While I agree with MjTomlin that it would make sense to first completely populate the line up with M1s, Apple does need to beat the latest 12th gen i9 based machines. And in future, I would see one release date each year and the lot get the equivalent gen update at once. It’s just a SOC.
I would have thought there would be an array of changes they'd want to make to the SOC design to get to the full product line. I which case it would seem to me to worth rolling them out over a few generations to offset development cost but also let them reduce risk. Desktops like the iMac give them a bit more freedom then MacBookPro wait for say another process improvement. tenthousandthings said:
Someone in one of the other threads pointed out that Apple uses Max in their iPhone marketing. Thus,
iPhone : iPhone Pro : iPhone Pro Max
iMac : iMac Pro : iMac Pro Max
iPad : iPad Air : iPad Pro (2) MacBook : MacBook Air : MacBook Pro (2)
Mac Mini : Mac Mini Pro : Mac Pro
Wouldn't that suggest a 24 iMac with and M1 Pro or M2 Pro then a larger screen model that is $200 more. Hey not knocking it sounds like a winner to me.
I was thinking more 24 : 27 XDR : 32 XDR
I also think Apple is going to do something interesting with graphics in the desktop SoCs.
If they keep case sizing and expanded the screen to 29.5inch would a 32 inch model still have the market? Still 24 :28 :32 is neat set of option.
A 42” iMac would have a sizable market across the world as would a desktop Mac similar to the old G4 dual cpu computer, but Apple refuses to make them…..
Huh?! In what world would people with enough desktop space or budget for a 42" screen be "sizeable" that would warrant making an all-in-one computer with that screen???
Sorry poor fellow my desk is 36” x 66” all hardwood from Crate and Barrel and it will out live me, just like the Dyson vacuum cleaner I have, which is 12 years old and next Mac I will buy may come close you see quality really does last, oh and my present car and my next car will out live me.
I'm super curious to see what the larger iMac will bring, and WHEN! My late 2013 27" with Catalina is begging to be replaced. My personal preferences? Colors like the 24", whatever size they come up with that's 27" or larger, and a price tag of less than $3k. I only use it for personal tasks so I don't need the high end graphics, etc.
While I agree with MjTomlin that it would make sense to first completely populate the line up with M1s, Apple does need to beat the latest 12th gen i9 based machines. And in future, I would see one release date each year and the lot get the equivalent gen update at once. It’s just a SOC.
I would have thought there would be an array of changes they'd want to make to the SOC design to get to the full product line. I which case it would seem to me to worth rolling them out over a few generations to offset development cost but also let them reduce risk. Desktops like the iMac give them a bit more freedom then MacBookPro wait for say another process improvement. tenthousandthings said:
Someone in one of the other threads pointed out that Apple uses Max in their iPhone marketing. Thus,
iPhone : iPhone Pro : iPhone Pro Max
iMac : iMac Pro : iMac Pro Max
iPad : iPad Air : iPad Pro (2) MacBook : MacBook Air : MacBook Pro (2)
Mac Mini : Mac Mini Pro : Mac Pro
Wouldn't that suggest a 24 iMac with and M1 Pro or M2 Pro then a larger screen model that is $200 more. Hey not knocking it sounds like a winner to me.
I was thinking more 24 : 27 XDR : 32 XDR
I also think Apple is going to do something interesting with graphics in the desktop SoCs.
If they keep case sizing and expanded the screen to 29.5inch would a 32 inch model still have the market? Still 24 :28 :32 is neat set of option.
A 42” iMac would have a sizable market across the world as would a desktop Mac similar to the old G4 dual cpu computer, but Apple refuses to make them…..
Huh?! In what world would people with enough desktop space or budget for a 42" screen be "sizeable" that would warrant making an all-in-one computer with that screen???
Sorry poor fellow my desk is 36” x 66” all hardwood from Crate and Barrel and it will out live me, just like the Dyson vacuum cleaner I have, which is 12 years old and next Mac I will buy may come close you see quality really does last, oh and my present car and my next car will out live me.
Then you really aren't in Apple's target market. A machine like that wants users whose companies want the person to be productive and don't even mind if they just hand it down to a relative or other staff member when they upgrade them to M3, M4, M5,.... models in the years to come.
To me, an iMac 32 with a matching 32 Pro display would play better to a border cashed-up upgrading market.
While I agree with MjTomlin that it would make sense to first completely populate the line up with M1s, Apple does need to beat the latest 12th gen i9 based machines. And in future, I would see one release date each year and the lot get the equivalent gen update at once. It’s just a SOC.
