The big question is what will Apple do to offset a 40% drop in Mac sales in the first quarter of this year? If they need to increase sales volumes it will be with lower priced equipment. The 15 inch MacBook Air is an effort to increase sales volume with higher value products. The tech pundits get all wrapped up in advancing to the latest technology. Tim Cook is more worried about Wall Street and stock prices. iPhone sales are about 50% of revenue. Macs about 10%. Apple has about 7% of the PC market. To improve on that they need higher sales volumes at lower price points.
The big question is what will Apple do to offset a 40% drop in Mac sales in the first quarter of this year? If they need to increase sales volumes it will be with lower priced equipment. The 15 inch MacBook Air is an effort to increase sales volume with higher value products. The tech pundits get all wrapped up in advancing to the latest technology. Tim Cook is more worried about Wall Street and stock prices. iPhone sales are about 50% of revenue. Macs about 10%. Apple has about 7% of the PC market. To improve on that they need higher sales volumes at lower price points.
They just need to wait 2 or 3 quarters. This post-pandemic lull will last another couple quarters and may pick up again in Q4 2023. So, Apple should time their M3 SoC revisions for starting in Q4 2023 to coincide with the replacement cycle for the pandemic fueled purchases in 2020 and 2021.
Doubtful that they will lower prices. It's not their business model. Doubtful that they will want to change it. They just want to take a good chunk of the top 10% of the market.
That’s not Apple’s roadmap, it’s a pundit’s roadmap. I have decided to ignore it, since every time that I make up my mind about a replacement for my mid-2010 27” i7 iMax, some clown comes out with a new you-beaut prediction that gives me pause. Time to stick to the decision and stop hoping for a 27” iMac replacement (there's alternatives such as a souped-up Mini and a decent monitor anyway).
Agreed. I dont know what weirdo gave you an “informative” for that comment, but a 30-32” iMac is the dream machine of all macs.
I am at the point where a larger screen, 32 inch Apple XDR monitor, with an M2 Mac Studio replaces the need for a big screen TV, I am looking to downsize the number of square screens within the household.
A big screen, 27-32” iMac would also do the trick…..
The Apple Vision Pro if it works as presented might also work?
I must be missing something. 30" iMac just doesn't make much sense to me. Trying really hard to figure out who is the target for this product? Seems as much of a niche market as the new Mac Pro would be.... very small market segment.
Internals the same as a studio? Monitor size (30" or 32") and maybe 6k being in their all-in-one as opposed to a Studio/mini setup? At what cost? Wouldn't this approach Mac Pro territory?
Is the all-in-one concept worth that kind of premium over the Studio setup? I'm genuinely asking as I just don't see it. Maybe the quality of the display alone is worth it.. we'll have to see, but I'm skeptical.
I've been extremely happy with the 3 iMacs I've owned over the last 16+ years. But I sprung for Studio / Display setup last spring and I've never looked back, not a single regret. It does everything I've asked of it. Tucking the little silver Studio away on my desk and visually its not much different than any of my iMac setups.
That’s not Apple’s roadmap, it’s a pundit’s roadmap. I have decided to ignore it, since every time that I make up my mind about a replacement for my mid-2010 27” i7 iMax, some clown comes out with a new you-beaut prediction that gives me pause. Time to stick to the decision and stop hoping for a 27” iMac replacement (there's alternatives such as a souped-up Mini and a decent monitor anyway).
For me, it sort of came down to a value proposition on the monitor quality. If I'm going to have a desktop at all, I reasoned, I should have the highest quality monitor the tech can support. There are many great 4K 27" monitors to choose from now, and it's a good upgrade from my mid -2009 27" iMac screen. I waited, and waited...and while the 24" iMac is nice (my wife has one that replaced a very poor intel 21" intel mac) I wanted some flexibility in future upgrades...and I was used to the 27" screen. A 27" 4k hp monitor went on sale, and the price of a M1 mac mini was great. Done deal, and I'm very pleased.
I do like iMacs, and had lots of them. My needs have changed subtly, and the boat sailed for me. I've likely purchased my last iMac.
I sure wish the "roadmap" included new airports. While maybe we no longer need on-site time capsule backups, it seems a new airport with a optional subscription VPN service built-in would be a money maker for AAPL.
