Not sure why this needs to exist when there's the Mac Studio and Apple Studio Display.
Becuase they are more expensive. The value proposition of the old iMac 27 inch was pretty good.
The old 27” iMac is how I pay the bills in my business. If a pro version were available I’d certainly consider it. The prev iMac Pro came out after I bought my current machine. But it is it is nearing replacement age…
Use the iMac as a Monitor/Dock/Hub then buy whatever processing power you need in a box?
Not sure why this needs to exist when there's the Mac Studio and Apple Studio Display.
Becuase they are more expensive. The value proposition of the old iMac 27 inch was pretty good.
The old 27” iMac is how I pay the bills in my business. If a pro version were available I’d certainly consider it. The prev iMac Pro came out after I bought my current machine. But it is it is nearing replacement age…
Use the iMac as a Monitor/Dock/Hub then buy whatever processing power you need in a box?
Not sure why this needs to exist when there's the Mac Studio and Apple Studio Display.
Not sure that combo needs to exist instead of an all in one that does the same job, but with less fuss.
The Mac studio exists because the components for a proper large iMac successor are tricky at the moment.
As far as the apple studio display, it should never have stopped existing. So apple is righting a wrong there. The studio display provides a larger canvas for notebooks and a great monitor for Mac mini, Mac studio, and even Mac Pro - if you don’t want to spend the equivalent of another Mac Pro on the pro display.
Now hopefully they show the router people how it’s done once again.
The iMac needs to exist because it’s the quintessential Mac. Clean, concise, powerful, and as sleek as a computer can be.
The Mac studio is basically a Mac mini with better internals. Nothing new and certainly nothing worthy of cancelling an iMac over.
And an iMac Pro is just an iMac with better internals. Kind of a silly comparison. Do you think Mac Studio is a limited time offering? An iMac Pro will be very limited in the end versus what someone could do with a Mac Studio. It's gonna have to have its CPU/GPU performance scaled back or else it'll just throttle like crazy. I just don't see any reason to have yet another "Pro" desktop to shove into the line up. This is getting back to the days of the Performa models where there were 10,000 different models with tiny little differences when you only needed 1 or 2 in the end. There's really no reason to shove another Pro desktop in between the Mac Studio and the Mac Pro. I don't see where an iMac Pro will do anything a Mac Studio can't.
The iMac doesn’t have to be an iMac Pro. It just needs to be an all in one with a large display. And if there is an iMac Pro as well with even more capability - awesome.
The point is this: apple had the iMac and Mac mini already. Adding a bigger Mac mini doesn’t justify the removal of an iMac. And that’s pretty much it. Boom. Done. Case closed. Your comment about no need for an iMac when a product that is nothing at all like an iMac doesn’t hold water. There is plenty of reason for an all in one to exist. And only one for the Mac studio to exist. It’s a stopgap. If it still sells after the iMac is out, great. But more than likely it goes bye bye after the iMac is out - or it continues to sell and apple keeps it around as a hobby. But really it’s in a no man’s land once the iMac is out. You’ll have the Mac mini, the iMac, the iMac Pro or iMac 6k or whatever, and the Mac Pro. The Mac studio won’t need to exist anymore - unless apple wants to add a mid tier category in between the macs and the pro macs - and some upcoming products seem to point to that. So that may be a saving Grace. Otherwise the studio won’t have a reason to exist.
Apple seems willing to experiment right now and even to correct course when those experiments fail.the Mac studio is fine. It’s a great computer even. But it’s not an iMac. A large screen iMac about the thickness of a Mac Pro can run the highest end chips. There is a lot more dissipation area. Any iMac owner will gladly trade up to the new one when it’s out even if they have bought the studio. The Mac studio should sell decently while we wait for the iMac. After all, it’s the only thing filling a gaping hole left by the iMac. But the ultra chip performance isn’t living up to its potential and it’s really expensive ore writ is - especially if you add a studio display. Then you also have to buy the keyboard and mouse. It’s a bit of a mess. With a new iMac Pro you get all of that plus. A far sleeker and more aesthetic package.
