The PC world is 4k monitor land with higher refresh rates, stepping up/moving to 5k and above is expensive which is why Samsung 5k 27” ($1600) and Dell 6k 30” ($3100) cost what they cost, when the Apple XDR and Apple Studio Display were introduced many cried about the cost but nothing was on the market that was equivalent at the time, and when the Samsung and the Dell monitors came out low and behold, they weren’t cheap either.
The upgrade to 5K monitors cost more money, which is why the PC land is stuck at 4K with higher refresh rates, and contrary to the myth 5K and 6K are a step up from 4K, they are not a step backwards both require more resources in order to provide higher resolutions and more data transmission.
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.
The failure in your point is that Apple somehow needs to charge the studio display price for the display portion. Not so. Apple saved on the Mac mini/Mac Studio enclosure by eliminating it and the current studio display is quite overpriced. Basically an 8 year old display that’s a bit brighter than before. They charge for the studio display nearly what an entire 27” iMac 5k used to cost.
Apple is price gouging now. Current Inflation has a part in it, but much of it is apple charging more because they can. Perhaps to offset sales decreases related to pandemic response and subsequent greed from suppliers.
The real point is that it’s no problem for apple to return to providing a great computer at a good deal of a price. They don’t have to charge the same as a Mac Studio+studio display or Mac mini plus studio display. That was part of the great thing about iMac. It was an insanely great computer at a great price for what it was.
As a theory, It’s possible apple forecasted the economic downturns associated with a botched pandemic response and US inflation incompetence. So they made a difficult decision to put the beloved large iMac on hold and added a higher priced Mac Studio / studio display combination. That would also explain the old tech in the display (8year old screen tech, hand-me-down iPad camera, etc). Production costs down, profits way, way up. It’s not a bad move, financially. Just a frustrating one for customers and fans.
Certainly the big iMac is expected to at least have up to apple silicon max SOCs, with the possibility of an iMac Pro sporting the 3nm Ultra chip as well (with the big 32” enclosure allowing for some excellent thermal management (especially if it’s as thick as the studio display), if not the regular iMac 6k or whatever they’ll call it. Perhaps they’ll just call it the Mac and drop the “I.” It is the spiritual successor to the original Mac after all.
The old iMac was a great deal with brand new tech. There is no reason the new one can’t be as well. Even the current, neglected baby iMac is a pretty good deal with an 4.5k screen built in for those who don’t mind the smaller screen and limited SOC options. Apple can always manage/offset a cheaper base price with higher priced upgrades (like they usually do).
Sometimes absence really does make the heart grow fonder and that’s the case with the iMac. When it returns, it will make a big splash and feel brand new all over again. Probably will be enough time for the m1 Studio crowd to feel the urge to upgrade as well. It will be great to have both products available as Apple customers can have comparable performance in the form factor of their choice without having to take out a second mortgage for a Mac Pro. .
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…
When you buy a 27" iMac, you are spending around $1300-1500 on an Apple monitor.
You are saying you wouldn't buy: 27" Studio Display $1600 + $600 Mac mini 8GB/256GB = $2200
but you would buy: 27" iMac 8GB/256GB for $2000
wouldn't buy: 27" Studio Display $1600 + $2000 Mac Studio 32GB/512GB = $3600
but would buy: 27" iMac (top spec w 8GB/512GB) $3000 + $600 32GB RAM = $3600
It's the same company making all of these products and they charge similar margins on them, the costs just look different when they are sold separately because you get to see the price distribution between the display part and the computer part.
Apple doesn't manufacture display panels, they buy them from LG and design the enclosure. The same panel in a standalone display will cost Apple the same in an iMac.
No point in waiting 2 years to find out if they will make a bigger iMac when a Studio Display + Mac Studio is available today for the same price.
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.
The failure in your point is that Apple somehow needs to charge the studio display price for the display portion. Not so. Apple saved on the Mac mini/Mac Studio enclosure by eliminating it and the current studio display is quite overpriced. Basically an 8 year old display that’s a bit brighter than before. They charge for the studio display nearly what an entire 27” iMac 5k used to cost.
Apple is price gouging now. Current Inflation has a part in it, but much of it is apple charging more because they can. Perhaps to offset sales decreases related to pandemic response and subsequent greed from suppliers.
The real point is that it’s no problem for apple to return to providing a great computer at a good deal of a price. They don’t have to charge the same as a Mac Studio+studio display or Mac mini plus studio display. That was part of the great thing about iMac. It was an insanely great computer at a great price for what it was.