Years of owning Mac Pros, them moved to 5K 27" iMacs. Then the Studio and Dell Monitors. As I sit at my M1 Mac Studio, I hover over the purchase button for a replacement M2 Mac Studio. I have a Dell 4K monitors but am tempted to get an Apple 5K, but I share the Dell with a high end Gaming PC and the Apple screen won't work for that. So, the just announced Samsung S9 5K appeals. Then I read about a new large iMac and hesitate. What if the cost of a new 27" or even 30" iMac with M2 Max or Ultra is less than an Apple 5K screen and Mac Studio .... Damn, I was so close to ordering the M2 Mac Studio!
Agreed. I dont know what weirdo gave you an “informative” for that comment, but a 30-32” iMac is the dream machine of all macs.
I am at the point where a larger screen, 32 inch Apple XDR monitor, with an M2 Mac Studio replaces the need for a big screen TV, I am looking to downsize the number of square screens within the household.
A big screen, 27-32” iMac would also do the trick…..
The Apple Vision Pro if it works as presented might also work?
I think either a 32” monitor + Mac tower or a cleaner strip with a 32” iMac would be all most people need for that. Personally, I have a 75” tv and would go even bigger if my gf would let me. The Vision Pro could give a big screen effect, but I tend to pause video to go and do various things before returning to the tv. So it’s more convenient for someone like me to just get up and look away from the tv then to have to strap a device onto my head and take it off each time.
A 32” iMac for work and play and then a bookers ginormous screen for movie time/YouTube, etc. with vision pro on the side for fully immersive experiences when I want that.
Depends on the individual. I’m sure there are some lifestyles where vision pro is the only thing some people need/want - like a more immersive iPad. But for others, especially more active/busy/social people, a big screen computer/tv is the way to go.
The Mac mini and Mac Studio with external display added just isn’t for me. After enjoying the iMac 5k for 7 years, it’s too lame to go back to a traditional PC setup. The iMac was a beast too.
Going 3nm, I’m betting they can use the Ultra in the 32” chassis and a 6k screen.
The only real drawback is going to be price gouging from Apple. After pushing the Studio as a wannabe iMac replacement, apple found a way to seriously overcharge. In 2030, you could load up the iMac 27” with significantly impressive power and it was a good deal. The Mac Studio, while a nice and capable machine is a horrible deal in comparison.
That makes me think the big iMac will be labeled “Pro” and carry the Max and Ultra chips. This will allow Apple to charge about what the Stidio plus display costs and that would really suck.
The other option would be to limit it to pro and max and sell it for a good amount cheaper, but that would be artificially limiting the performance. No thanks.
Hopefully it’s not too far out. By this time next year is as long as it should be. Plenty of people are losing enthusiasm as it is. No one asked for the big iMac to go away - literally the worst thing about the Apple Silicon transition. And the Mac Studio is not at all a suitable replacement. Let’s get that big iMac 6k rolling. And with m3 Ultra please. If the old iMac could accommodate the hot Intel chip and separate GPU without issue, the new one can accommodate a single 3nm SOC that runs FAR cooler and barely ever needs to use its fans as is.
No, it's not gonna be a Pro iMac. There's no room in Apple's lineup for yet another Pro Desktop when they already have Mac Studio and Mac Pro. It simply doesn't make any sense, especially since the Mac Studio is selling so well. Why anyone would want an iMac Pro over a Mac Studio is beyond me unless you just care about how it looks. The average consumer buying a Mac Studio doesn't give a rats ass about how it looks on their desk compared to what could have been with an iMac Pro.
You seriously need to get over this iMac Pro thing that you seem to keep pushing over and over again...I'd be extremely surprised to see it happen. It's like Apple releasing a 15" MacBook Air Pro.
I sure wish the "roadmap" included new airports. While maybe we no longer need on-site time capsule backups, it seems a new airport with an optional subscription VPN service built-in would be a money maker for AAPL.
That’s an amazing thought. Actually, Apple can add its IP masking to the airport standard and perhaps VPN could be added as an iCloud+ feature that’s enabled in the router. Would dominate.
The Mac mini and Mac Studio with external display added just isn’t for me. After enjoying the iMac 5k for 7 years, it’s too lame to go back to a traditional PC setup. The iMac was a beast too.
Going 3nm, I’m betting they can use the Ultra in the 32” chassis and a 6k screen.