I can see a market for both a high performance iMac and the Mac studio. The studio being for those that want more flexibility with display choice than you can get with an AIO.
It isn’t an either or. I would have bought a new 27 inch iMac. I am not spending all that extra coin for a Mac studio and a studio display. I would settle for a Mac mini with a pro chip in it, and just a dell 4 K display which together would be closer in price point to an iMac. But my first preference would be an iMac at similar prices to the old iMac.
I'm not saying that an iMac Pro is not going to happen, but I *am* saying Gurman doesn't have any inside info here and is just speculating on a personal fantasy -- like several of the posters here.
The 27-inch iMac Pro cost $5,000 when it debuted five years ago. That's actually $1,400 *more* expensive than a base Mac Studio and Studio Display and vastly less powerful. Face it, folks -- the Mac Studio/Studio Display combo is your 27-inch iMac Pro, and I'm a bit dumbfounded that this isn't obvious to Gurman.
It seems more logical to me that Apple has figured out that the true "Pro" market for the iMac (i.e., people who are using the machine to make a living) have the money to buy a Mac Studio and whatever display works best for them. Those buyers can earn that expense back very quickly, and thus Apple has nearly zero incentive to build something that competes anywhere close to an existing product.
Could Apple make a non-Pro 27-inch iMac? Sure. Maybe Apple could use the cheaper panels LG makes for its Ultrafine 5K (which costs $1,300), and maybe the whole package would even come just over $2K (for just the regular M2 -- no option for the Max or Ultra). That seems much more likely to me than a 5K 27-inch iMac Pro.
I'm not saying that an iMac Pro is not going to happen, but I *am* saying Gurman doesn't have any inside info here and is just speculating on a personal fantasy -- like several of the posters here.
The 27-inch iMac Pro cost $5,000 when it debuted five years ago. That's actually $1,400 *more* expensive than a base Mac Studio and Studio Display and vastly less powerful. Face it, folks -- the Mac Studio/Studio Display combo is your 27-inch iMac Pro, and I'm a bit dumbfounded that this isn't obvious to Gurman.
It seems more logical to me that Apple has figured out that the true "Pro" market for the iMac (i.e., people who are using the machine to make a living) have the money to buy a Mac Studio and whatever display works best for them. Those buyers can earn that expense back very quickly, and thus Apple has nearly zero incentive to build something that competes anywhere close to an existing product.
Could Apple make a non-Pro 27-inch iMac? Sure. Maybe Apple could use the cheaper panels LG makes for its Ultrafine 5K (which costs $1,300), and maybe the whole package would even come just over $2K (for just the regular M2 -- no option for the Max or Ultra). That seems much more likely to me than a 5K 27-inch iMac Pro.
As for a 32-inch iMac Pro -- na ga ha pen.
I think comparing a potential iMac Pro revival with the Mac Studio and declaring them a useless overlap may not be accurate.
The Mac Studio seems to be a new tier in the Mac lineup, above Pro and offering the Ultra variant M chip. If the iMac Pro makes a return it may stick with the Pro/Max variants. If so, this will offer a path to significant savings over the Xeon powered iMac Pro of the past while still offering berry capable Pro performance. Now that Apple doesn’t have to chose between Core i5/7/9 & Xeon with the associated steep price jump to offer pro performance, they have more option than they had with Intel chips powering the Mac. There are viable ways forward to make an iMac Pro that doesn’t pointlessly other offerings.
I'm not saying that an iMac Pro is not going to happen, but I *am* saying Gurman doesn't have any inside info here and is just speculating on a personal fantasy -- like several of the posters here.
The 27-inch iMac Pro cost $5,000 when it debuted five years ago. That's actually $1,400 *more* expensive than a base Mac Studio and Studio Display and vastly less powerful. Face it, folks -- the Mac Studio/Studio Display combo is your 27-inch iMac Pro, and I'm a bit dumbfounded that this isn't obvious to Gurman.
