32" is the new 27". You'll pay for it but get the best all-in-one money can buy, at any price, and it should last 20+ years.
Next on the culling list is the Mac Studio. When a 14" MacBook Pro can outshine a Mac Pro in reported benchmarks, then the entire M3 SoC family can be fitted to a Mac Mini. There is simply no need for the Studio.
32" is the new 27". You'll pay for it but get the best all-in-one money can buy, at any price, and it should last 20+ years.
Next on the culling list is the Mac Studio. When a 14" MacBook Pro can outshine a Mac Pro in reported benchmarks, then the entire M3 SoC family can be fitted to a Mac Mini. There is simply no need for the Studio.
But the Mac mini will throttle after just a few minutes, even if it had an M3 based SoC. The Mac Studio can sustain 100% usage indefinitely without throttling and it barely even kicks the fans up. That's HUGE for those who actually need to use a Mac Studio. There's also more ports on the Mac Studio. Both Mac Studio and Mac Pro will exist going forward. Two different use cases there. The Mac Studio will also have the M3 Ultra variation which would never work in a Mac mini style enclosure.
I finally had to get a Mac Studio (don't get me wrong...a terrific machine) forced by some marketing genius al Apple to use a crappy Samsung monitor, not been able to spend an additional $1,000 on Studio Display.
32" is the new 27". You'll pay for it but get the best all-in-one money can buy, at any price, and it should last 20+ years.
Next on the culling list is the Mac Studio. When a 14" MacBook Pro can outshine a Mac Pro in reported benchmarks, then the entire M3 SoC family can be fitted to a Mac Mini. There is simply no need for the Studio.
I assume an M3 Ultra is in the works.
Apple builds great computers, but 20 years? A 20 year old iMac would be the iMac G4 today. Other than the novelty factor I’m not sure I’d want to rely on something of that vintage for anything serious. But I do one person who is actually using an iMac G4 for business email, so who knows?
Apple’s computers will continue to evolve in different form factors because the size and complexity of the problems and tasks that people need computers to help them with will continue to increase, as will the environments in which computers are used.
I’m a MacBook Pro guy, but for my daughters I’ve preorder an M3 iMac. They’re aged 8 & 10, so it should last around 10 years which will get them to university.
I am ordering the new iMac to replace an older PC. I was strongly considering a Mini and using it with my existing monitor or buying a new monitor. I can not find a monitor, short of a Studio Display, that looks anywhere near as good as what's built into the iMac.
The huge advantage to the Mac Mini is you can swap it out and keep the same display for many years. The Mac mini isn't much larger than the stupid power brick of the iMac.
If Apple would sell a decent display below the studio display line, it would make the mini the go to choice. Now the mini is still a go to choice, but the display money goes to others. (and yes, there are displays that are nearly as good as the iMac, if not better)
32" is the new 27". You'll pay for it but get the best all-in-one money can buy, at any price, and it should last 20+ years.
Next on the culling list is the Mac Studio. When a 14" MacBook Pro can outshine a Mac Pro in reported benchmarks, then the entire M3 SoC family can be fitted to a Mac Mini. There is simply no need for the Studio.
But the Mac mini will throttle after just a few minutes, even if it had an M3 based SoC. The Mac Studio can sustain 100% usage indefinitely without throttling and it barely even kicks the fans up. That's HUGE for those who actually need to use a Mac Studio. There's also more ports on the Mac Studio. Both Mac Studio and Mac Pro will exist going forward. Two different use cases there. The Mac Studio will also have the M3 Ultra variation which would never work in a Mac mini style enclosure.
Apple practically invented the home computer, and practically invented the mouse, but those are the two main products it still can't win customers for.
What the fuck are you on about? Apple popularized the mouse but it didn’t invent it—that was Xerox PARC.
Home computers are a lot more than the iMac. It’s every Mac, and now the majority of iPhones and iPads are computers used in the home. I know many people who use an iPad as their primary computing device; most with no Mac option any longer.
Next on the culling list is the Mac Studio. When a 14" MacBook Pro can outshine a Mac Pro in reported benchmarks, then the entire M3 SoC family can be fitted to a Mac Mini. There is simply no need for the Studio.