The only real drawback is going to be price gouging from Apple. After pushing the Studio as a wannabe iMac replacement, apple found a way to seriously overcharge. In 2030, you could load up the iMac 27” with significantly impressive power and it was a good deal. The Mac Studio, while a nice and capable machine is a horrible deal in comparison.
That makes me think the big iMac will be labeled “Pro” and carry the Max and Ultra chips. This will allow Apple to charge about what the Stidio plus display costs and that would really suck.
The other option would be to limit it to pro and max and sell it for a good amount cheaper, but that would be artificially limiting the performance. No thanks.
Hopefully it’s not too far out. By this time next year is as long as it should be. Plenty of people are losing enthusiasm as it is. No one asked for the big iMac to go away - literally the worst thing about the Apple Silicon transition. And the Mac Studio is not at all a suitable replacement. Let’s get that big iMac 6k rolling. And with m3 Ultra please. If the old iMac could accommodate the hot Intel chip and separate GPU without issue, the new one can accommodate a single 3nm SOC that runs FAR cooler and barely ever needs to use its fans as is.
No, it's not gonna be a Pro iMac. There's no room in Apple's lineup for yet another Pro Desktop when they already have Mac Studio and Mac Pro. It simply doesn't make any sense, especially since the Mac Studio is selling so well. Why anyone would want an iMac Pro over a Mac Studio is beyond me unless you just care about how it looks. The average consumer buying a Mac Studio doesn't give a rats ass about how it looks on their desk compared to what could have been with an iMac Pro.
You seriously need to get over this iMac Pro thing that you seem to keep pushing over and over again...I'd be extremely surprised to see it happen. It's like Apple releasing a 15" MacBook Air Pro.
You seem to be more than a little misinformed and history-deficient. Yes, Apple already has a Mac mini. Yes they have a Studio. And yes, even a Mac Pro. They even have *gasp!* a small version of the iMac. Being that the small iMac exists, there is obviously still a major market for such sleekness. Historically, apple has had small and large iMacs - and even an iMac Pro. I know. Must be shocking news.
A few reasons why a big iMac with major horsepower is plausible:
1. Precedent. They e already been doing this since 2015. Then, they really upped the ante with iMac Pro, which was at the time a stopgap as we waited for max pro. In 2020, Apple updated the iMac 5k with specs thst spanked the iMac Pro.
1a. ALL Apple customers care about how their computer looks sitting at their desk. You’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise. And if your the exception, hey, have at it.
2. The advent of Apple silicon actually creates more of a case for all-in-one computers/embedded systems since their is no need to crack open the case for upgrades and apples SOCs run cooler than the competition.
3. Your argument that a Mac studio exists so the iMac shouldn’t is negligible. That’s like saying max mini exists so max studio shouldn’t. Or max pro exist so max studio shouldn’t. When the new iMac comes out, it may be the Mac studio that disappears if any so.
4. A generic pc tower plus monitor setup is never going to replace a sleek all in one. A single piece of hardware doing everything is where it’s at. Imagine a Pro Display XDR with the computer inside. An iMac is more beneficial than the old pc setup the Studio beings. It looks better/sleeker, has a smaller footprint, more efficient cable management, and does everything a Mac Stidio does without the mess. It’s win-win all over the place. Literally the only thing max studio does better is open the door for apple to price-gouge. The iMac is better for the environment as well with less materials needed to form the enclosure and cable plastic.
5. It doesn’t have to be called “Pro” and I personally hop it isn’t. It should be normative that a big iMac has major horsepower. M3 with its more efficient setup makes it a no-brainer to have Max and Ultra chips available.
In the end, Apple silicon seems destinies to be coupled with a top tier iMac. Apple silicon is itself a non-upgradeable all in one piece of tech. An iMac is a non-upgradeable all in one computer. Actually, when you think about it, the Mac studio is not upgradeable snd the studio display is not upgradeable, so it seems like a waste. A 32” iMac with m3 ultra is the perfect fit.
I understand you bought the Mac studio and the 27” display equivalent to the old iMac. but tech marches on. Be happy with and enjoy your purchase. Don’t get made at those of us who waited and were rewarded with the return of an icon. When that time comes, you can always have had the benefit of the very capable Mac studio and then sell it and get the iMac you really want. And if you don’t want that glorious 32” sleek, performant iMac, cool. Enjoy your Stidio and 27” display.
The Mac mini and Mac Studio with external display added just isn’t for me. After enjoying the iMac 5k for 7 years, it’s too lame to go back to a traditional PC setup. The iMac was a beast too.
