iMac is already dead as long as the 23.5 inch screen is all you can offer. . .👎🏻
Thanks! This isn’t a 24 or 25 iMac - it is a 23.5 iMac. Cables dangling from the back, an anti-ergonomic design stand can’t be adjusted, only one display size, the mouse is using a dead connector that must be charged upside-down. This is Apple being lazy.
Nonsense.
First of all, VESA arm mount is the way to go.
Where do you expect the power to go? Out the side?
Magic Mouse charging is a 100% non-issue, only requires monthly charging and tells you when it’s time so you can plug in at the end of the day. Forgot to? Quick charge in 2 minutes while you get a tea.
…but noooo, we are victimizzzzed! Gahhhhh!!
lol. I’d hate to see some of you in a true crisis situation.
Turning the Mac Studio Display into a 27" iMac can't take all that much work.
The display is the same at the 27" iMac that went away a couple years ago. It already has speakers, power supply, camera (with center stage), fans, and USB-C/Thunderbolt ports. All it needs is the logic board from a MacBook Pro. a headphone jack, add a couple more Thunderbolt ports, and, poof!, it's an iMac.
3-step program to your dream setup:
1. Buy a Macbook Pro 2. Buy a display 3. Plug them in
Are you high? You want someone to spend $3595 for a MacBook and a Display when the 27" iMac started at $1799? And that clearance model MacBook Pro will soon be gone and that config will be the normal $4,000+ price. So now you are at over $5,000 with tax. What a great recommendation.
Apple won't release another 27" iMac because that will cannibalize the overpriced Mac Studio and Studio Display, which is $2500 more than the 27" iMac. So they have no intention of giving what the customers want. That is Apple's new business plan. They even admitted they intentionally use 8GB of RAM because they know they can upsell to a more expensive model to have a usable machine for a number of years, since Apple no longer allows any upgrades after purchase. The M3 iMac is crippled with limited RAM, limited storage, limited ports, and limited features on purpose, so they can upsell more expensive Macs.
When Apple switched to Intel, the prices were the same, or lower than the PowerPC counterparts. The Mac Pro was $800 less than the Power Mac G5, and twice as fast. Now Apple Silicon is way more expensive than the Intel models they replaced, mostly because people are forced to pay the Apple Tax for memory and SSD upgrades.
Apple: here’s a two-year-young new form factor, now with the latest, fastest chipset. Enjoy!
Fans: Nooo! Why have you neglected this 40-year-old product line! Gaaahhhh!
It doesn't have the latest, fastest chipset. It has a base model chip with a lousy GPU, limited RAM, limited storage, and limited ports. It even has a lame audio out on the side so your powered speakers plug into the side with a cable sticking out. Thanks Jony Ive for your lousy design. Yes, this was his last artistic mess before he left. If he had his way, it would have a butterfly keyboard too.
How about an iMac 27" with an M3 Pro or M3 Max? If the thin MacBooks can handle the CPU, then the iMac can also handle it quite well, even better with the larger interior for even better cooling. Then you would have an iMac with the fastest chipset. The colors and white bezel are ghastly to look at, and 24" is too small when most people bought the 27" iMac.
Looks like a good machine for general use and for those imaginary kitchen island soup-making Mac users Apple puts in their videos. But it is not a "perfect upgrade for the 27 iMac" like Apple claims, and the restricted CPU, memory and storage options clearly show that this is not a professional machine in Apple's opinion. The pro laptops are still pretty thin and have CPU, RAM, and storage options that blow away the iMac with its larger chassis.
It never was meant to be a professional Mac...The iMac has always been a consumer Mac, even the 27" model.
Apple: here’s a two-year-young new form factor, now with the latest, fastest chipset. Enjoy!
Fans: Nooo! Why have you neglected this 40-year-old product line! Gaaahhhh!
It doesn't have the latest, fastest chipset. It has a base model chip with a lousy GPU, limited RAM, limited storage, and limited ports. It even has a lame audio out on the side so your powered speakers plug into the side with a cable sticking out. Thanks Jony Ive for your lousy design. Yes, this was his last artistic mess before he left. If he had his way, it would have a butterfly keyboard too.