It seems more logical to me that Apple has figured out that the true "Pro" market for the iMac (i.e., people who are using the machine to make a living) have the money to buy a Mac Studio and whatever display works best for them. Those buyers can earn that expense back very quickly, and thus Apple has nearly zero incentive to build something that competes anywhere close to an existing product.
Could Apple make a non-Pro 27-inch iMac? Sure. Maybe Apple could use the cheaper panels LG makes for its Ultrafine 5K (which costs $1,300), and maybe the whole package would even come just over $2K (for just the regular M2 -- no option for the Max or Ultra). That seems much more likely to me than a 5K 27-inch iMac Pro.
As for a 32-inch iMac Pro -- na ga ha pen.
I think comparing a potential iMac Pro revival with the Mac Studio and declaring them a useless overlap may not be accurate.
The Mac Studio seems to be a new tier in the Mac lineup, above Pro and offering the Ultra variant M chip. If the iMac Pro makes a return it may stick with the Pro/Max variants. If so, this will offer a path to significant savings over the Xeon powered iMac Pro of the past while still offering berry capable Pro performance. Now that Apple doesn’t have to chose between Core i5/7/9 & Xeon with the associated steep price jump to offer pro performance, they have more option than they had with Intel chips powering the Mac. There are viable ways forward to make an iMac Pro that doesn’t pointlessly other offerings.
The studio is certainly not above the pro tier. When the Mac pro is out, the top version won’t be lesser than the top studio version. Come on dude.
The studio exists because apple has no apple silicon desktop that could throw down with Intel or amd heavy iron. For the people who needed serious horsepower, there was nothing apart from the MacBook Pro. And even then, the m1 max was meeting fierce competition from the newest Intel CPUs when paired with expensive discrete GPU options. The Ultra had to launch.
The large iMac and the Mac Pro were nowhere near ready. Apple needed something. But it couldn’t really just bust the Mac mini out of its category, so it stretched it, drilled some holes, slapped a couple ports on the front and boom. A stopgap was born.
If the studio is successful enough a year after the max pro and iMac launch, it may soldier on. But it’s easy to see how it’s a bit out of place once it’s job is done. A great computer for its time though. I’d buy one if I wasn’t saving for a fully specced out iMac Pro, whatever it ends up being called.
Something Apple has done lately, twice now, is reusing older, established hardware that was once state-of-the-art — I’m thinking of the M1/M2 MacBook Pro 13" and the Studio Display 27" — both are cost-effective for Apple, with no surprises with regard to production, quality, and so on. Apple knows exactly what to expect from both.
This may simply be a response to global constraints in the pandemic era, but it is still good business.
A new iMac, however, even if just Pro/Max (not Ultra) built into a 32" Pro Display, is a major undertaking with a lot of unknowns and possible surprises. Thus, I think we’ll see its component parts first — the M3 MacBook Pro 16" and the next-generation Pro Display 32" … Once those are established, then Apple could maybe put together an iMac Pro/Max. It wouldn’t compete with dedicated Ultra+ desktop hardware, but it could give someone thinking of buying the entry-level Mac Studio with a (non-Apple) 4K display reason to pause?
It is a marketing decision nothing more, this is what happens when there is no real competition in the marketplace.
I'm not saying that an iMac Pro is not going to happen, but I *am* saying Gurman doesn't have any inside info here and is just speculating on a personal fantasy -- like several of the posters here.
The 27-inch iMac Pro cost $5,000 when it debuted five years ago. That's actually $1,400 *more* expensive than a base Mac Studio and Studio Display and vastly less powerful. Face it, folks -- the Mac Studio/Studio Display combo is your 27-inch iMac Pro, and I'm a bit dumbfounded that this isn't obvious to Gurman.