Going 3nm, I’m betting they can use the Ultra in the 32” chassis and a 6k screen.
The only real drawback is going to be price gouging from Apple. After pushing the Studio as a wannabe iMac replacement, apple found a way to seriously overcharge. In 2030, you could load up the iMac 27” with significantly impressive power and it was a good deal. The Mac Studio, while a nice and capable machine is a horrible deal in comparison.
That makes me think the big iMac will be labeled “Pro” and carry the Max and Ultra chips. This will allow Apple to charge about what the Stidio plus display costs and that would really suck.
The other option would be to limit it to pro and max and sell it for a good amount cheaper, but that would be artificially limiting the performance. No thanks.
Hopefully it’s not too far out. By this time next year is as long as it should be. Plenty of people are losing enthusiasm as it is. No one asked for the big iMac to go away - literally the worst thing about the Apple Silicon transition. And the Mac Studio is not at all a suitable replacement. Let’s get that big iMac 6k rolling. And with m3 Ultra please. If the old iMac could accommodate the hot Intel chip and separate GPU without issue, the new one can accommodate a single 3nm SOC that runs FAR cooler and barely ever needs to use its fans as is.
No, it's not gonna be a Pro iMac. There's no room in Apple's lineup for yet another Pro Desktop when they already have Mac Studio and Mac Pro. It simply doesn't make any sense, especially since the Mac Studio is selling so well. Why anyone would want an iMac Pro over a Mac Studio is beyond me unless you just care about how it looks. The average consumer buying a Mac Studio doesn't give a rats ass about how it looks on their desk compared to what could have been with an iMac Pro.
You seriously need to get over this iMac Pro thing that you seem to keep pushing over and over again...I'd be extremely surprised to see it happen. It's like Apple releasing a 15" MacBook Air Pro.
You seem to be more than a little misinformed and history-deficient. Yes, Apple already has a Mac mini. Yes they have a Studio. And yes, even a Mac Pro. They even have *gasp!* a small version of the iMac. Being that the small iMac exists, there is obviously still a major market for such sleekness. Historically, apple has had small and large iMacs - and even an iMac Pro. I know. Must be shocking news. […]
You jump to the conclusion that the 24" iMac is a replacement for the small 21" iMac 4K, and not a replacement for the large 27" iMac 5K. But Apple exactly split the difference between the two with the 24" iMac 4.5K.
Common sense argues that this medium-sized iMac is a replacement for both the small and the large iMac.
You are not alone in seeing the 24" size as an increase in the smaller form factor and concluding there must also then be a corresponding increase in the size of the larger form factor. But nothing in what Apple has said or done so far actually suggests this.
The Mac mini and Mac Studio with external display added just isn’t for me. After enjoying the iMac 5k for 7 years, it’s too lame to go back to a traditional PC setup. The iMac was a beast too.
Going 3nm, I’m betting they can use the Ultra in the 32” chassis and a 6k screen.
The only real drawback is going to be price gouging from Apple. After pushing the Studio as a wannabe iMac replacement, apple found a way to seriously overcharge. In 2030, you could load up the iMac 27” with significantly impressive power and it was a good deal. The Mac Studio, while a nice and capable machine is a horrible deal in comparison.
That makes me think the big iMac will be labeled “Pro” and carry the Max and Ultra chips. This will allow Apple to charge about what the Stidio plus display costs and that would really suck.
The other option would be to limit it to pro and max and sell it for a good amount cheaper, but that would be artificially limiting the performance. No thanks.
Hopefully it’s not too far out. By this time next year is as long as it should be. Plenty of people are losing enthusiasm as it is. No one asked for the big iMac to go away - literally the worst thing about the Apple Silicon transition. And the Mac Studio is not at all a suitable replacement. Let’s get that big iMac 6k rolling. And with m3 Ultra please. If the old iMac could accommodate the hot Intel chip and separate GPU without issue, the new one can accommodate a single 3nm SOC that runs FAR cooler and barely ever needs to use its fans as is.
No, it's not gonna be a Pro iMac. There's no room in Apple's lineup for yet another Pro Desktop when they already have Mac Studio and Mac Pro. It simply doesn't make any sense, especially since the Mac Studio is selling so well. Why anyone would want an iMac Pro over a Mac Studio is beyond me unless you just care about how it looks. The average consumer buying a Mac Studio doesn't give a rats ass about how it looks on their desk compared to what could have been with an iMac Pro.