How about an iMac 27" with an M3 Pro or M3 Max? If the thin MacBooks can handle the CPU, then the iMac can also handle it quite well, even better with the larger interior for even better cooling. Then you would have an iMac with the fastest chipset. The colors and white bezel are ghastly to look at, and 24" is too small when most people bought the 27" iMac.
Looks like a good machine for general use and for those imaginary kitchen island soup-making Mac users Apple puts in their videos. But it is not a "perfect upgrade for the 27 iMac" like Apple claims, and the restricted CPU, memory and storage options clearly show that this is not a professional machine in Apple's opinion. The pro laptops are still pretty thin and have CPU, RAM, and storage options that blow away the iMac with its larger chassis.
It never was meant to be a professional Mac...The iMac has always been a consumer Mac, even the 27" model.
That was the beauty of the big daddy iMac.
It could be an affordable mid-grade performance machine… but it could ALSO be upgraded to a frothing, rip-snorting serious professional hot rod and still be a great deal. The 2020 iMac 5k was laying the smack down all over the Xeon iMac Pro was epic stuff. The consumer had the choice.
When the big dawg iMac is relaunched, it should cover the gamut with SOC options, starting from the mx pro (gotta have overhead after driving what’s sure to be a 6k screen) to the mx ultra.
I’m sure that Apple will launch a large screen iMac, probably a 32”. They’re taking their time, no doubt, and they are almost certainly losing sales, as people who want to replace their 27” iMac will prefer to wait (like me). I said that Apple would launch it soon after the new (LG/Samsung?) 32” monitor was announced, and I expected that it would simply be a matter of scaling up the 24”, but evidently not. Still, Apple does take their sweet time when developing an all-new product, remember the Mac Pro saga? Any company has limited bandwidth for new product development, for Apple the priority will be to ship new phones regularly and get their laptops out the door — those are the cash cows. Plus Apple takes their time to get the product right. The last 27” iMac aluminium housing was launched in 2012 and terminated in 2022, that’s ten years for a consumer product to remain competitive in a rapidly changing market — unheard of. Excellent planning and outstanding design results in great products for consumers, and extraordinarily long production runs to milk every last dollar of profit for Apple
The whole notion of Apple “writing off” the iMac is crazy talk clickbait FUD. The current iMac is the perfect computer for people who want an all-in-one Mac that does everything they need it to do just as it comes from the store. It fits anywhere, it’s totally silent, it’s ridiculously fast, and it has a gorgeous screen.
For people like my wife who simply use computers as appliances and tools to help get things done and don’t see their computer as the center of their universe or a source of their technological affection and sense of being, the current iMac is nearly invisible and totally unobtrusive to their lifestyle. You don’t have to reshape your lifestyle, rework your office layout, or clutter your world with cable claptrap to own an iMac. It’s simply part of the ambient environment like your desk, your chair, your window, your bookshelves, and your cup of coffee.
Problems with the iMac only start to crop up when you ask it to be more than what it was designed to be. For me this started with the need for a second monitor, extra peripherals, extra external storage, external audio components like DACs, amplifiers, and speakers, and of course adjustable monitor mounting options, e.g., VESA mounting arms. That’s where all-in-one clashes with modularity and component based design. Unfortunately, once you’ve based the core of your system on an all-in-one design adding additional components not only involves compromises and claptrap but it runs counter to the whole purpose of why you started with an all-in-one to begin with. Sure, you can make a hybrid all-in-one + a bunch of additional stuff work for you, but you’re still limited by the lack of being able to singularly replace the two most important functions that the all-in-one provides, the display and the computing element, because they are inseparable.
I was cool with the hybrid approach when it was the only option, plus I’d spent a ton optioning up my iMac to max out everything that was maximizable. But along came the Mac Studio and it offered the ability to replace the conjoined twins from the iMac with a separate high resolution screen and a beefy computing unit without having to move up to a Pro. At the same time, the Studio Display coupled with a spec’d up Mac mini was also an opportunity to do much same thing at a lower price point. My actual, real world usage and path that I’d taken with my iMac taught me that I really needed a modular, component based computing system.