Wow. That is a ridiculous conclusion. Everyone should stop developing new computers and chips now. timmillea has decreed that computers can no longer get faster/smaller/more efficient or better in any way. Do you seriously not believe that the Studio, Pro with M4 and M5 or whatever is coming won't have better benchmarks than the current M3?!
Actually it is not so ridiculous considering the M3 Pro is only 6% faster than the M2 Pro, and intentionally hobbled by Apple to upsell their other computers. The M3 Max has the huge increase in performance, but the M3 Pro was hobbled with two less performance cores, one less GPU core, and 25% slower memory bandwidth than the M2 Pro. Why would Apple do this when they claim Apple Silicon is so great? So a MacBook Pro with M3 Max will be faster than a Mac Studio with M2 Pro and M3 Pro. So the 3nm process for the M3 Pro did absolutely nothing for the chip. If Apple maintained the 8 core performance and 4 core efficiency with the same GPU core and same memory bandwidth, the M3 Pro would be a much better chip. So don't assume the M4 or later would be surprisingly better when everyone thought the M3 was going to be this huge performance boost. Only true if you look at the M3 and M3 Max. M3 Pro is a waste.
Apple practically invented the home computer, and practically invented the mouse, but those are the two main products it still can't win customers for.
You just taught me something. Thank you for this comment. I looked it up and this was really cool to learn about the mouse
Next on the culling list is the Mac Studio. When a 14" MacBook Pro can outshine a Mac Pro in reported benchmarks, then the entire M3 SoC family can be fitted to a Mac Mini. There is simply no need for the Studio.
Wow. That is a ridiculous conclusion. Everyone should stop developing new computers and chips now. timmillea has decreed that computers can no longer get faster/smaller/more efficient or better in any way. Do you seriously not believe that the Studio, Pro with M4 and M5 or whatever is coming won't have better benchmarks than the current M3?!
Actually it is not so ridiculous considering the M3 Pro is only 6% faster than the M2 Pro, and intentionally hobbled by Apple to upsell their other computers. The M3 Max has the huge increase in performance, but the M3 Pro was hobbled with two less performance cores, one less GPU core, and 25% slower memory bandwidth than the M2 Pro. Why would Apple do this when they claim Apple Silicon is so great? So a MacBook Pro with M3 Max will be faster than a Mac Studio with M2 Pro and M3 Pro. So the 3nm process for the M3 Pro did absolutely nothing for the chip. If Apple maintained the 8 core performance and 4 core efficiency with the same GPU core and same memory bandwidth, the M3 Pro would be a much better chip. So don't assume the M4 or later would be surprisingly better when everyone thought the M3 was going to be this huge performance boost. Only true if you look at the M3 and M3 Max. M3 Pro is a waste.
Apparently, the 3nm process did wonders for the battery life. This reviewer got the following SKU to test;
"The model we reviewed is a step up, with an 11-core M3 Pro chip with 14 GPU cores, 18GB of memory, and a 512GB drive—all for $1,999"
"Apple claims that the new MacBook Pro will last 22 hours in battery tests, but we found that isn't accurate. In our video rundown test, the 14-inch Pro lasted even longer, crossing the 30-hour threshold, becoming the longest-lasting laptop we've ever tested. That it does so while driving increased processing and graphics performance over the previous long-lasting model is all the more impressive."
The rumors aren’t supposed to be out there. Apple is working on a new large (but not 27”) iMac of course.
But apple is also recovering from a significant decline in Mac sales during pretty much the entire m2 era (a decline that is reflective of the pc industry as a whole).
Having just launched the new m3 based 24” iMac and pro laptops, Apple is banking on selling quite a few of those exact models this holiday season. Apple knows 24” is small by today’s standards. But they want to Carrie the lower cost consumers with the small iMac - and so they claim it’s “huge” in their recent event. Having just navigated a global pandemic that has seen not only absurd government response, but market response as well - some of which is dirty price gouging, false scarcity, and some of which is companies trying to resume output after being forcibly shutdown. That’s where the Mac Studio came in - to split the big iMac into superset pieces and bake much more profit into the margin.