As a theory, It’s possible apple forecasted the economic downturns associated with a botched pandemic response and US inflation incompetence. So they made a difficult decision to put the beloved large iMac on hold and added a higher priced Mac Studio / studio display combination. That would also explain the old tech in the display (8year old screen tech, hand-me-down iPad camera, etc). Production costs down, profits way, way up. It’s not a bad move, financially. Just a frustrating one for customers and fans.
Certainly the big iMac is expected to at least have up to apple silicon max SOCs, with the possibility of an iMac Pro sporting the 3nm Ultra chip as well (with the big 32” enclosure allowing for some excellent thermal management (especially if it’s as thick as the studio display), if not the regular iMac 6k or whatever they’ll call it. Perhaps they’ll just call it the Mac and drop the “I.” It is the spiritual successor to the original Mac after all.
The old iMac was a great deal with brand new tech. There is no reason the new one can’t be as well. Even the current, neglected baby iMac is a pretty good deal with an 4.5k screen built in for those who don’t mind the smaller screen and limited SOC options. Apple can always manage/offset a cheaper base price with higher priced upgrades (like they usually do).
Sometimes absence really does make the heart grow fonder and that’s the case with the iMac. When it returns, it will make a big splash and feel brand new all over again. Probably will be enough time for the m1 Studio crowd to feel the urge to upgrade as well. It will be great to have both products available as Apple customers can have comparable performance in the form factor of their choice without having to take out a second mortgage for a Mac Pro. .
There's no evidence for for the bolded sentence. Like I and others are saying, large 220 ppi monitors are costly. There are now 3 separate companies selling 27" 5K monitors: LG, Samsung and Apple. They have MSRPs ranging from from $1300 to $1600. Dell sells a 32" 6K monitor, 220 ppi, for $2500. Dell used to have a 27" 5K, but they don't sell it anymore?
If Apple is price gouging, one of these companies would be undercutting them. They haven't. I could be convinced that the Apple 6K 32" XDR is price gouging, but it is a 576 FALD miniLED while the Dell is not. Still even with that Dell 6K price at $2500, that means an iMac 32 would be $3500 to $4000.
And the rumor is that Apple will have a 32" miniLED iMac. That means more expensive, not less, and very much likely will not be priced for consumers. A consumer should either get an iMac 24, or a Mac mini with a $500 32" 4K, or perhaps a 5K2K, display.
If they do come out with a 32" iMac, it would seem likely that it would be 6K. However, even if a lower cost version of the XDR display is incorporated, it sure seems like it would be pricey. The 27" 5K iMac has always been a pretty good deal considering what standalone 27" 5K monitors cost. Why not offer a 32" 6K and a 27" 5K iMac in addition to the 24" 4.5K iMac?
PS: To my knowledge, no one offers a standalone 24" 4.5K monitor, so interesting that Apple is able to offer such a display in the 24" iMac for a reasonable price.
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.
The failure in your point is that Apple somehow needs to charge the studio display price for the display portion. Not so. Apple saved on the Mac mini/Mac Studio enclosure by eliminating it and the current studio display is quite overpriced. Basically an 8 year old display that’s a bit brighter than before. They charge for the studio display nearly what an entire 27” iMac 5k used to cost.
Apple is price gouging now. Current Inflation has a part in it, but much of it is apple charging more because they can. Perhaps to offset sales decreases related to pandemic response and subsequent greed from suppliers.
The real point is that it’s no problem for apple to return to providing a great computer at a good deal of a price. They don’t have to charge the same as a Mac Studio+studio display or Mac mini plus studio display. That was part of the great thing about iMac. It was an insanely great computer at a great price for what it was.
As a theory, It’s possible apple forecasted the economic downturns associated with a botched pandemic response and US inflation incompetence. So they made a difficult decision to put the beloved large iMac on hold and added a higher priced Mac Studio / studio display combination. That would also explain the old tech in the display (8year old screen tech, hand-me-down iPad camera, etc). Production costs down, profits way, way up. It’s not a bad move, financially. Just a frustrating one for customers and fans.
Certainly the big iMac is expected to at least have up to apple silicon max SOCs, with the possibility of an iMac Pro sporting the 3nm Ultra chip as well (with the big 32” enclosure allowing for some excellent thermal management (especially if it’s as thick as the studio display), if not the regular iMac 6k or whatever they’ll call it. Perhaps they’ll just call it the Mac and drop the “I.” It is the spiritual successor to the original Mac after all.
The old iMac was a great deal with brand new tech. There is no reason the new one can’t be as well. Even the current, neglected baby iMac is a pretty good deal with an 4.5k screen built in for those who don’t mind the smaller screen and limited SOC options. Apple can always manage/offset a cheaper base price with higher priced upgrades (like they usually do).
