I'm waiting on the Mac mini 'Pro' news, as that is the most likely replacement machine for me (well, run along-side... I think I'll be running an Intel Mac for some time, as I'm kind of stuck there for compatibility with Windows apps and Mojave for some Mac apps).
I'm also really curious about the bigger iMac/iMac Pro, as I'd strongly consider that if it had video input (some rumors seem to show HDMI, and I can't think of another reason for it, if true). I'm OK with my current display, but more resolution/size would be nice. I just don't want it to be a single-use display, especially since my future likely includes a 2nd Mac and/or Windows box.
Although I understand that pro & max versions of M1 will maintain an edge over “vanilla” M2, if I were Mac marketing I would want to avoid the confusion and try to not introduce new M1 pro/max models AFTER the introduction of first M2.
Maybe a bit confusing to people who don't understand specs, but then, those people won't be looking at that much anyway. They'll just buy the latest of whatever machine they buy. So long as the non-Pro/Max/whatever systems are more limited in things like RAM or GPU cores, it won't matter. Those with higher needs will be forced to the Pro/Max/etc. systems, even if the performance of the next-gen gets close or exceeds the previous gen one some spec here or there.
tenthousandthings said: I also think Apple is going to do something interesting with graphics in the desktop SoCs.
I sure hope so! That is the weak-spot right not, especially given the pricing (maybe the desktops will be enough cheaper w/o the fancy screens?). If you buy a 32-core Max, you're not quite at the performance of a 3080 (mobile) on a brand new, fairly expensive machine (you'll be hoping lasts several years). That's just kinda sorta OK, and isn't what I'd been hoping for. Now, if the 2x Max or 4x Max scales well in performance, then they'll have something interesting... but will also probably be $$$. Would would be really nice, is to see the eGPU come back, even if only Apple Silicon. Then you could just plug in some extra GPU power.
commentzilla said: Having a MacBook and a MacBook Air doesn't make sense anymore, since they are almost the exact size and weight. The difference is so small it's basically an illusion as this point. The curved shell of the Air is not very efficient for the components or the battery. The only important selling point of the Air is really its name.
Agreed. Just make a MacBook ultra-portable with as big of screen as possible and ditch the Air, maybe two sizes if they decide to make one really small model. That said, the form-factor itself was a huge selling point for some. My wife finally gave it up when going to the new MBP 14" Pro (which she loves), but she does complain it isn't nearly as nice in form-factor as the Air (and I'd agree). I don't think the slightly smaller M1 MBP is a great replacement either. They probably have to bring the MacBook back and re-think the design a bit.
lkrupp said: If the leakers are correct and there will only be a high end iMac Pro I will have to start considering a Mini with an external monitor (hopefully an Apple brand one). Of course a Mini with an Apple branded monitor may be in the same price range as a rumored iMac Pro.
I just don't understand Apple's reluctance to just produce a nice but reasonably priced external display. I think a LOT of people would be really happy with a display like the 5k iMac had, and given all the missing computer guts, the price could be made reasonable as well (certainly under $1k). I hear a lot of Apple people complaining about the lack of one. Maybe that market isn't as big as I think?
Remember just a couple of years ago there was much gnashing of teeth amidst demands here that Tim Cook resign because Apple had "abandoned" the Mac?
I'm glad to see how it worked out, but Apple *did* abandon many people through those years. They could have done a lot more to either give people hope back then and/or better support keeping existing machines updated with what was available to them. They did neither. They sadly lost a lot of people. Will they be back? The software is still kind of a mess. Hopefully they'll get around to that one of these days, too.
Tim prioritized keeping secrets and stringent resource allocation over the responsibility to the customer base. I think it could have been done better.
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
I'm also really curious about the bigger iMac/iMac Pro, as I'd strongly consider that if it had video input (some rumors seem to show HDMI, and I can't think of another reason for it, if true). I'm OK with my current display, but more resolution/size would be nice. I just don't want it to be a single-use display, especially since my future likely includes a 2nd Mac and/or Windows box.
Maybe a bit confusing to people who don't understand specs, but then, those people won't be looking at that much anyway. They'll just buy the latest of whatever machine they buy. So long as the non-Pro/Max/whatever systems are more limited in things like RAM or GPU cores, it won't matter. Those with higher needs will be forced to the Pro/Max/etc. systems, even if the performance of the next-gen gets close or exceeds the previous gen one some spec here or there.
I sure hope so! That is the weak-spot right not, especially given the pricing (maybe the desktops will be enough cheaper w/o the fancy screens?). If you buy a 32-core Max, you're not quite at the performance of a 3080 (mobile) on a brand new, fairly expensive machine (you'll be hoping lasts several years). That's just kinda sorta OK, and isn't what I'd been hoping for. Now, if the 2x Max or 4x Max scales well in performance, then they'll have something interesting... but will also probably be $$$. Would would be really nice, is to see the eGPU come back, even if only Apple Silicon. Then you could just plug in some extra GPU power.
Agreed. Just make a MacBook ultra-portable with as big of screen as possible and ditch the Air, maybe two sizes if they decide to make one really small model. That said, the form-factor itself was a huge selling point for some. My wife finally gave it up when going to the new MBP 14" Pro (which she loves), but she does complain it isn't nearly as nice in form-factor as the Air (and I'd agree). I don't think the slightly smaller M1 MBP is a great replacement either. They probably have to bring the MacBook back and re-think the design a bit.
I just don't understand Apple's reluctance to just produce a nice but reasonably priced external display. I think a LOT of people would be really happy with a display like the 5k iMac had, and given all the missing computer guts, the price could be made reasonable as well (certainly under $1k). I hear a lot of Apple people complaining about the lack of one. Maybe that market isn't as big as I think?
I'm glad to see how it worked out, but Apple *did* abandon many people through those years. They could have done a lot more to either give people hope back then and/or better support keeping existing machines updated with what was available to them. They did neither. They sadly lost a lot of people. Will they be back? The software is still kind of a mess. Hopefully they'll get around to that one of these days, too.
Tim prioritized keeping secrets and stringent resource allocation over the responsibility to the customer base. I think it could have been done better.
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.