You seriously need to get over this iMac Pro thing that you seem to keep pushing over and over again...I'd be extremely surprised to see it happen. It's like Apple releasing a 15" MacBook Air Pro.
You seem to be more than a little misinformed and history-deficient. Yes, Apple already has a Mac mini. Yes they have a Studio. And yes, even a Mac Pro. They even have *gasp!* a small version of the iMac. Being that the small iMac exists, there is obviously still a major market for such sleekness. Historically, apple has had small and large iMacs - and even an iMac Pro. I know. Must be shocking news. […]
You jump to the conclusion that the 24" iMac is a replacement for the small 21" iMac 4K, and not a replacement for the large 27" iMac 5K. But Apple exactly split the difference between the two with the 24" iMac 4.5K.
Common sense argues that this medium-sized iMac is a replacement for both the small and the large iMac.
You are not alone in seeing the 24" size as an increase in the smaller form factor and concluding there must also then be a corresponding increase in the size of the larger form factor. But nothing in what Apple has said or done so far actually suggests this.
You miss the part where apple has been on a path of larger screen sizes lately. Chopping 3 inches of screen off is clearly not meant to indicate a replacement. Comon sense says ADDING 3 inches is and it is viewed as an upgrade for the small iMac. Not a backward step. But hey, great mental gymnastics on display there. You should audition for AGT.
The Mac mini and Mac Studio with external display added just isn’t for me. After enjoying the iMac 5k for 7 years, it’s too lame to go back to a traditional PC setup. The iMac was a beast too.
Going 3nm, I’m betting they can use the Ultra in the 32” chassis and a 6k screen.
The only real drawback is going to be price gouging from Apple. After pushing the Studio as a wannabe iMac replacement, apple found a way to seriously overcharge. In 2030, you could load up the iMac 27” with significantly impressive power and it was a good deal. The Mac Studio, while a nice and capable machine is a horrible deal in comparison.
That makes me think the big iMac will be labeled “Pro” and carry the Max and Ultra chips. This will allow Apple to charge about what the Stidio plus display costs and that would really suck.
The other option would be to limit it to pro and max and sell it for a good amount cheaper, but that would be artificially limiting the performance. No thanks.
Hopefully it’s not too far out. By this time next year is as long as it should be. Plenty of people are losing enthusiasm as it is. No one asked for the big iMac to go away - literally the worst thing about the Apple Silicon transition. And the Mac Studio is not at all a suitable replacement. Let’s get that big iMac 6k rolling. And with m3 Ultra please. If the old iMac could accommodate the hot Intel chip and separate GPU without issue, the new one can accommodate a single 3nm SOC that runs FAR cooler and barely ever needs to use its fans as is.
No, it's not gonna be a Pro iMac. There's no room in Apple's lineup for yet another Pro Desktop when they already have Mac Studio and Mac Pro. It simply doesn't make any sense, especially since the Mac Studio is selling so well. Why anyone would want an iMac Pro over a Mac Studio is beyond me unless you just care about how it looks. The average consumer buying a Mac Studio doesn't give a rats ass about how it looks on their desk compared to what could have been with an iMac Pro.
You seriously need to get over this iMac Pro thing that you seem to keep pushing over and over again...I'd be extremely surprised to see it happen. It's like Apple releasing a 15" MacBook Air Pro.
You seem to be more than a little misinformed and history-deficient. Yes, Apple already has a Mac mini. Yes they have a Studio. And yes, even a Mac Pro. They even have *gasp!* a small version of the iMac. Being that the small iMac exists, there is obviously still a major market for such sleekness. Historically, apple has had small and large iMacs - and even an iMac Pro. I know. Must be shocking news. […]
You jump to the conclusion that the 24" iMac is a replacement for the small 21" iMac 4K, and not a replacement for the large 27" iMac 5K. But Apple exactly split the difference between the two with the 24" iMac 4.5K.
Common sense argues that this medium-sized iMac is a replacement for both the small and the large iMac.
You are not alone in seeing the 24" size as an increase in the smaller form factor and concluding there must also then be a corresponding increase in the size of the larger form factor. But nothing in what Apple has said or done so far actually suggests this.
