MBP16 displays fused into one. Sounds expensive.

Even a regular 32" 6K LCD monitor is probably $3000, if it is available.

The iMac 24 also needs to have a base model at $1000.

king editor the grate

I am longtime iMac aficionado. Finally bought Benq monitor to use in portrait mode for vertical work and open-box Studio Display for horizontal. Biding time with M1 iMac (one external at time) and planning to procure Mac Studio when cash flow permits to set myself free from insanely neglected iMac line. 

danox

It will be awesome if Apple offers the larger screen all in one Mac’s with Apple Silicon, they are more cost-effective when Apple curates the monitor and combines it with the computer, but I couldn’t wait any longer. I had to get the Mac-Headroom with an XDR monitor (2011 iMac is now dead R.I.P.). Looking forward to using the larger XDR monitor. It would’ve been even better to have a Mac computer inside of it however. I hope Apple, uses the XDR enclosure for that new all in one large screen Mac.

9secondkox2

tht said:

Curious how they are going drive down the price on an iMac with a 32" miniLED.

ProDisplay XDR is $5000. Mac Studio base model is $2000. Hard to believe this thing will start at $7000. The ProDisplay XDR is an early version of a miniLED with only 656 FALD zones or so. If it is like the iPP12.9 or MBP14/16, it could have 40,000 zones. Imagine four MBP16 displays fused into one. Sounds expensive.

Even a regular 32" 6K LCD monitor is probably $3000, if it is available.

The iMac 24 also needs to have a base model at $1000.

When looking to the future, look to the past.

when the iMac 5k came out, a 27” monitor was pretty big. And 5k did not exist. 4K was costly and yet Apple came out with a 5k monitor. Not only thst, but they had to invent new internal connectors to drive all those pixels as there was no standard way at the time. Apple was offering the 5k at launch with a novel display for an absolute steal. 

The XDR and Mac Studio/studio display are huge profit margin padding machines. There is no reason a 32” iMac won’t be a good deal unless apple simply chooses to continue to gouge. And that may be the case. The strategy could be - discontinue iMac at a fair price snd introduce the studio combo for a high price for long enough that customers forget about the great deal the iMac was. Then reintroduce the iMac at a high price. Hoping against hope that such is not the case. It just depends on what apple wants to do. 

Funny… back when apple silicon was just a rumor, everyone was talking about how much more affordable macs would be. Nope. Quite the opposite. 

Hopefully the return of the iMac heralds the return of decent pricing once again. There is nothing stopping that from happening. 

MacPro

I would guess that at some point after the 32" iMac, Apple will release a lower end 32" 5K Apple Display for the Mac Studio, maybe by 2026.

blastdoor

eightzero said:

I'll go crazy when a new Airport with VPN service is announced. Shut up and take my money.

It’s such a shame they abandoned that product line. I’d love to see them realize the error of their ways and change course.  It would be a long slog to gain traction and realize the full potential, but playing the long game is one of Apple’s super powers.

dutchlord

Cook, why does it take so long to refresh the 27’inch iMac??? 

danox

9secondkox2 said:

tht said:

Curious how they are going drive down the price on an iMac with a 32" miniLED.

ProDisplay XDR is $5000. Mac Studio base model is $2000. Hard to believe this thing will start at $7000. The ProDisplay XDR is an early version of a miniLED with only 656 FALD zones or so. If it is like the iPP12.9 or MBP14/16, it could have 40,000 zones. Imagine four MBP16 displays fused into one. Sounds expensive.

Even a regular 32" 6K LCD monitor is probably $3000, if it is available.

The iMac 24 also needs to have a base model at $1000.

When looking to the future, look to the past.

when the iMac 5k came out, a 27” monitor was pretty big. And 5k did not exist. 4K was costly and yet Apple came out with a 5k monitor. Not only thst, but they had to invent new internal connectors to drive all those pixels as there was no standard way at the time. Apple was offering the 5k at launch with a novel display for an absolute steal. 

The XDR and Mac Studio/studio display are huge profit margin padding machines. There is no reason a 32” iMac won’t be a good deal unless apple simply chooses to continue to gouge. And that may be the case. The strategy could be - discontinue iMac at a fair price snd introduce the studio combo for a high price for long enough that customers forget about the great deal the iMac was. Then reintroduce the iMac at a high price. Hoping against hope that such is not the case. It just depends on what apple wants to do. 

Funny… back when apple silicon was just a rumor, everyone was talking about how much more affordable macs would be. Nope. Quite the opposite. 

Hopefully the return of the iMac heralds the return of decent pricing once again. There is nothing stopping that from happening. 

