New & colorful 27-inch iMac starts production, reportedly won't have mini LED

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 31
    Non-clickbait information in that Digitimes article, in a nutshell:

    Apple is not using the same supplier for backlight modules for the 2022 iMac Pro and/or Pro Display as they are using for the 2021 MacBook Pros. 
    edited December 2021 watto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 31
    "The Digitimes report is sketchy..."

    Indeed. Not that this ever stops AI from headlining articles based on sketchy reports as if they were facts.

    This makes no sense. The desktop iMac market isn't big enough to split between two machines separated by only 3 inches of screen.  Professionals who actually NEED more horsepower and screen real estate in a desktop than supplied by the already very powerful 24" iMac will best be served by a 30" screen mated to a more powerful chip and even faster graphics. I seriously doubt that the desktop market at this point could support 3 models of iMac, and if it's going to be divided between consumer/prosumer and professional, then the latter should be as "pro" as possible. 

    watto_cobraDetnatorbaconstangh2p
  • Reply 23 of 31
    Heck, Apple used to sell a 30” Cinema Display forever ago. It’s 2022! Time to move up. 
    You do realize that the Apple 30" Cinema Display had the same resolution, 2560 x 1440, as the original 27" iMac?  The iMac 5K Retina blows away the old 30" Apple Cinema Display.  Just because it is larger, doesn't make it better.  If Apple added a few inches, it would still likely be 5K.  The 24" iMac is kind of a joke with Apple calling it a 4.5K display.  So Apple adding a few inches to the 27" iMac would call it a 5.5K display?  Those are not even industry standards.

    If you are so hung up on display size, buy a Mac mini and get whatever display you want.  The fact is that most people don't have the desk space for a 32" display, which is why a 27" display is still the most popular sized display, even today.  I looked at a 32" display to use for work, and it even had small bezels.  It was huge.  Two of them side by side would be impossible, and overkill.  The 32" was 4K, and I settled on two 28" 4K displays.  Since both are 4K, the 32" would not have offered any additional screen real estate.

    I wonder how you will feel when the new replacement iMac will have a notch in the display?  You know that is happening because that is apparently Apple's new trademark visual design.  
    williamlondon
  • Reply 24 of 31
    crowley said:
    lkrupp said:
    tundraboy said:
    Really…27”? 
    This is just a replacement of the 27" Intel iMac. They've had those for over a decade.
    I think the point is that with the screen size unchanged, it is now pretty close to the lower end 24" which increased from 21.5".  I myself had hoped that it would have been bumped up to 30”.
    Then I guess you won’t be buying one, huh.
    Wow, you took an incredibly innocuous comment and found a way to be an asshole.  I'm in awe of your talent.
    Lkrupp made a valid point.  If you don't like the screen size, don't buy it.  People who want a larger display don't buy the 21.5" or 24" iMac.  They also don't buy the 13" or 14" MacBook Pro when they want a larger display size.  Bottom line is that whatever Apple comes out with to replace the 27" iMac, people won't be so petty about screen size because they will buy it anyway.  The 24" does not have a 5K display.  The new iMac will have a 5K or better display, regardless of the actual inches of the display.  So that will set it apart from the 24" iMac.  You will see more valid complaints about the colors of the chassis rather than the display size.
  • Reply 25 of 31
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Rogue01 said:
    crowley said:
    lkrupp said:
    tundraboy said:
    Really…27”? 
    This is just a replacement of the 27" Intel iMac. They've had those for over a decade.
    I think the point is that with the screen size unchanged, it is now pretty close to the lower end 24" which increased from 21.5".  I myself had hoped that it would have been bumped up to 30”.
    Then I guess you won’t be buying one, huh.
    Wow, you took an incredibly innocuous comment and found a way to be an asshole.  I'm in awe of your talent.
    Lkrupp made a valid point.  If you don't like the screen size, don't buy it.  People who want a larger display don't buy the 21.5" or 24" iMac.  They also don't buy the 13" or 14" MacBook Pro when they want a larger display size.  Bottom line is that whatever Apple comes out with to replace the 27" iMac, people won't be so petty about screen size because they will buy it anyway.  The 24" does not have a 5K display.  The new iMac will have a 5K or better display, regardless of the actual inches of the display.  So that will set it apart from the 24" iMac.  You will see more valid complaints about the colors of the chassis rather than the display size.
    It’s not a valid point, it’s inane snarkiness because lkrupp has nothing but sourness in his life.

    If someone would prefer a larger display let them say it.  It’s be quite interesting to know how many people want to go big.  

    I don’t want an iMac at all, but you don’t see me pithily shutting down everyone who does out of spitefulness or to stroke my own rotten ego.
  • Reply 26 of 31
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,325member
    DuhSesame said:
    melgross said:
    DuhSesame said:
    Marvin said:
    Really…27”? 
    27" is fine for size, that's still a big display, especially if it still has some bezels like the 24" but I hope it has the XDR display style because the old-style panels don't display black levels all that well. Here is the XDR next to the iMac, size is ok but the blacks on the other displays are much better and they can display HDR content properly. If they don't put an HDR display in the 27", people would be better buying a MBP with a 3rd party HDR display.