Apple will say they aren’t working on a new 27” iMac. That’s both an honest statement as well as a lie apple is not going to make the iMac on a 27” size. That’s true. It will be 30+”. Of course it’s hoped that rumor followers would use their imaginations to mean that apple wasn’t working on any larger sizes iMacs. That is the disengenuous part. Of course they are. But they’ve got two task to accomplish before we see it. First, the Mac Studio needs to falter in sales. Then apple can justify cannibalizing it with a big iMac. Second, apple needs to capitalize on the freshness of newly announced products while discouraging potential buyers from waiting (like so many did when the m2 came out - knowing that it was lacking and waiting for m2. Apple is saying we have great m3 based products available now and you should buy those. That’s all this is.
Next on the culling list is the Mac Studio. When a 14" MacBook Pro can outshine a Mac Pro in reported benchmarks, then the entire M3 SoC family can be fitted to a Mac Mini. There is simply no need for the Studio.
Wow. That is a ridiculous conclusion. Everyone should stop developing new computers and chips now. timmillea has decreed that computers can no longer get faster/smaller/more efficient or better in any way. Do you seriously not believe that the Studio, Pro with M4 and M5 or whatever is coming won't have better benchmarks than the current M3?!
I could be wrong but I think he was trying to say that we don’t need a Mac Studio chassis’s s for the m3 ultra. Considering a small 14” laptop handles the m3 max so well, the ultra will likely reach full potential in a Mac mini chassis, removing the need for a Mac Studio housing.
32" is the new 27". You'll pay for it but get the best all-in-one money can buy, at any price, and it should last 20+ years.
Next on the culling list is the Mac Studio. When a 14" MacBook Pro can outshine a Mac Pro in reported benchmarks, then the entire M3 SoC family can be fitted to a Mac Mini. There is simply no need for the Studio.
I assume an M3 Ultra is in the works.
Of course it is. Would make a no stop spec 32” iMac.
Next on the culling list is the Mac Studio. When a 14" MacBook Pro can outshine a Mac Pro in reported benchmarks, then the entire M3 SoC family can be fitted to a Mac Mini. There is simply no need for the Studio.
Wow. That is a ridiculous conclusion. Everyone should stop developing new computers and chips now. timmillea has decreed that computers can no longer get faster/smaller/more efficient or better in any way. Do you seriously not believe that the Studio, Pro with M4 and M5 or whatever is coming won't have better benchmarks than the current M3?!
Actually it is not so ridiculous considering the M3 Pro is only 6% faster than the M2 Pro, and intentionally hobbled by Apple to upsell their other computers. The M3 Max has the huge increase in performance, but the M3 Pro was hobbled with two less performance cores, one less GPU core, and 25% slower memory bandwidth than the M2 Pro. Why would Apple do this when they claim Apple Silicon is so great? So a MacBook Pro with M3 Max will be faster than a Mac Studio with M2 Pro and M3 Pro. So the 3nm process for the M3 Pro did absolutely nothing for the chip. If Apple maintained the 8 core performance and 4 core efficiency with the same GPU core and same memory bandwidth, the M3 Pro would be a much better chip. So don't assume the M4 or later would be surprisingly better when everyone thought the M3 was going to be this huge performance boost. Only true if you look at the M3 and M3 Max. M3 Pro is a waste.
But the Mac Studio does not come with M1 Pro or M2 Pro. It won’t have M3 Pro either. So yes, speculation that the Studio will be phased out is “ridiculous” and your assertions border on FUD. Mac Studio is the only other beneficiary of M3 Max, a win that will scale up to the M3 Ultra as well.
Your “upsell” and “intentionally hobbled” opinions about M3 Pro don’t apply to the iMac, and they don’t apply to the Mac Studio. Not that I agree with them. Even if this was a discussion of the MacBook Pro, your comments about TSMC 3nm and the A17/M3 architecture are, hmm, what’s the word I’m looking for? Oh right, bullshit.
Back on topic, the iMac 27" is dead, and it has been dead for almost three years. I believe there is room in the product lineup for a 30" 5.5K or 32" 6K M3 Pro/Max iMac Plus.