I’m much more happy with where I am now, while my wife has never been happier with what the latest iMac brings to her totally different version of living with computers. Two different approaches to solving two different but equally important sets of needs. Apple would be foolish to eliminate (“write off”) either the iMac or the modular options like the Mac Studio and Mac mini. They’ve hit on just the right combination to keep the most number of customers happy. But “most” does not mean “all” so there will always be customers and potential customers searching for something that Apple does not yet offer, whether it’s a larger and more powerful iMac or a Mac Pro that is significantly more capable than its less costly sibling.
Apple: here’s a two-year-young new form factor, now with the latest, fastest chipset. Enjoy!
Fans: Nooo! Why have you neglected this 40-year-old product line! Gaaahhhh!
It doesn't have the latest, fastest chipset. It has a base model chip with a lousy GPU, limited RAM, limited storage, and limited ports. It even has a lame audio out on the side so your powered speakers plug into the side with a cable sticking out. Thanks Jony Ive for your lousy design. Yes, this was his last artistic mess before he left. If he had his way, it would have a butterfly keyboard too.
How about an iMac 27" with an M3 Pro or M3 Max? If the thin MacBooks can handle the CPU, then the iMac can also handle it quite well, even better with the larger interior for even better cooling. Then you would have an iMac with the fastest chipset. The colors and white bezel are ghastly to look at, and 24" is too small when most people bought the 27" iMac.
Turning the Mac Studio Display into a 27" iMac can't take all that much work.
The display is the same at the 27" iMac that went away a couple years ago. It already has speakers, power supply, camera (with center stage), fans, and USB-C/Thunderbolt ports. All it needs is the logic board from a MacBook Pro. a headphone jack, add a couple more Thunderbolt ports, and, poof!, it's an iMac.
3-step program to your dream setup:
1. Buy a Macbook Pro 2. Buy a display 3. Plug them in
Are you high? You want someone to spend $3595 for a MacBook and a Display when the 27" iMac started at $1799? And that clearance model MacBook Pro will soon be gone and that config will be the normal $4,000+ price. So now you are at over $5,000 with tax. What a great recommendation.
Apple won't release another 27" iMac because that will cannibalize the overpriced Mac Studio and Studio Display, which is $2500 more than the 27" iMac. So they have no intention of giving what the customers want.
The $1799-1999 iMac had the same spec as the old Intel Mac mini (new mini is faster than the 27" iMac i9). A mini or Macbook Air + display is equivalent.
The clearance models of the M1/M2 MBP will be gone eventually but if you manage to get one, it doesn't matter, they've been available for months. Otherwise a new Mac Studio with 64GB RAM/1TB is $2600.
The Mac Studio + Display isn't $2500 more than the equivalent 27" iMac.
Mac Studio with 64GB RAM = $2600, Studio Display is $1600. $200 more than the 27", not $2500 and there are deals everywhere as well as display options to get it much lower.
A new 27" would have been priced at $1999 with the same spec as the 24" with M3 = $599 mini + $1599 Studio Display ($2200). A 27" with M3 Max would have been +$1600 (48GB) or +$1800 (64GB), around $3600-3800.
When the XServe was discontinued, the same thing went on for years with people hoping for a replacement. Nothing was gained by waiting for this to come along. There are good equivalent alternative options available for the 27" iMac.
Apple: here’s a two-year-young new form factor, now with the latest, fastest chipset. Enjoy!
Fans: Nooo! Why have you neglected this 40-year-old product line! Gaaahhhh!
It doesn't have the latest, fastest chipset. It has a base model chip with a lousy GPU, limited RAM, limited storage, and limited ports. It even has a lame audio out on the side so your powered speakers plug into the side with a cable sticking out. Thanks Jony Ive for your lousy design. Yes, this was his last artistic mess before he left. If he had his way, it would have a butterfly keyboard too.
How about an iMac 27" with an M3 Pro or M3 Max? If the thin MacBooks can handle the CPU, then the iMac can also handle it quite well, even better with the larger interior for even better cooling. Then you would have an iMac with the fastest chipset. The colors and white bezel are ghastly to look at, and 24" is too small when most people bought the 27" iMac.
“Lousy GPU, limited RAM, limited storage and limited ports”. Lousy GPU compared to what, considering the product’s intended audience?