Sometimes absence really does make the heart grow fonder and that’s the case with the iMac. When it returns, it will make a big splash and feel brand new all over again. Probably will be enough time for the m1 Studio crowd to feel the urge to upgrade as well. It will be great to have both products available as Apple customers can have comparable performance in the form factor of their choice without having to take out a second mortgage for a Mac Pro. .
There's no evidence for for the bolded sentence. Like I and others are saying, large 220 ppi monitors are costly. There are now 3 separate companies selling 27" 5K monitors: LG, Samsung and Apple. They have MSRPs ranging from from $1300 to $1600. Dell sells a 32" 6K monitor, 220 ppi, for $2500. Dell used to have a 27" 5K, but they don't sell it anymore?
If Apple is price gouging, one of these companies would be undercutting them. They haven't. I could be convinced that the Apple 6K 32" XDR is price gouging, but it is a 576 FALD miniLED while the Dell is not. Still even with that Dell 6K price at $2500, that means an iMac 32 would be $3500 to $4000.
And the rumor is that Apple will have a 32" miniLED iMac. That means more expensive, not less, and very much likely will not be priced for consumers. A consumer should either get an iMac 24, or a Mac mini with a $500 32" 4K, or perhaps a 5K2K, display.
That evidence is in plain sight. The upgrade prices are a jump. Apple is playing games with base pricing too. M1 was fair at base prices. M2 pretended to be a bargain. But it was a sneaky bait and switch with slower ssd speeds unless you upgraded the storage just to get the old m1 speed (and at minuscule storage sizes by todays standards.
also, there is no evidence for your statement in bold.
This is just a copy of a rumor going around There’s no substantiation for the Time frame and while it’s possible It doesn’t sound Likely
Unfortunately this is true. We’ve been hearing about the new iMac for a couple years now.
But the timing does make sense. The Mac Studio + Studio Display was a nice way for apple to increase or maintain profit margins while navigating pandemic response related supply chain issues and inflation.
But it’s not a long term replacement for the iMac
The iMac has always been a very special machine, culminating in the iMac Pro, which showcased ridiculous performance in the all in one form factor - with the heat from Intel chips and discrete graphics cards no less. It’s iconic. The Mac Studio is ok in s Mac mini kind of way, but it’s basically your standard pc style setup. The iMac is the quintessential Mac. As all macs are integrated systems now, the iMac is the ultimate in integration.
it’s time. or it soon will be. A 32” iMac with a sleek, yet thermally capable design with performance running from base specs to serious horsepower would be a serious hit. There are lots of ways for apple to make this stand out as well. Your regular basic computer could be thr Mac Studio, while your creative, stylish editing computer could be an ultrawide iMac, etc. it’s likely Apple will make this stand out when it relaunches, whatever that looks like. Would explain the different reports of various iMac sizes in testing (including one crazy 40+” rumor - only an ultrawide seems to make sense for that one.
If they do come out with a 32" iMac, it would seem likely that it would be 6K. However, even if a lower cost version of the XDR display is incorporated, it sure seems like it would be pricey. The 27" 5K iMac has always been a pretty good deal considering what standalone 27" 5K monitors cost. Why not offer a 32" 6K and a 27" 5K iMac in addition to the 24" 4.5K iMac?
PS: To my knowledge, no one offers a standalone 24" 4.5K monitor, so interesting that Apple is able to offer such a display in the 24" iMac for a reasonable price.
I think apple will leave the 27” to Mac mini and Mac Studio customers.
The iMac will be positioned differently with a higher end display. There is the option of dropping the small iMac snd letting the Mac mini replace it like the studio did the big iMac. But I doubt it. There will be a low end iMac and a power user iMac.
How long does it take? People would buy so many of these. Love Apple but sometimes I wonder what going on with the slow development of an existing product. The design is fine just make it BIGGER!
Apple could simply be waiting for thunderbolt 5 coming next year?, such a monitor if it’s 5K or 6k need the extra bandwidth. I don’t think Apple is going to do a two cable solution which is what you would need to do with thunderbolt 4. They already went through that with some of the cinema displays back in the day.
I think Apple is going to be a big user of thunderbolt five when it comes out, the next version of the iPhone and certainly the one after will need thunderbolt five to offload ProRes and spatial video at faster speeds in the near future? Many users are starting to hint at increase speed and bandwidth needs.
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.
If it’s 32”, it will be a 6k monitor to keep with Apple’s retina guidelines.