You miss the part where apple has been on a path of larger screen sizes lately. Chopping 3 inches of screen off is clearly not meant to indicate a replacement. Comon sense says ADDING 3 inches is and it is viewed as an upgrade for the small iMac. Not a backward step. But hey, great mental gymnastics on display there. You should audition for AGT.
Sarcasm doesn't change the fact Apple replaced both the 21" and 27" iMacs with the 24" iMac. That's not semantics. It's what they did.
Yes, something is up with the iMac. It hasn't been refreshed for M2, and that's a mystery. It could be the M3 flagship, like the MacBook Air was for the M2. But that's unlikely. It's still very much possible we'll get an M2 iMac (with option for M2 Pro, maybe also M2 Max) and an M2 iPad Air (closing out the M2 transition) before the A17 launch, and M3 won't come until WWDC 2024. That would follow the M2 timeline (A15 launched September 2021, M2 launched June 2022), and it would mean a simple, two-year refresh cycle for M-series hardware. That 30" iMac of your dreams would launch in 2025, along with new Apple displays that use Thunderbolt 5.
Here's the big picture I think you are not seeing. When Apple first created the iMac 5K in 2014 they had to use a custom, internal dual DisplayPort 1.2 controller to drive the 5K screen. There was nothing else like it. I work in the visual arts, and I can still remember when I first saw it. It was stunning. That era is gone. They no longer need to stuff everything into an iMac to stay ahead of the curve. Apple could make a 10K Pro Display XDR and drive it with a single Thunderbolt 5 cable.
Have you seen how big the heat sinks on the Ultra chips in the Mac Studio and Pro are? Highly unlikely they’d try to jam that into an iMac chassis.
And what iMac chassis would that be? We aren’t talking about the 24” and we haven’t seen the 32” yet.
A M2 Ultra won’t be jammed into any iMac. An M3 will. And it’s likely this which has held up the offering.
Heat sinks don’t only go straight up or even have one shape if you remember. After seeing a ton of stress tests, it seems overkill as the thing never throttles no matter how much you throw at it for however long - and does so without using the fans hardly at all.
To state the obvious:
1. A big iMac has lots of space for heat dissipation - especially for a 3nm SOC. And then there are fans. A 32” diagonal footprint is a lot bigger than the 7.7” Studio.
2. A big iMac, iMac Pro, iMac Studio or whatever does not have to be as paper thin as the little one. MacBooks aren’t the same thickness. iMacs don’t have to be either. And to be performant, they shouldn’t be.
Small minded people get funny about things. And people who get threatened by something become suddenly small-minded. Especially those lacking engineering knowledge or a grasp of history. Just because the Studio is designed a certain way doesn’t mean that’s the only way to do it. Apple did fine with an iMac that not only had to manage a hot, fast Intel chip, but also a fast discrete GPU. They’ll design the new iMac to be even better thermally with a far more efficient 3nm SOC package.
The only way it doesn’t happen is if Apple simply doesn’t want to. There is no engineering/thermal barrier anymore than their was for the MacBook Pro before apple made it thicker to accommodate M Max chips.
Have you seen how big the heat sinks on the Ultra chips in the Mac Studio and Pro are? Highly unlikely they’d try to jam that into an iMac chassis.
And what iMac chassis would that be? We aren’t talking about the 24” and we haven’t seen the 32” yet.
A M2 Ultra won’t be jammed into any iMac. An M3 will. And it’s likely this which has held up the offering.
Heat sinks don’t only go straight up or even have one shape if you remember. After seeing a ton of stress tests, it seems overkill as the thing never throttles no matter how much you throw at it for however long - and does so without using the fans hardly at all.
To state the obvious:
1. A big iMac has lots of space for heat dissipation - especially for a 3nm SOC. And then there are fans. A 32” diagonal footprint is a lot bigger than the 7.7” Studio.
2. A big iMac, iMac Pro, iMac Studio or whatever does not have to be as paper thin as the little one. MacBooks aren’t the same thickness. iMacs don’t have to be either. And to be performant, they shouldn’t be.
Small minded people get funny about things. And people who get threatened by something become suddenly small-minded. Especially those lacking engineering knowledge or a grasp of history. Just because the Studio is designed a certain way doesn’t mean that’s the only way to do it. Apple did fine with an iMac that not only had to manage a hot, fast Intel chip, but also a fast discrete GPU. They’ll design the new iMac to be even better thermally with a far more efficient 3nm SOC package.