RAM, storage and ports are always limited. Of course you can add external storage if you want “unlimited” but there’s only so much you can fit in the enclosure (or as much as people will pay for). If you need more RAM then the iMac is probably not for you. (Why doesn’t my Audi A1 have their V6 engine as an option? I’m sure they could make it fit.) How many ports do you need? 4, 8, 12? There’s 4 on mine and that’s enough for me and if I want more, I can get a USB-C adaptor.
“Lame audio out on the side” - the iMac is too shallow for it to be on the rear. Apple’s design team clearly decided that an elegant, slim design wasn’t worth making deeper (more metal, more cost) for everyone for the sake of a few users occasionally being able to stick an audio jack on the back for those who want wired speakers or headphones. I use my AirPods most of the time and when I plug my wired headphones in I hardly notice as it’s for gaming or a film and I’m looking at the screen, not the edge of the iMac.
I love the appearance from every angle so your personal aesthetic dislikes are not fact, they are your opinion and Apple and I disagree with you, as I’m sure existing purchasers. Apple know, exactly, how many people bought which sizes of iMac so if more people bought 27” models then why didn’t they make that (first?)? Apple have their reasoning and decision making process which differs from yours. C’est la vie.
You want a bigger and more powerful iMac that Apple doesn’t make. It may do, or it may never but you have other options from Apple’s or another manufacturer’s range. You pays your money.
The imac has always been an entry level computer for starters. It’s a college computer, a kids computer and office computer.
Only briefly did Apple toy with the idea of maxing it out for pros and enthusiasts and it turns out most preferred a headless mac ALA mac mini or mac studio because no pro or prosumer would want to replace their monitor every time they upgrade their computer.
Anyone complaining about the cables is being ridiculous. Between the mac studio or mac mini and the monitor there is ONE cable and the monitor serves as your hub. You can hide the box easily under the desk or on a shelf.
Why would you complain about a 1/8” audio jack on the imac or random USB cables when you have thunderbolt? Literally every accessory at this point is available with thunderbolt or USB-C. Upgrade. You’ll be thankful you did.
Looks like a good machine for general use and for those imaginary kitchen island soup-making Mac users Apple puts in their videos. But it is not a "perfect upgrade for the 27 iMac" like Apple claims, and the restricted CPU, memory and storage options clearly show that this is not a professional machine in Apple's opinion. The pro laptops are still pretty thin and have CPU, RAM, and storage options that blow away the iMac with its larger chassis.
It never was meant to be a professional Mac...The iMac has always been a consumer Mac, even the 27" model.
That was the beauty of the big daddy iMac.
It could be an affordable mid-grade performance machine… but it could ALSO be upgraded to a frothing, rip-snorting serious professional hot rod and still be a great deal. The 2020 iMac 5k was laying the smack down all over the Xeon iMac Pro was epic stuff. The consumer had the choice.
When the big dawg iMac is relaunched, it should cover the gamut with SOC options, starting from the mx pro (gotta have overhead after driving what’s sure to be a 6k screen) to the mx ultra.
When it's relaunched...you mean "if" it's released? And I think big if too. If you're one of those that is going to hold out for an iMac Pro you're silly because it's not happening. There's no room in Apple's lineup for an iMac Pro.
Apple: here’s a two-year-young new form factor, now with the latest, fastest chipset. Enjoy!
Fans: Nooo! Why have you neglected this 40-year-old product line! Gaaahhhh!
It doesn't have the latest, fastest chipset. It has a base model chip with a lousy GPU, limited RAM, limited storage, and limited ports. It even has a lame audio out on the side so your powered speakers plug into the side with a cable sticking out. Thanks Jony Ive for your lousy design. Yes, this was his last artistic mess before he left. If he had his way, it would have a butterfly keyboard too.
How about an iMac 27" with an M3 Pro or M3 Max? If the thin MacBooks can handle the CPU, then the iMac can also handle it quite well, even better with the larger interior for even better cooling. Then you would have an iMac with the fastest chipset. The colors and white bezel are ghastly to look at, and 24" is too small when most people bought the 27" iMac.
It's a consumer level Mac so it's spec'd very well for its intended audience. What you described is an iMac Pro and that's not happening.
I have been an Apple customer and Mac user for a very long time and am done with the iMac and laptops. Currently I have a fully loaded Mac mini and the Studio Display . My “ laptop” is an iPad Pro
I was hoping for a 27" iMac with the M refresh. I waited... and I'll just wait for 5 more years. I have a perfectly serviceable 2019 27" iMac. I recently upgraded to 128 GB RAM and installed a 20 TB internal HDD.