Indeed... and if the price of 5k is too much... then imagine 6k.
An iMac should be affordable for homes and office workers. 5K and 6K displays are not affordable. The 5K Studio Display is using 50% more energy than a best in class 4K display (check energystar.gov). No need to burn energy to browse, write e-mails, or do most tasks. Add the (energy) load on the GPU, and it becomes even worse. If the new Apple Pencil is telling us something, then Apple is ready for this.
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.
If it’s 32”, it will be a 6k monitor to keep with Apple’s retina guidelines.
Indeed... and if the price of 5k is too much... then imagine 6k.
An iMac should be affordable for homes and office workers. 5K and 6K displays are not affordable. The 5K Studio Display is using 50% more energy than a best in class 4K display (check energystar.gov). No need to burn energy to browse, write e-mails, or do most tasks. Add the (energy) load on the GPU, and it becomes even worse. If the new Apple Pencil is telling us something, then Apple is ready for this.
5k iMac was affordable when 5k was brand new. 6k can be affordable also, especially since it’s old hat now.
Also the studio display is doing more than a standard 4K monitor - with its webcam, speakers, etc. and it’s brighter than many 4K monitors. of course it uses more energy.
iMac Plus won't happen until they can also release a parallel display at the same time. I still think the 30" Retina is perfect and likely, not 32". It can't be a high-end XDR unit, that would have to be an iMac Pro, which was replaced by the Mac Studio.
I would love to see them drop the current 6K Pro Display and leave Dell out in the wilderness there, stuck in between 5.5K and 6.5K displays from Apple. A 30" Retina Studio Display (also used for iMac Plus) at 3240p (5760x3240) "5.5K" (actually 5.8K) and a 32" Liquid Retina XDR Pro Display at 3600p (6400x3600) "6.5K" (actually 6.4K). FYI, I would pay almost any amount for the latter, but that's just me.
If they do come out with a 32" iMac, it would seem likely that it would be 6K. However, even if a lower cost version of the XDR display is incorporated, it sure seems like it would be pricey. The 27" 5K iMac has always been a pretty good deal considering what standalone 27" 5K monitors cost. Why not offer a 32" 6K and a 27" 5K iMac in addition to the 24" 4.5K iMac?
PS: To my knowledge, no one offers a standalone 24" 4.5K monitor, so interesting that Apple is able to offer such a display in the 24" iMac for a reasonable price.
I think apple will leave the 27” to Mac mini and Mac Studio customers.
The iMac will be positioned differently with a higher end display. There is the option of dropping the small iMac snd letting the Mac mini replace it like the studio did the big iMac. But I doubt it. There will be a low end iMac and a power user iMac.
There ought to be iMacs in between low end and power user. I guess a separate base model mini and 27" Studio display could fill this gap, but I would think an integrated larger screen iMac would be relatively less expensive from a price/performance point of view, and that it would be the power users that would lean toward the separate Mac+Display approach.
iMacs have always been a great balance between performance, design aesthetic, and price within a range of tiers. I would be surprised if a 32" display can be integrated into an iMac without being priced on the very high end.
There's a bigger gap in display size percentage between a 32" and 24" than there was when we had 27" and 21.5" iMacs, so considering that the 24" is 4.5K, would it be crazy to have a 30" 5.5K iMac?
Personally, I would like to see a new 27"or larger screen iMac for about the same price (adjusted for today's dollars) as my 2014 27" 5K iMac (i7/16GB/1TB-fusion). The approach using a Studio Display with a mid-spec mini would be close (still a bit higher), but once you add the display stand, mouse and keyboard, it's then a fair bit more than a few hundred bucks higher. (Never mind what a M2 Pro mini would add).
Comments
The PC world is 4k monitor land with higher refresh rates, stepping up/moving to 5k and above is expensive which is why Samsung 5k 27” ($1600) and Dell 6k 30” ($3100) cost what they cost, when the Apple XDR and Apple Studio Display were introduced many cried about the cost but nothing was on the market that was equivalent at the time, and when the Samsung and the Dell monitors came out low and behold, they weren’t cheap either.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/best-5k-monitor/
Future 5k or 6k monitors with 120Hz refresh rates will need thunderbolt five, if you want one cable connection to transmit all of that extra data.
https://www.pcmag.com/explainers/what-is-thunderbolt-5
The upgrade to 5K monitors cost more money, which is why the PC land is stuck at 4K with higher refresh rates, and contrary to the myth 5K and 6K are a step up from 4K, they are not a step backwards both require more resources in order to provide higher resolutions and more data transmission.