The only way it doesn’t happen is if Apple simply doesn’t want to. There is no engineering/thermal barrier anymore than their was for the MacBook Pro before apple made it thicker to accommodate M Max chips.
The one elephant in the room that none of you have discussed is how much would a 30” or 32” iMac cost?
We know that an Apple Studio Display at 27” and 5K resolution costs $1600.
Well at 30” it can’t stay at 5K, if it wants to retain the “Retina” moniker at 218ppi. It’s likely to be bumped up to $2000 for a 5.5K display (very conservative estimate if Apple were to release such a display). Add an M2 or M3 in there and it suddenly jumps to $3000 starting price (again very conservative estimate).
If they decide to go with a 32” iMac then 6K is the way to go (all because of that pesky “Retina” label at 218ppi). What would a starting price be for such a machine? $4000, $5000???
Comments
Doubtful that they will lower prices. It's not their business model. Doubtful that they will want to change it. They just want to take a good chunk of the top 10% of the market.
A big screen, 27-32” iMac would also do the trick…..
The Apple Vision Pro if it works as presented might also work?
Internals the same as a studio? Monitor size (30" or 32") and maybe 6k being in their all-in-one as opposed to a Studio/mini setup? At what cost? Wouldn't this approach Mac Pro territory?
Is the all-in-one concept worth that kind of premium over the Studio setup? I'm genuinely asking as I just don't see it. Maybe the quality of the display alone is worth it.. we'll have to see, but I'm skeptical.
I've been extremely happy with the 3 iMacs I've owned over the last 16+ years. But I sprung for Studio / Display setup last spring and I've never looked back, not a single regret. It does everything I've asked of it. Tucking the little silver Studio away on my desk and visually its not much different than any of my iMac setups.
I do like iMacs, and had lots of them. My needs have changed subtly, and the boat sailed for me. I've likely purchased my last iMac.
You seriously need to get over this iMac Pro thing that you seem to keep pushing over and over again...I'd be extremely surprised to see it happen. It's like Apple releasing a 15" MacBook Air Pro.
1. Precedent. They e already been doing this since 2015. Then, they really upped the ante with iMac Pro, which was at the time a stopgap as we waited for max pro. In 2020, Apple updated the iMac 5k with specs thst spanked the iMac Pro.
Common sense argues that this medium-sized iMac is a replacement for both the small and the large iMac.
You are not alone in seeing the 24" size as an increase in the smaller form factor and concluding there must also then be a corresponding increase in the size of the larger form factor. But nothing in what Apple has said or done so far actually suggests this.
Yes, something is up with the iMac. It hasn't been refreshed for M2, and that's a mystery. It could be the M3 flagship, like the MacBook Air was for the M2. But that's unlikely. It's still very much possible we'll get an M2 iMac (with option for M2 Pro, maybe also M2 Max) and an M2 iPad Air (closing out the M2 transition) before the A17 launch, and M3 won't come until WWDC 2024. That would follow the M2 timeline (A15 launched September 2021, M2 launched June 2022), and it would mean a simple, two-year refresh cycle for M-series hardware. That 30" iMac of your dreams would launch in 2025, along with new Apple displays that use Thunderbolt 5.
Here's the big picture I think you are not seeing. When Apple first created the iMac 5K in 2014 they had to use a custom, internal dual DisplayPort 1.2 controller to drive the 5K screen. There was nothing else like it. I work in the visual arts, and I can still remember when I first saw it. It was stunning. That era is gone. They no longer need to stuff everything into an iMac to stay ahead of the curve. Apple could make a 10K Pro Display XDR and drive it with a single Thunderbolt 5 cable.
To state the obvious:
2. A big iMac, iMac Pro, iMac Studio or whatever does not have to be as paper thin as the little one. MacBooks aren’t the same thickness. iMacs don’t have to be either. And to be performant, they shouldn’t be.
Small minded people get funny about things. And people who get threatened by something become suddenly small-minded. Especially those lacking engineering knowledge or a grasp of history. Just because the Studio is designed a certain way doesn’t mean that’s the only way to do it. Apple did fine with an iMac that not only had to manage a hot, fast Intel chip, but also a fast discrete GPU. They’ll design the new iMac to be even better thermally with a far more efficient 3nm SOC package.
The only way it doesn’t happen is if Apple simply doesn’t want to. There is no engineering/thermal barrier anymore than their was for the MacBook Pro before apple made it thicker to accommodate M Max chips.