I would have thought there would be an array of changes they'd want to make to the SOC design to get to the full product line. I which case it would seem to me to worth rolling them out over a few generations to offset development cost but also let them reduce risk. Desktops like the iMac give them a bit more freedom then MacBookPro wait for say another process improvement. tenthousandthings said:
Someone in one of the other threads pointed out that Apple uses Max in their iPhone marketing. Thus,
iPhone : iPhone Pro : iPhone Pro Max
iMac : iMac Pro : iMac Pro Max
iPad : iPad Air : iPad Pro (2) MacBook : MacBook Air : MacBook Pro (2)
Mac Mini : Mac Mini Pro : Mac Pro
Wouldn't that suggest a 24 iMac with and M1 Pro or M2 Pro then a larger screen model that is $200 more. Hey not knocking it sounds like a winner to me.
I was thinking more 24 : 27 XDR : 32 XDR
I also think Apple is going to do something interesting with graphics in the desktop SoCs.
If they keep case sizing and expanded the screen to 29.5inch would a 32 inch model still have the market? Still 24 :28 :32 is neat set of option.
A 42” iMac would have a sizable market across the world as would a desktop Mac similar to the old G4 dual cpu computer, but Apple refuses to make them…..
Huh?! In what world would people with enough desktop space or budget for a 42" screen be "sizeable" that would warrant making an all-in-one computer with that screen???
Sorry poor fellow my desk is 36” x 66” all hardwood from Crate and Barrel and it will out live me, just like the Dyson vacuum cleaner I have, which is 12 years old and next Mac I will buy may come close you see quality really does last, oh and my present car and my next car will out live me.
Then you really aren't in Apple's target market. A machine like that wants users whose companies want the person to be productive and don't even mind if they just hand it down to a relative or other staff member when they upgrade them to M3, M4, M5,.... models in the years to come.
To me, an iMac 32 with a matching 32 Pro display would play better to a border cashed-up upgrading market.
A 42” iMac is really in the next decade, I’m not in the market for two 24” or 27” monitors on the desktop, nor am I interested in a big screen TV anymore a larger 32” would be fine. A 42” iMac is a dream just like a Apple server or a new Apple curated router.
I'm also waiting for Apple to take my money for a new 27" or larger iMac to replace my late 2015 5K 27 inch. I don't need high end graphics, 32 gb ram or 4 tb storage and can't/won't pay for these.
For some (many?) people, screen size (<42" however) is the need/desire, not the ability to run high-end pro apps simultaneously. Hoping they offer one in the low to mid $2000 area. I'm curious what the breakdown is pre Apple silicon of 27 inch iMac sales vs the smaller sizes. If I had to guess I would think the smaller sizes are much more common in the educational market. Which would explain why they released the M1 24 inch first.
I'm also waiting for Apple to take my money for a new 27" or larger iMac to replace my late 2015 5K 27 inch. I don't need high end graphics, 32 gb ram or 4 tb storage and can't/won't pay for these.
For some (many?) people, screen size (<42" however) is the need/desire, not the ability to run high-end pro apps simultaneously. Hoping they offer one in the low to mid $2000 area. I'm curious what the breakdown is pre Apple silicon of 27 inch iMac sales vs the smaller sizes. If I had to guess I would think the smaller sizes are much more common in the educational market. Which would explain why they released the M1 24 inch first.
If Apple doesn’t build it then they will never know, but a larger screen iMac or the mythical xMac with a curated Apple monitor would sell at a profit.
I'm also waiting for Apple to take my money for a new 27" or larger iMac to replace my late 2015 5K 27 inch. I don't need high end graphics, 32 gb ram or 4 tb storage and can't/won't pay for these.
For some (many?) people, screen size (<42" however) is the need/desire, not the ability to run high-end pro apps simultaneously. Hoping they offer one in the low to mid $2000 area. I'm curious what the breakdown is pre Apple silicon of 27 inch iMac sales vs the smaller sizes. If I had to guess I would think the smaller sizes are much more common in the educational market. Which would explain why they released the M1 24 inch first.
If Apple doesn’t build it then they will never know, but a larger screen iMac or the mythical xMac with a curated Apple monitor would sell at a profit.
Saying "I'd buy one and I know others that will, too," does not let you jump to the conclusion that it would be a profitable market segment for Apple. Additionally, it's (at best) hubris to claim that Apple will never know what you know about how to make their companies profit in selling AIOs if they don't blindly make a 42" iMac.
Looking at it from a purely technical standpoint, the current 27" iMac has a 218 PPI and 16:9 ratio which is why it's a 5K display which Apple I seem to recall Apple had to design a special chip for pushing that many pixels to a single display. For a 42" 16:9 display to have 218 PPI it would be around 8000 × 4500 pixels, which is 36 million pixels. That's about an 8K display. Plus, I think the M1 Max only allows for a single 6K display, which is 80% more pixels than the XDR display.
Do you that's reasonable to expect this year? What cost do you think this would be? I wish you luck because that's an amazing technical feat for Apple, but I don't.
danox said: ... and next Mac I will buy may come close you see quality really does last, oh and my present car and my next car will out live me.