It seems more logical to me that Apple has figured out that the true "Pro" market for the iMac (i.e., people who are using the machine to make a living) have the money to buy a Mac Studio and whatever display works best for them. Those buyers can earn that expense back very quickly, and thus Apple has nearly zero incentive to build something that competes anywhere close to an existing product.
Could Apple make a non-Pro 27-inch iMac? Sure. Maybe Apple could use the cheaper panels LG makes for its Ultrafine 5K (which costs $1,300), and maybe the whole package would even come just over $2K (for just the regular M2 -- no option for the Max or Ultra). That seems much more likely to me than a 5K 27-inch iMac Pro.
As for a 32-inch iMac Pro -- na ga ha pen.
I think comparing a potential iMac Pro revival with the Mac Studio and declaring them a useless overlap may not be accurate.
The Mac Studio seems to be a new tier in the Mac lineup, above Pro and offering the Ultra variant M chip. If the iMac Pro makes a return it may stick with the Pro/Max variants. If so, this will offer a path to significant savings over the Xeon powered iMac Pro of the past while still offering berry capable Pro performance. Now that Apple doesn’t have to chose between Core i5/7/9 & Xeon with the associated steep price jump to offer pro performance, they have more option than they had with Intel chips powering the Mac. There are viable ways forward to make an iMac Pro that doesn’t pointlessly other offerings.
The studio is certainly not above the pro tier. When the Mac pro is out, the top version won’t be lesser than the top studio version. Come on dude.
The studio exists because apple has no apple silicon desktop that could throw down with Intel or amd heavy iron. For the people who needed serious horsepower, there was nothing apart from the MacBook Pro. And even then, the m1 max was meeting fierce competition from the newest Intel CPUs when paired with expensive discrete GPU options. The Ultra had to launch.
The large iMac and the Mac Pro were nowhere near ready. Apple needed something. But it couldn’t really just bust the Mac mini out of its category, so it stretched it, drilled some holes, slapped a couple ports on the front and boom. A stopgap was born.
If the studio is successful enough a year after the max pro and iMac launch, it may soldier on. But it’s easy to see how it’s a bit out of place once it’s job is done. A great computer for its time though. I’d buy one if I wasn’t saving for a fully specced out iMac Pro, whatever it ends up being called.
[edit: I realize my prior comment said “Studio is a new tier in the Mac lineup” which invites a direct compare to the Mac Pro, but my intent was to think about the MacBook class which spans a majority of Apple’s M chips and consider how to apply those tiers onto the iMac class incorporating the new Ultra tier chip of the Mac Studio] The Mac Pro is in a class by itself (for now). So are Macbooks within which are a few tiers (Air, Pro and not long ago, vanilla MacBooks and perhaps in the future MacBook Studio?). I'm talking about iMac class tiers. I could see room for iMac (no descriptor, the current 24" M1 is the lead example), iMac Studio (who knows exactly what this might be but a guess is 27" with Pro/Max M chips), and iMac Pro (32" screen + Pro/MaxUltra[?] M chips).
It's quite possible I am misinterpreting where the "Studio" tag slots into the Good, Better, Best matrix, but my point is: there is lots of room for "Better" & "Best" iMacs, should Apple choose to make them.
It feels like I'm arguing semantics here. Whether Apple chooses iMac Pro or iMac Studio as the name, I see room for more performant & capable machines in the iMac line.
Not sure why this needs to exist when there's the Mac Studio and Apple Studio Display.
Becuase they are more expensive. The value proposition of the old iMac 27 inch was pretty good.
The old 27” iMac is how I pay the bills in my business. If a pro version were available I’d certainly consider it. The prev iMac Pro came out after I bought my current machine. But it is it is nearing replacement age…
Use the iMac as a Monitor/Dock/Hub then buy whatever processing power you need in a box?