My 27 inch iMac in 2011 cost about $3700 (mid level) at today’s pricing it would cost 5010.38, I bought a fully decked out Mac Studio and it cost 7500, a 27-30 inch bigger screen iMac is probably going to weigh in at about 3700 at today’s dollars with a moderate configuration. Mac’s are not bought because they are necessarily the cheapest they are bought for the software and hardware integration which is much better than what you can get on Windows.

https://www.moneysavingtips.org/calculate/inflation/3700

Apple isn’t a PC OEM company which is another reason why it does cost more, all that research and development cost money. The OS and the hardware integration comes at a price.

tht

9secondkox2 said:

tht said:

Curious how they are going drive down the price on an iMac with a 32" miniLED.

ProDisplay XDR is $5000. Mac Studio base model is $2000. Hard to believe this thing will start at $7000. The ProDisplay XDR is an early version of a miniLED with only 656 FALD zones or so. If it is like the iPP12.9 or MBP14/16, it could have 40,000 zones. Imagine four MBP16 displays fused into one. Sounds expensive.

Even a regular 32" 6K LCD monitor is probably $3000, if it is available.

The iMac 24 also needs to have a base model at $1000.

When looking to the future, look to the past.

when the iMac 5k came out, a 27” monitor was pretty big. And 5k did not exist. 4K was costly and yet Apple came out with a 5k monitor. Not only thst, but they had to invent new internal connectors to drive all those pixels as there was no standard way at the time. Apple was offering the 5k at launch with a novel display for an absolute steal. 

The XDR and Mac Studio/studio display are huge profit margin padding machines. There is no reason a 32” iMac won’t be a good deal unless apple simply chooses to continue to gouge. And that may be the case. The strategy could be - discontinue iMac at a fair price snd introduce the studio combo for a high price for long enough that customers forget about the great deal the iMac was. Then reintroduce the iMac at a high price. Hoping against hope that such is not the case. It just depends on what apple wants to do. 

Funny… back when apple silicon was just a rumor, everyone was talking about how much more affordable macs would be. Nope. Quite the opposite. 

Hopefully the return of the iMac heralds the return of decent pricing once again. There is nothing stopping that from happening. 

Apple, arguably, used all those savings from not paying Intel's profit margins, to put more stuff into their computers. To me, they put that budget into displays, batteries and speakers. My general sense is that Apple laptops seem to have larger battery capacities than competitor products, more speakers, and those 254 ppi miniLEDs are very very good. I could be wrong about the batteries, as it really stems from reading lots of laptop reviews, and who knows how good my memory is these days.

Laptops and external display OLEDs haven't quite ridden the mass production of economies of scale just quite yet. Especially robust ones that can last 8 to 10 years. Maybe by 2024. And, Apple is the only one shipping miniLEDs in millions of units. My sense is miniLEDs cost 1.5x to 2x as much as regular LCD displays at the same ppi, and don't get the benefit of the rest of the market shipping more millions. Perhaps it is a chicken or egg problem, but there are reasons why there are very few PC OEMs using miniLEDs like Apple's. Cost has to be a big factor. Seems not paying Intel gives them an advantage there.

Anyways, regarding that 27" 5K display in the iMac 5K. It's been 10 years. The cheapest one you can get is the LG UF 27" 5K at still has $1300 MSRP after 6+ years, while Samsung's 27" 5K Viewfinity S9 has an MSRP of $1600. This are just regular 220 ppi LCDs with edge-lit monolithic back lights. There is some bigger gross margins in this LG and Samsung monitor prices, but they aren't miniLEDs either.

What's a 32" 220 ppi miniLED with 40k zones going to cost, then? It is both larger and use more advanced display tech and is less mass produced than these 27" 5K displays. Really can't see how such a display can be anything less than $3000? Maybe? An M3/4 Pro Mac mini base system would cost $1500?

So, it seems to me that a miniLED 32" 220 ppi (6K) iMac is going to have a very 2017 iMac Pro like price of $4500 to $5000. If it was a 27" 5K LCD, I can see base model prices starting at $3000.

Perhaps you can think of it this way. A MBP16 base model price is $2500. Now think of how much 3 more of those 16" miniLED displays is going to cost. $500 per 16" display? That would make it $4000. The issue with that is Apple sells 10s of millions of 16" miniLED. A 32" miniLED, would it even be a million across its lifetime? That means more expensive.

ireland

If in doubt think: greed. The price will hit about there.

9secondkox2

tht said:

9secondkox2 said:

tht said:

Curious how they are going drive down the price on an iMac with a 32" miniLED.

ProDisplay XDR is $5000. Mac Studio base model is $2000. Hard to believe this thing will start at $7000. The ProDisplay XDR is an early version of a miniLED with only 656 FALD zones or so. If it is like the iPP12.9 or MBP14/16, it could have 40,000 zones. Imagine four MBP16 displays fused into one. Sounds expensive.