    Soooo…. This is the consumer version or it won’t have that many colors.  Guess I was right yesterday.

    Maybe Apple will kept the M1?  After all, the only significant improvement with the A15 was power efficiency, but unlike A14, M1 often paired with a fan.
    According to Anandtech’s deep dive, and some of Apple’s own specs, they undersold the A15’s performance. It’s not just an A14 with efficiency improvements. People think that the yon;y thing that matters are the CPU and GPU cores, which is no longer true.
    Well, HSA is great, but we don't have that much application yet to take advantage of.  That's fine, I'm not saying A15/M2 is a gimmick, it'll benefit those without a fan, the M1/M2 is a class of its own.
    The only way to get the applications is to have the hardware capability. Otherwise how are developers going to develop for it? They have to make money, and it doesn’t pay to work on features that can’t be widely used. That also goes for OS features and APIs. Without them there is no progress. I’d rather buy a machine with capability’s that aren’t yet being utilized.
    baconstang
  • Reply 27 of 31
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,325member
    Marvin said:
    melgross said:
    When the 27 iMac first came out, it was often described as a $2,500 monitor with a free computer attached. That was true for the less expensive models. But we have to think about what external monitors are really available, and at what prices. As far as I know, there are no reasonably priced monitors of 5K, PCI-3 and true HDR capabilities at anywhere near the price of what the current iMac 27 monitor would go for it it were a separate display. A lot claim true HDR, but they are not. In that area,

    Apple’s XDR display is one of the less expensive models. I keep thinking that the iPad 12.9 display is much simpler than the older XDR, but does the same thing—but better. I can’t believe that Apple isn’t redesigning the XDR to better match the iPad and new 16 Macbook Pro displays. I’ve got both, and their displays age better than anything else I’ve seen under several thousand bucks. But how would they scale up to 27-32?  If Apple came out with a 27-29 miniled display for $3,000, I would buy it. Even $3,500 wouldn’t be expensive, considering. 

    So which third party true HDR (over 1,000 nits max) display, that’s actually available now, because speculating on anything is hopeless, would you recommend, that’s not in the price range of the XDR?
    It's true the 3rd party display options aren't great either, very few go above 4k. The following are listed as 1,000 nits HDR:

    https://www.newegg.com/asus-pa32uc-32-uhd/p/0JC-001P-00AF6
    https://www.amazon.com/Swift-PG27UQ-G-SYNC-Gaming-Monitor/dp/B07F1VGGLK
    https://www.amazon.com/Acer-Predator-X27-bmiphzx-Monitor/dp/B07CWDBL39?th=1
    https://www.amazon.com/Acer-BM270-LED-LCD-Monitor/dp/B07F8114JT
    https://www.amazon.com/Philips-436M6VBPAB-DisplayHDR1000-MultiView-DisplayPort/dp/B07D5S3QCS

    Some are quite expensive at ~$2k and they all have bad designs. One option some people have tried is using an OLED TV as a monitor. They are 45"+ but start at around $1000:



    The quality is nice but it would need to be sat further away to be usable for a computer screen.





    It's strange that LG sells 32" 4k OLED monitors for $4000 but 48" OLED TVs for $1000, maybe it's just down to the size of the target market:

    https://www.amazon.com/LG-32EP950-B-Ultrafine-Display-DCI-P3/dp/B097NYL7XS/
    https://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-48-class-c1-series-oled-4k-uhd-smart-webos-tv/6453311.p?skuId=6453311

    If they sold a 32" OLED TV, that would be ideal. Of course there's the burn-in issue with OLED.

    It seems likely that they should be able to scale up the tech from the 16" XDR display to 27"-32". It's only 4x the size but I definitely think they'll be able to reduce the price on the 32" XDR display while increasing the dimming zones. 32" with 2500+ dimming zones under $3k would be competitive with other monitors. I assume they'll call the 27" iMac the iMac Pro as it will have M1 Pro/Max so it would make sense to have XDR to match the Macbook Pro and iPad Pro lineup.
    OLED Tv screens are very different from smaller OLED screens. The manufacturing and technologies are both different. That’s why LG has been making excellent (for a Tv) Tv OLEDs, but nasty OLED screens for anything smaller. It’s just recently that LG has been able to master the phone size OLED screen.

    Tv OLEDs are advertised as being HDR, but they’re not. Generally they have 650 nits brightness, which is well below HDR.

    we see a very few OLED TVs marketed as MicroLED. But again, Micro LED in a Tv is very different from that in a smaller screen. MicroLED TVs have bigger LEDs than those in a normal phone, tablet or even hi rez laptop such as Apple’s 16”.

    I also think that Apple could likely lower the price of the XDR because of the simpler manufacture of the new miniLED screen. But I’d rather see them go to 8K, and have the new iMac go to 6K, even if the pricing is the same. The XDR is very popular in the industries Apple is selling it to. The price is not a problem there. We may want the screen, but it’s really not meant for us. So a smaller 6K model might solve that problem.
  • Reply 28 of 31
    thttht Posts: 4,618member
    charlesn said:
    "The Digitimes report is sketchy..."