I’m not interested in keeping a whole iMac around just to be a display. I already have an amazing Eizo 32” hardware calibration display where my real work happens. I like using the iMac so my second screen can also house the computer. I’m not against the computer in a box, either. I find both formats have pros & cons and either would get the job done for me. Right now my workstation is setup for an iMac + 32” display, so I’m interested in a pro-level drop-in replacement for my aging iMac.
I’m also not against a Mac Studio & a new 2nd monitor.
Not sure why this needs to exist when there's the Mac Studio and Apple Studio Display.
The Mac Studio/Display is a morphodite set up with a specific customer in mind. Discontinuation of the 27" iMac leaves few options for those of us that have had the 27" for years. I currently have a late 2013 27" iMac that Apple has now, in their infinite wisdom, stopped supporting. I understand that its Apple's marketing strategy to push consumers to what Apple wants to sell, but some of us flat refuse to be bullied into buying something just because it's what the manufacturer wants to sell. After having the 27" for some 8 years now I am left with options that are less than desirable, I can go with the 24", or a soon-to-be obsolete Mini with either the Studio Display or some other display, or I can spend an even more ridiculous amount of money to purchase the combination that you speak of. It's beyond ludicrous for me to even consider the latter as it's way, way more than I need. If I'm being forced to "settle" then I may as well "settle" for Windows and save myself a ton of money.
Something Apple has done lately, twice now, is reusing older, established hardware that was once state-of-the-art — I’m thinking of the M1/M2 MacBook Pro 13" and the Studio Display 27" — both are cost-effective for Apple, with no surprises with regard to production, quality, and so on. Apple knows exactly what to expect from both.
This may simply be a response to global constraints in the pandemic era, but it is still good business.
A new iMac, however, even if just Pro/Max (not Ultra) built into a 32" Pro Display, is a major undertaking with a lot of unknowns and possible surprises. Thus, I think we’ll see its component parts first — the M3 MacBook Pro 16" and the next-generation Pro Display 32" … Once those are established, then Apple could maybe put together an iMac Pro/Max. It wouldn’t compete with dedicated Ultra+ desktop hardware, but it could give someone thinking of buying the entry-level Mac Studio with a (non-Apple) 4K display reason to pause?
It is a marketing decision nothing more, this is what happens when there is no real competition in the marketplace.
Oh yes, the "Marketing!" trope. Yeah no. There is definitely competition, you don't seem to remember when pros left Mac to go work on PCs.
I'm not saying that an iMac Pro is not going to happen, but I *am* saying Gurman doesn't have any inside info here and is just speculating on a personal fantasy -- like several of the posters here.
The 27-inch iMac Pro cost $5,000 when it debuted five years ago. That's actually $1,400 *more* expensive than a base Mac Studio and Studio Display and vastly less powerful. Face it, folks -- the Mac Studio/Studio Display combo is your 27-inch iMac Pro, and I'm a bit dumbfounded that this isn't obvious to Gurman.
It seems more logical to me that Apple has figured out that the true "Pro" market for the iMac (i.e., people who are using the machine to make a living) have the money to buy a Mac Studio and whatever display works best for them. Those buyers can earn that expense back very quickly, and thus Apple has nearly zero incentive to build something that competes anywhere close to an existing product.
Could Apple make a non-Pro 27-inch iMac? Sure. Maybe Apple could use the cheaper panels LG makes for its Ultrafine 5K (which costs $1,300), and maybe the whole package would even come just over $2K (for just the regular M2 -- no option for the Max or Ultra). That seems much more likely to me than a 5K 27-inch iMac Pro.
As for a 32-inch iMac Pro -- na ga ha pen.
I think comparing a potential iMac Pro revival with the Mac Studio and declaring them a useless overlap may not be accurate.
The Mac Studio seems to be a new tier in the Mac lineup, above Pro and offering the Ultra variant M chip. If the iMac Pro makes a return it may stick with the Pro/Max variants. If so, this will offer a path to significant savings over the Xeon powered iMac Pro of the past while still offering berry capable Pro performance. Now that Apple doesn’t have to chose between Core i5/7/9 & Xeon with the associated steep price jump to offer pro performance, they have more option than they had with Intel chips powering the Mac. There are viable ways forward to make an iMac Pro that doesn’t pointlessly other offerings.