Even a regular 32" 6K LCD monitor is probably $3000, if it is available.

The iMac 24 also needs to have a base model at $1000.

When looking to the future, look to the past.

when the iMac 5k came out, a 27” monitor was pretty big. And 5k did not exist. 4K was costly and yet Apple came out with a 5k monitor. Not only thst, but they had to invent new internal connectors to drive all those pixels as there was no standard way at the time. Apple was offering the 5k at launch with a novel display for an absolute steal. 

The XDR and Mac Studio/studio display are huge profit margin padding machines. There is no reason a 32” iMac won’t be a good deal unless apple simply chooses to continue to gouge. And that may be the case. The strategy could be - discontinue iMac at a fair price snd introduce the studio combo for a high price for long enough that customers forget about the great deal the iMac was. Then reintroduce the iMac at a high price. Hoping against hope that such is not the case. It just depends on what apple wants to do. 

Funny… back when apple silicon was just a rumor, everyone was talking about how much more affordable macs would be. Nope. Quite the opposite. 

Hopefully the return of the iMac heralds the return of decent pricing once again. There is nothing stopping that from happening. 

Apple, arguably, used all those savings from not paying Intel's profit margins, to put more stuff into their computers. To me, they put that budget into displays, batteries and speakers. My general sense is that Apple laptops seem to have larger battery capacities than competitor products, more speakers, and those 254 ppi miniLEDs are very very good. I could be wrong about the batteries, as it really stems from reading lots of laptop reviews, and who knows how good my memory is these days.

Laptops and external display OLEDs haven't quite ridden the mass production of economies of scale just quite yet. Especially robust ones that can last 8 to 10 years. Maybe by 2024. And, Apple is the only one shipping miniLEDs in millions of units. My sense is miniLEDs cost 1.5x to 2x as much as regular LCD displays at the same ppi, and don't get the benefit of the rest of the market shipping more millions. Perhaps it is a chicken or egg problem, but there are reasons why there are very few PC OEMs using miniLEDs like Apple's. Cost has to be a big factor. Seems not paying Intel gives them an advantage there.

Anyways, regarding that 27" 5K display in the iMac 5K. It's been 10 years. The cheapest one you can get is the LG UF 27" 5K at still has $1300 MSRP after 6+ years, while Samsung's 27" 5K Viewfinity S9 has an MSRP of $1600. This are just regular 220 ppi LCDs with edge-lit monolithic back lights. There is some bigger gross margins in this LG and Samsung monitor prices, but they aren't miniLEDs either.

What's a 32" 220 ppi miniLED with 40k zones going to cost, then? It is both larger and use more advanced display tech and is less mass produced than these 27" 5K displays. Really can't see how such a display can be anything less than $3000? Maybe? An M3/4 Pro Mac mini base system would cost $1500?

So, it seems to me that a miniLED 32" 220 ppi (6K) iMac is going to have a very 2017 iMac Pro like price of $4500 to $5000. If it was a 27" 5K LCD, I can see base model prices starting at $3000.

Perhaps you can think of it this way. A MBP16 base model price is $2500. Now think of how much 3 more of those 16" miniLED displays is going to cost. $500 per 16" display? That would make it $4000. The issue with that is Apple sells 10s of millions of 16" miniLED. A 32" miniLED, would it even be a million across its lifetime? That means more expensive.

I’d give you your point…

Except we aren’t talking laptops (which now indeed do have phenomenal screens). We are talking imac, which is the desktop category. 

And no, Apple hasn’t put money in the iMac screens, thr Pro Display xdr (which is unchanged) or the Studio display. That latter is an easy cash grab for apple. 

And your point about a base 27” 5k iMac needing a $3000 start… when the brand new 27” iMac 5k was under $2000 is laughable. Especially considering that 5k screen was novel tech. Not the old hat it is now. 

tht

9secondkox2 said:

tht said:

9secondkox2 said:

tht said:

Curious how they are going drive down the price on an iMac with a 32" miniLED.

ProDisplay XDR is $5000. Mac Studio base model is $2000. Hard to believe this thing will start at $7000. The ProDisplay XDR is an early version of a miniLED with only 656 FALD zones or so. If it is like the iPP12.9 or MBP14/16, it could have 40,000 zones. Imagine four MBP16 displays fused into one. Sounds expensive.

Even a regular 32" 6K LCD monitor is probably $3000, if it is available.

The iMac 24 also needs to have a base model at $1000.