I stand to lose a lot moving down to a 24" M series iMac... I lose the option to upgrade without plugging a bunch of wires into my machine, and the option to install more memory if my needs require it. I would have to spend $2000 more to get an Apple solution that matches my screen real estate and storage capacity. Nothing but loss in that equation.
The longer I wait for an iMac the more I get for my money. If a larger iMac never happens then I will consider my options at that point. In that ten year timeframe Apple could possibly have sold me two devices instead of 1.
I recall that recently Mac sales have plummeted. Instead of giving more they took away - bad idea for a multi-trillion dollar company. How much processing power do most consumers really need to view youtube and send email? People like big screens and storage and don't want to pay a monthly fee for unreliable iCloud storage.
Comments
Fans: Nooo! Why have you neglected this 40-year-old product line! Gaaahhhh!
First of all, VESA arm mount is the way to go.
Where do you expect the power to go? Out the side?
Magic Mouse charging is a 100% non-issue, only requires monthly charging and tells you when it’s time so you can plug in at the end of the day. Forgot to? Quick charge in 2 minutes while you get a tea.
…but noooo, we are victimizzzzed! Gahhhhh!!
lol. I’d hate to see some of you in a true crisis situation.
Apple won't release another 27" iMac because that will cannibalize the overpriced Mac Studio and Studio Display, which is $2500 more than the 27" iMac. So they have no intention of giving what the customers want. That is Apple's new business plan. They even admitted they intentionally use 8GB of RAM because they know they can upsell to a more expensive model to have a usable machine for a number of years, since Apple no longer allows any upgrades after purchase. The M3 iMac is crippled with limited RAM, limited storage, limited ports, and limited features on purpose, so they can upsell more expensive Macs.
When Apple switched to Intel, the prices were the same, or lower than the PowerPC counterparts. The Mac Pro was $800 less than the Power Mac G5, and twice as fast. Now Apple Silicon is way more expensive than the Intel models they replaced, mostly because people are forced to pay the Apple Tax for memory and SSD upgrades.
It doesn't have the latest, fastest chipset. It has a base model chip with a lousy GPU, limited RAM, limited storage, and limited ports. It even has a lame audio out on the side so your powered speakers plug into the side with a cable sticking out. Thanks Jony Ive for your lousy design. Yes, this was his last artistic mess before he left. If he had his way, it would have a butterfly keyboard too.
How about an iMac 27" with an M3 Pro or M3 Max? If the thin MacBooks can handle the CPU, then the iMac can also handle it quite well, even better with the larger interior for even better cooling. Then you would have an iMac with the fastest chipset. The colors and white bezel are ghastly to look at, and 24" is too small when most people bought the 27" iMac.
For people like my wife who simply use computers as appliances and tools to help get things done and don’t see their computer as the center of their universe or a source of their technological affection and sense of being, the current iMac is nearly invisible and totally unobtrusive to their lifestyle. You don’t have to reshape your lifestyle, rework your office layout, or clutter your world with cable claptrap to own an iMac. It’s simply part of the ambient environment like your desk, your chair, your window, your bookshelves, and your cup of coffee.
Problems with the iMac only start to crop up when you ask it to be more than what it was designed to be. For me this started with the need for a second monitor, extra peripherals, extra external storage, external audio components like DACs, amplifiers, and speakers, and of course adjustable monitor mounting options, e.g., VESA mounting arms. That’s where all-in-one clashes with modularity and component based design. Unfortunately, once you’ve based the core of your system on an all-in-one design adding additional components not only involves compromises and claptrap but it runs counter to the whole purpose of why you started with an all-in-one to begin with. Sure, you can make a hybrid all-in-one + a bunch of additional stuff work for you, but you’re still limited by the lack of being able to singularly replace the two most important functions that the all-in-one provides, the display and the computing element, because they are inseparable.