I think those days are simply gone. I used to do the same. The problem is with phones/computers, etc. these days, the software ends up shortening the life of the machine. It's pretty hard just to stay on an old OS for too long. I'm currently on Mojave on my 2018 Mac mini, but am being pushed in every direction to upgrade. A couple of the apps I use have now stopped updating. Eventually, security issues might become a thing.
I understand, though, I always try to buy quality as well. That sometimes means doing without (if I'm unwilling to buy cheap stuff and don't have the budget).
I'm also waiting for Apple to take my money for a new 27" or larger iMac to replace my late 2015 5K 27 inch. I don't need high end graphics, 32 gb ram or 4 tb storage and can't/won't pay for these.
For some (many?) people, screen size (<42" however) is the need/desire, not the ability to run high-end pro apps simultaneously. ...
Oh, there is absolutely a market for a low to mid-level machine with a really big screen. The problem is the all-in-one nature of the iMac and how many different configurations they are likely to make. That's where the Mac mini + Apple Display would be what Apple should have (and should have had) all along. Buy the mini that fits your needs, add the right size monitor. Sounds like maybe those are on the way? But, you'll (and I) probably be disappointed by the pricing.
danox said: If Apple doesn’t build it then they will never know, but a larger screen iMac or the mythical xMac with a curated Apple monitor would sell at a profit.
Exactly. Especially the mythical xMac, though what that constitutes has probably changed a lot from what has been wanted. I don't care that much if it has slots or lots of expandability, etc. and I think that is gone (at least for now) in Apple Silicon. What it does need, though, is a variety of higher-end configurations in a case design capable of actually cooling the thing with little to no noise, and at a reasonable cost. (Things Apple has been horrible at outside the Mac Pro.)
Xed said: ... Looking at it from a purely technical standpoint, the current 27" iMac has a 218 PPI and 16:9 ratio which is why it's a 5K display which Apple I seem to recall Apple had to design a special chip for pushing that many pixels to a single display. For a 42" 16:9 display to have 218 PPI it would be around 8000 × 4500 pixels, which is 36 million pixels. That's about an 8K display. ...
I don't think a lower-spec machine with big screen like that would aim at holding that kind of pixel density. They just want a bigger display, so it could be 4k or 5k, just big. You're right, that if it were that kind of display, then it isn't a lower-end model any longer, so would also be many-thousands of $s.
Comments
Sorry poor fellow my desk is 36” x 66” all hardwood from Crate and Barrel and it will out live me, just like the Dyson vacuum cleaner I have, which is 12 years old and next Mac I will buy may come close you see quality really does last, oh and my present car and my next car will out live me.
To me, an iMac 32 with a matching 32 Pro display would play better to a border cashed-up upgrading market.
For some (many?) people, screen size (<42" however) is the need/desire, not the ability to run high-end pro apps simultaneously. Hoping they offer one in the low to mid $2000 area. I'm curious what the breakdown is pre Apple silicon of 27 inch iMac sales vs the smaller sizes. If I had to guess I would think the smaller sizes are much more common in the educational market. Which would explain why they released the M1 24 inch first.
Looking at it from a purely technical standpoint, the current 27" iMac has a 218 PPI and 16:9 ratio which is why it's a 5K display which Apple I seem to recall Apple had to design a special chip for pushing that many pixels to a single display. For a 42" 16:9 display to have 218 PPI it would be around 8000 × 4500 pixels, which is 36 million pixels. That's about an 8K display. Plus, I think the M1 Max only allows for a single 6K display, which is 80% more pixels than the XDR display.
Do you that's reasonable to expect this year? What cost do you think this would be? I wish you luck because that's an amazing technical feat for Apple, but I don't.
I understand, though, I always try to buy quality as well. That sometimes means doing without (if I'm unwilling to buy cheap stuff and don't have the budget).
Oh, there is absolutely a market for a low to mid-level machine with a really big screen. The problem is the all-in-one nature of the iMac and how many different configurations they are likely to make. That's where the Mac mini + Apple Display would be what Apple should have (and should have had) all along. Buy the mini that fits your needs, add the right size monitor. Sounds like maybe those are on the way? But, you'll (and I) probably be disappointed by the pricing.
Exactly. Especially the mythical xMac, though what that constitutes has probably changed a lot from what has been wanted. I don't care that much if it has slots or lots of expandability, etc. and I think that is gone (at least for now) in Apple Silicon. What it does need, though, is a variety of higher-end configurations in a case design capable of actually cooling the thing with little to no noise, and at a reasonable cost. (Things Apple has been horrible at outside the Mac Pro.)
I don't think a lower-spec machine with big screen like that would aim at holding that kind of pixel density. They just want a bigger display, so it could be 4k or 5k, just big. You're right, that if it were that kind of display, then it isn't a lower-end model any longer, so would also be many-thousands of $s.