    Indeed. Not that this ever stops AI from headlining articles based on sketchy reports as if they were facts.

    This makes no sense. The desktop iMac market isn't big enough to split between two machines separated by only 3 inches of screen.  Professionals who actually NEED more horsepower and screen real estate in a desktop than supplied by the already very powerful 24" iMac will best be served by a 30" screen mated to a more powerful chip and even faster graphics. I seriously doubt that the desktop market at this point could support 3 models of iMac, and if it's going to be divided between consumer/prosumer and professional, then the latter should be as "pro" as possible. 
    I agree with you on Apple not having 3 display sizes for iMacs. I don't think Apple has ever had more than 2 display sizes for iMacs in over 2 decades, so they likely will continue with 2. However, if the 27" is miniLED w/ProMotion at 5K, I think that will be more than enough differentiation to the iMac 24 at 4.5K. The 24 to 120 Hz, contrast ratio and HDR support will be enough. A picture of the two side by side will be all that is needed to tell which one is better.

    Goes without saying that the iMac Pro will have higher performance compute, and it really needs the rumored M1 Max Duo at the top end. Then, they can have the anti-reflective glass treatment as an option for the iMac 27". The iMac 24" doesn't even have >16 GB RAM options. So lots of differentiation. If the iMac Pro has an M1 Max Duo, a fully optioned model is going to be in the low tens of thousands of dollars!

    Yet, they still need to have at least 1, if not 2 and better 3, mass market external display options to get all these customers who want bigger displays. A lot of Mac buyers will be external display buyers, including iMac buyers. Heck, they should have a 40+ 8K model in development and even a 21:9 36" at something like 7000x3000 should be a model too. There's really too much focus and too many "no" answers for their product lineup. The balance is too far into the simplification side. Each major product lineup can offer one more model, and they should offer more branded products like monitors, router/backup NAS, keyboards, pointing devices, etc. The mouse hasn't changed in decade? The keyboard should be an ongoing engineering exercise in UI design.
  • Reply 29 of 31
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 1,469member
    New 27” iMac to give a larger screen option for the all in one compared to 24” and Apple likely has had a change of heart snd will offer a 32” iMac Pro. Even though they said they weren’t working on an iMac Pro last year. It was true then. Hopefully is not true now. 

    And it would really help to mss as me the lineup make sense. 

    A new MacBook Air alongside a new MacBook to fit next to MacBook Pro. 

    New Mac mini could just be called “Mac.”

    iMacs will have an iMac Pro next to them. 

    iPad has iPad Pro. 

    iPhone has iPhone pro. 

    The Mac Pro is the ultimate destroyer and can have a rebranded Mac mini (“Mac”)as its headless sibling. 

    Next could be Apple Watch and Apple Watch pro. 

    Would really bring cohesion across the lineup and offer clear intent and strategy. 

    27” iMac is ok.  But not really special like the 27” iMac 5k was nearly 7 years ago. 32” with a quad or duo m1/m2 max and resolution increase would be incredible. 
  • Reply 30 of 31
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,535member
    The 27” iMac overall size is every bit as large as I’d ever want it to be as an all-in-one computer. If Apple can find a way to put a larger screen inside the same overall iMac 27 dimensions, that would be great. Beyond that, I’d greatly prefer a component based system with separate monitors. If you want a 32” or 40” or three 27” monitors it’s up to you. 
  • Reply 31 of 31
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,258member
    melgross said:
    DuhSesame said:
    melgross said:
    DuhSesame said:
    Marvin said:
    Really…27”? 
    27" is fine for size, that's still a big display, especially if it still has some bezels like the 24" but I hope it has the XDR display style because the old-style panels don't display black levels all that well. Here is the XDR next to the iMac, size is ok but the blacks on the other displays are much better and they can display HDR content properly. If they don't put an HDR display in the 27", people would be better buying a MBP with a 3rd party HDR display.


    Soooo…. This is the consumer version or it won’t have that many colors.  Guess I was right yesterday.

    Maybe Apple will kept the M1?  After all, the only significant improvement with the A15 was power efficiency, but unlike A14, M1 often paired with a fan.
    According to Anandtech’s deep dive, and some of Apple’s own specs, they undersold the A15’s performance. It’s not just an A14 with efficiency improvements. People think that the yon;y thing that matters are the CPU and GPU cores, which is no longer true.
    Well, HSA is great, but we don't have that much application yet to take advantage of.  That's fine, I'm not saying A15/M2 is a gimmick, it'll benefit those without a fan, the M1/M2 is a class of its own.
    The only way to get the applications is to have the hardware capability. Otherwise how are developers going to develop for it? They have to make money, and it doesn’t pay to work on features that can’t be widely used. That also goes for OS features and APIs. Without them there is no progress. I’d rather buy a machine with capability’s that aren’t yet being utilized.
    I agree.  With that said, CPU & GPU are still the most important unit.  My main point is there's nothing that really competes with the M-series chip.  No spec wars here, we'll save that for Pro chips.
    edited January 3
Sign In or Register to comment.