I was cool with the hybrid approach when it was the only option, plus I’d spent a ton optioning up my iMac to max out everything that was maximizable. But along came the Mac Studio and it offered the ability to replace the conjoined twins from the iMac with a separate high resolution screen and a beefy computing unit without having to move up to a Pro. At the same time, the Studio Display coupled with a spec’d up Mac mini was also an opportunity to do much same thing at a lower price point. My actual, real world usage and path that I’d taken with my iMac taught me that I really needed a modular, component based computing system.
I’m much more happy with where I am now, while my wife has never been happier with what the latest iMac brings to her totally different version of living with computers. Two different approaches to solving two different but equally important sets of needs. Apple would be foolish to eliminate (“write off”) either the iMac or the modular options like the Mac Studio and Mac mini. They’ve hit on just the right combination to keep the most number of customers happy. But “most” does not mean “all” so there will always be customers and potential customers searching for something that Apple does not yet offer, whether it’s a larger and more powerful iMac or a Mac Pro that is significantly more capable than its less costly sibling.
The clearance models of the M1/M2 MBP will be gone eventually but if you manage to get one, it doesn't matter, they've been available for months. Otherwise a new Mac Studio with 64GB RAM/1TB is $2600.
The Mac Studio + Display isn't $2500 more than the equivalent 27" iMac.
To get an i9 27" iMac, the price was $3000 with 8GB RAM:
https://everymac.com/systems/apple/imac/specs/imac-core-i9-3.6-10-core-27-inch-retina-5k-2020-20-2-specs.html
With 64GB RAM it was $4000.
Mac Studio with 64GB RAM = $2600, Studio Display is $1600.
$200 more than the 27", not $2500 and there are deals everywhere as well as display options to get it much lower.
A new 27" would have been priced at $1999 with the same spec as the 24" with M3 = $599 mini + $1599 Studio Display ($2200).
A 27" with M3 Max would have been +$1600 (48GB) or +$1800 (64GB), around $3600-3800.
When the XServe was discontinued, the same thing went on for years with people hoping for a replacement. Nothing was gained by waiting for this to come along. There are good equivalent alternative options available for the 27" iMac.
RAM, storage and ports are always limited. Of course you can add external storage if you want “unlimited” but there’s only so much you can fit in the enclosure (or as much as people will pay for). If you need more RAM then the iMac is probably not for you. (Why doesn’t my Audi A1 have their V6 engine as an option? I’m sure they could make it fit.) How many ports do you need? 4, 8, 12? There’s 4 on mine and that’s enough for me and if I want more, I can get a USB-C adaptor.
“Lame audio out on the side” - the iMac is too shallow for it to be on the rear. Apple’s design team clearly decided that an elegant, slim design wasn’t worth making deeper (more metal, more cost) for everyone for the sake of a few users occasionally being able to stick an audio jack on the back for those who want wired speakers or headphones. I use my AirPods most of the time and when I plug my wired headphones in I hardly notice as it’s for gaming or a film and I’m looking at the screen, not the edge of the iMac.
I love the appearance from every angle so your personal aesthetic dislikes are not fact, they are your opinion and Apple and I disagree with you, as I’m sure existing purchasers. Apple know, exactly, how many people bought which sizes of iMac so if more people bought 27” models then why didn’t they make that (first?)? Apple have their reasoning and decision making process which differs from yours. C’est la vie.
You want a bigger and more powerful iMac that Apple doesn’t make. It may do, or it may never but you have other options from Apple’s or another manufacturer’s range. You pays your money.
It's a consumer level Mac so it's spec'd very well for its intended audience. What you described is an iMac Pro and that's not happening.
Currently I have a fully loaded Mac mini and the Studio Display . My “ laptop” is an iPad Pro
I stand to lose a lot moving down to a 24" M series iMac... I lose the option to upgrade without plugging a bunch of wires into my machine, and the option to install more memory if my needs require it. I would have to spend $2000 more to get an Apple solution that matches my screen real estate and storage capacity. Nothing but loss in that equation.
The longer I wait for an iMac the more I get for my money. If a larger iMac never happens then I will consider my options at that point. In that ten year timeframe Apple could possibly have sold me two devices instead of 1.
I recall that recently Mac sales have plummeted. Instead of giving more they took away - bad idea for a multi-trillion dollar company. How much processing power do most consumers really need to view youtube and send email? People like big screens and storage and don't want to pay a monthly fee for unreliable iCloud storage.