The studio is certainly not above the pro tier. When the Mac pro is out, the top version won’t be lesser than the top studio version. Come on dude.
The studio exists because apple has no apple silicon desktop that could throw down with Intel or amd heavy iron. For the people who needed serious horsepower, there was nothing apart from the MacBook Pro. And even then, the m1 max was meeting fierce competition from the newest Intel CPUs when paired with expensive discrete GPU options. The Ultra had to launch.
The large iMac and the Mac Pro were nowhere near ready. Apple needed something. But it couldn’t really just bust the Mac mini out of its category, so it stretched it, drilled some holes, slapped a couple ports on the front and boom. A stopgap was born.
If the studio is successful enough a year after the max pro and iMac launch, it may soldier on. But it’s easy to see how it’s a bit out of place once it’s job is done. A great computer for its time though. I’d buy one if I wasn’t saving for a fully specced out iMac Pro, whatever it ends up being called.
[edit: I realize my prior comment said “Studio is a new tier in the Mac lineup” which invites a direct compare to the Mac Pro, but my intent was to think about the MacBook class which spans a majority of Apple’s M chips and consider how to apply those tiers onto the iMac class incorporating the new Ultra tier chip of the Mac Studio] The Mac Pro is in a class by itself (for now). So are Macbooks within which are a few tiers (Air, Pro and not long ago, vanilla MacBooks and perhaps in the future MacBook Studio?). I'm talking about iMac class tiers. I could see room for iMac (no descriptor, the current 24" M1 is the lead example), iMac Studio (who knows exactly what this might be but a guess is 27" with Pro/Max M chips), and iMac Pro (32" screen + Pro/MaxUltra[?] M chips).
It's quite possible I am misinterpreting where the "Studio" tag slots into the Good, Better, Best matrix, but my point is: there is lots of room for "Better" & "Best" iMacs, should Apple choose to make them.
It feels like I'm arguing semantics here. Whether Apple chooses iMac Pro or iMac Studio as the name, I see room for more performant & capable machines in the iMac line.
Gotcha. We will know soon enough.
Historically, apple has had the “good” that you describe existing in the consumer tier while the pro tier covers better and best.
The Mac studio seemed a one-off as apple went through pains to explain why this particular piece of hardware was called “studio” as it was a specific piece of hardware (and complementary monitor) that was built with the YouTuber set in mind while we wait for the Mac Pro.
But if apple wanted to try something new with a Studio lineup covering your “better” category, that would be interesting.
It’s hard for my brain to see it with a rather limited number of cpu and GPU options - especially with pro and studio using the same overlapping chips currently.
I’m sure the picture will be much clearer in one year. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Comments
The 27-inch iMac Pro cost $5,000 when it debuted five years ago. That's actually $1,400 *more* expensive than a base Mac Studio and Studio Display and vastly less powerful. Face it, folks -- the Mac Studio/Studio Display combo is your 27-inch iMac Pro, and I'm a bit dumbfounded that this isn't obvious to Gurman.
It seems more logical to me that Apple has figured out that the true "Pro" market for the iMac (i.e., people who are using the machine to make a living) have the money to buy a Mac Studio and whatever display works best for them. Those buyers can earn that expense back very quickly, and thus Apple has nearly zero incentive to build something that competes anywhere close to an existing product.
It is a marketing decision nothing more, this is what happens when there is no real competition in the marketplace.
It's quite possible I am misinterpreting where the "Studio" tag slots into the Good, Better, Best matrix, but my point is: there is lots of room for "Better" & "Best" iMacs, should Apple choose to make them.
It feels like I'm arguing semantics here. Whether Apple chooses iMac Pro or iMac Studio as the name, I see room for more performant & capable machines in the iMac line.