https://ihax.io/display-resolution-explained/
https://noamkroll.com/the-definitive-aspect-ratio-resolution-guide-for-video-2k-4k-6k-8k-every-other-major-format/
You are saying you wouldn't buy:
27" Studio Display $1600 + $600 Mac mini 8GB/256GB = $2200
but you would buy:
27" iMac 8GB/256GB for $2000
wouldn't buy:
27" Studio Display $1600 + $2000 Mac Studio 32GB/512GB = $3600
but would buy:
27" iMac (top spec w 8GB/512GB) $3000 + $600 32GB RAM = $3600
It's the same company making all of these products and they charge similar margins on them, the costs just look different when they are sold separately because you get to see the price distribution between the display part and the computer part.
Apple doesn't manufacture display panels, they buy them from LG and design the enclosure. The same panel in a standalone display will cost Apple the same in an iMac.
No point in waiting 2 years to find out if they will make a bigger iMac when a Studio Display + Mac Studio is available today for the same price.
If Apple is price gouging, one of these companies would be undercutting them. They haven't. I could be convinced that the Apple 6K 32" XDR is price gouging, but it is a 576 FALD miniLED while the Dell is not. Still even with that Dell 6K price at $2500, that means an iMac 32 would be $3500 to $4000.
And the rumor is that Apple will have a 32" miniLED iMac. That means more expensive, not less, and very much likely will not be priced for consumers. A consumer should either get an iMac 24, or a Mac mini with a $500 32" 4K, or perhaps a 5K2K, display.
PS: To my knowledge, no one offers a standalone 24" 4.5K monitor, so interesting that Apple is able to offer such a display in the 24" iMac for a reasonable price.
There’s no substantiation for the Time frame
and while it’s possible It doesn’t sound Likely
also, there is no evidence for your statement in bold.
The iMac has always been a very special machine, culminating in the iMac Pro, which showcased ridiculous performance in the all in one form factor - with the heat from Intel chips and discrete graphics cards no less. It’s iconic. The Mac Studio is ok in s Mac mini kind of way, but it’s basically your standard pc style setup. The iMac is the quintessential Mac. As all macs are integrated systems now, the iMac is the ultimate in integration.
it’s time. or it soon will be. A 32” iMac with a sleek, yet thermally capable design with performance running from base specs to serious horsepower would be a serious hit. There are lots of ways for apple to make this stand out as well. Your regular basic computer could be thr Mac Studio, while your creative, stylish editing computer could be an ultrawide iMac, etc. it’s likely Apple will make this stand out when it relaunches, whatever that looks like. Would explain the different reports of various iMac sizes in testing (including one crazy 40+” rumor - only an ultrawide seems to make sense for that one.
So upgrade. A mini and a monitor is a much better upgrade than an iMac.
I think Apple is going to be a big user of thunderbolt five when it comes out, the next version of the iPhone and certainly the one after will need thunderbolt five to offload ProRes and spatial video at faster speeds in the near future? Many users are starting to hint at increase speed and bandwidth needs.
An iMac should be affordable for homes and office workers. 5K and 6K displays are not affordable. The 5K Studio Display is using 50% more energy than a best in class 4K display (check energystar.gov). No need to burn energy to browse, write e-mails, or do most tasks. Add the (energy) load on the GPU, and it becomes even worse. If the new Apple Pencil is telling us something, then Apple is ready for this.
I would love to see them drop the current 6K Pro Display and leave Dell out in the wilderness there, stuck in between 5.5K and 6.5K displays from Apple. A 30" Retina Studio Display (also used for iMac Plus) at 3240p (5760x3240) "5.5K" (actually 5.8K) and a 32" Liquid Retina XDR Pro Display at 3600p (6400x3600) "6.5K" (actually 6.4K). FYI, I would pay almost any amount for the latter, but that's just me.
iMacs have always been a great balance between performance, design aesthetic, and price within a range of tiers. I would be surprised if a 32" display can be integrated into an iMac without being priced on the very high end.
There's a bigger gap in display size percentage between a 32" and 24" than there was when we had 27" and 21.5" iMacs, so considering that the 24" is 4.5K, would it be crazy to have a 30" 5.5K iMac?
Personally, I would like to see a new 27"or larger screen iMac for about the same price (adjusted for today's dollars) as my 2014 27" 5K iMac (i7/16GB/1TB-fusion). The approach using a Studio Display with a mid-spec mini would be close (still a bit higher), but once you add the display stand, mouse and keyboard, it's then a fair bit more than a few hundred bucks higher. (Never mind what a M2 Pro mini would add).