Next on the culling list is the Mac Studio. When a 14" MacBook Pro can outshine a Mac Pro in reported benchmarks, then the entire M3 SoC family can be fitted to a Mac Mini. There is simply no need for the Studio.
Wow. That is a ridiculous conclusion. Everyone should stop developing new computers and chips now. timmillea has decreed that computers can no longer get faster/smaller/more efficient or better in any way. Do you seriously not believe that the Studio, Pro with M4 and M5 or whatever is coming won't have better benchmarks than the current M3?!
I don't think I have ever made a decree. I wouldn't know how to.
Apple could push out the Mac Studio with an M3 Max but the Studio would remain a hideous monstrosity of a design. It should never have been conceived. It should never have been released and the sooner it goes the better. Aesthetics are far more important than specifications and the Mac Studio is aesthetically offensive.
This is what I meant when I said there is simply no need for it to exist anymore. Apple, please relieve us of it!
Regarding how much the 24” iMac costs now with decent specs, imagine how much one with over 30” display would cost. Especially with the prices of their current displays. I still would like a 27” iMac though it would be expensive too but not as super expensive as one with an even bigger display.
I also wish Apple would surprise us and do something really unusual - bring back Target display mode to the 5K Intel iMacs with support for camera, microphone and speakers - then you should see a rocket increase of sales of the new Mac mini and Mac Studio and probably portable Macs too! Because to offer a new Apple display that in some cases is more expensive than a Mac is madness but by adding support for Target display mode to Intel 5K iMacs a lot of people could afford to move on to M-series Macs. And as a bonus it would be a ”green” initiative from Apple to be able to still use the old iMacs as displays.
Comments
Not fair...!
a-haaaaa !
One can't even sell the 27 inch display because it is tightly coupled with the old Intel CPU.
Home computers are a lot more than the iMac. It’s every Mac, and now the majority of iPhones and iPads are computers used in the home. I know many people who use an iPad as their primary computing device; most with no Mac option any longer.
Actually it is not so ridiculous considering the M3 Pro is only 6% faster than the M2 Pro, and intentionally hobbled by Apple to upsell their other computers. The M3 Max has the huge increase in performance, but the M3 Pro was hobbled with two less performance cores, one less GPU core, and 25% slower memory bandwidth than the M2 Pro. Why would Apple do this when they claim Apple Silicon is so great? So a MacBook Pro with M3 Max will be faster than a Mac Studio with M2 Pro and M3 Pro. So the 3nm process for the M3 Pro did absolutely nothing for the chip. If Apple maintained the 8 core performance and 4 core efficiency with the same GPU core and same memory bandwidth, the M3 Pro would be a much better chip. So don't assume the M4 or later would be surprisingly better when everyone thought the M3 was going to be this huge performance boost. Only true if you look at the M3 and M3 Max. M3 Pro is a waste.
"The model we reviewed is a step up, with an 11-core M3 Pro chip with 14 GPU cores, 18GB of memory, and a 512GB drive—all for $1,999"
"Apple claims that the new MacBook Pro will last 22 hours in battery tests, but we found that isn't accurate. In our video rundown test, the 14-inch Pro lasted even longer, crossing the 30-hour threshold, becoming the longest-lasting laptop we've ever tested. That it does so while driving increased processing and graphics performance over the previous long-lasting model is all the more impressive."
Apple MacBook Pro 14-Inch (2023, M3 Pro) Review | PCMag
Your “upsell” and “intentionally hobbled” opinions about M3 Pro don’t apply to the iMac, and they don’t apply to the Mac Studio. Not that I agree with them. Even if this was a discussion of the MacBook Pro, your comments about TSMC 3nm and the A17/M3 architecture are, hmm, what’s the word I’m looking for? Oh right, bullshit.
Apple could push out the Mac Studio with an M3 Max but the Studio would remain a hideous monstrosity of a design. It should never have been conceived. It should never have been released and the sooner it goes the better. Aesthetics are far more important than specifications and the Mac Studio is aesthetically offensive.
This is what I meant when I said there is simply no need for it to exist anymore. Apple, please relieve us of it!