When looking to the future, look to the past.

when the iMac 5k came out, a 27” monitor was pretty big. And 5k did not exist. 4K was costly and yet Apple came out with a 5k monitor. Not only thst, but they had to invent new internal connectors to drive all those pixels as there was no standard way at the time. Apple was offering the 5k at launch with a novel display for an absolute steal. 

The XDR and Mac Studio/studio display are huge profit margin padding machines. There is no reason a 32” iMac won’t be a good deal unless apple simply chooses to continue to gouge. And that may be the case. The strategy could be - discontinue iMac at a fair price snd introduce the studio combo for a high price for long enough that customers forget about the great deal the iMac was. Then reintroduce the iMac at a high price. Hoping against hope that such is not the case. It just depends on what apple wants to do. 

Funny… back when apple silicon was just a rumor, everyone was talking about how much more affordable macs would be. Nope. Quite the opposite. 

Hopefully the return of the iMac heralds the return of decent pricing once again. There is nothing stopping that from happening. 

Apple, arguably, used all those savings from not paying Intel's profit margins, to put more stuff into their computers. To me, they put that budget into displays, batteries and speakers. My general sense is that Apple laptops seem to have larger battery capacities than competitor products, more speakers, and those 254 ppi miniLEDs are very very good. I could be wrong about the batteries, as it really stems from reading lots of laptop reviews, and who knows how good my memory is these days.

Laptops and external display OLEDs haven't quite ridden the mass production of economies of scale just quite yet. Especially robust ones that can last 8 to 10 years. Maybe by 2024. And, Apple is the only one shipping miniLEDs in millions of units. My sense is miniLEDs cost 1.5x to 2x as much as regular LCD displays at the same ppi, and don't get the benefit of the rest of the market shipping more millions. Perhaps it is a chicken or egg problem, but there are reasons why there are very few PC OEMs using miniLEDs like Apple's. Cost has to be a big factor. Seems not paying Intel gives them an advantage there.

Anyways, regarding that 27" 5K display in the iMac 5K. It's been 10 years. The cheapest one you can get is the LG UF 27" 5K at still has $1300 MSRP after 6+ years, while Samsung's 27" 5K Viewfinity S9 has an MSRP of $1600. This are just regular 220 ppi LCDs with edge-lit monolithic back lights. There is some bigger gross margins in this LG and Samsung monitor prices, but they aren't miniLEDs either.

What's a 32" 220 ppi miniLED with 40k zones going to cost, then? It is both larger and use more advanced display tech and is less mass produced than these 27" 5K displays. Really can't see how such a display can be anything less than $3000? Maybe? An M3/4 Pro Mac mini base system would cost $1500?

So, it seems to me that a miniLED 32" 220 ppi (6K) iMac is going to have a very 2017 iMac Pro like price of $4500 to $5000. If it was a 27" 5K LCD, I can see base model prices starting at $3000.

Perhaps you can think of it this way. A MBP16 base model price is $2500. Now think of how much 3 more of those 16" miniLED displays is going to cost. $500 per 16" display? That would make it $4000. The issue with that is Apple sells 10s of millions of 16" miniLED. A 32" miniLED, would it even be a million across its lifetime? That means more expensive.

I’d give you your point…

Except we aren’t talking laptops (which now indeed do have phenomenal screens). We are talking imac, which is the desktop category. 

And no, Apple hasn’t put money in the iMac screens, thr Pro Display xdr (which is unchanged) or the Studio display. That latter is an easy cash grab for apple. 

And your point about a base 27” 5k iMac needing a $3000 start… when the brand new 27” iMac 5k was under $2000 is laughable. Especially considering that 5k screen was novel tech. Not the old hat it is now. 

My point still stands. Did you see what was in that $1800 iMac 5K base model? It's only a little more expensive set of components than the A13 system in the current 27" $1600 ASD. It had 8 GB RAM and 256 GB of storage using really cheap CPU and GPU options.

There's a bit of nuance, or perhaps a blaring detail, about Intel iMacs. Intel systems can be dirt cheap. Like $300 worth of parts cheap for CPU, RAM, and storage. That's what Apple put in their base model iMacs. 

If you say Apple is going ship an iMac 27" 5K with M2, 8 GB RAM and 256 GB storage for $1800. I'd definitely say that it is possible. I don't think Apple is going to do that. I don't anyone should get it either.

If it is an M2 Pro, 16 GB RAM, and 512 GB of storage in an iMac 5K, it would be $3000. This would just be putting the $1300 M2 Pro Mac mini configuration, at $1300, into a ASD at $1600. That M2 Pro is binned too. The full M2 Pro Mac mini is a $300 upgrade option.

Toortog

Forget that stupid 24" iMac and bring back the 27" or even a new 32" iMac and I order one immediately.    I don't care M2 or M3 just a 27" or bigger iMac.