If this is true I may reconsider waiting for the Studio next summer and just get a maxed out Mini instead. I have a feeling a lot of 5K iMac owners like me are coming to the realization that a larger 32 inch M4 iMac is just not in the cards. 

When Apple switched from Intel to Apple Silicon I was hoping that would mean more frequent product updates. But at least when it comes to the Mac Studio, Mini, and Pro it is as slow as ever is not even slower. I am desperate to buy a new Studio but I refuse to buy one with a M2 that was released so long ago. I'm sure Apple has their reasons, but from a consumer POV it's very frustrating waiting so long for product refreshes on some models while others get yearly updates.

DAalseth said:

He’s not wrong. This has been a fiasco.

And most important, who made the call which side to listen to? Presumably, that person was Tim Cook."

Tim Cook was the steady hand that kept Apple going when Steve Jobs left. He did good work, but that is in the past. What have we had in recent years? The CarPlay fumble. The AppleCar fiasco. The Siri fiasco which is a part of Apple Intelligence being mostly a half baked “us too’ project and not something well thought out. AppleVision becoming this decades Lisa. Software shipped with obvious bugs. On and on and on. 

It is time for Tim Cook to step aside. He made Apple into the most profitable company in the world, but it’s become clear that he isn’t able to lead it anymore. There are little fiefdoms, and pet projects, and a loss of focus on what is most important. That takes a firm hand from the top, and Cook isn’t providing that anymore. I’m of the same cohort as Cook and I know how hard it is to step back and let younger people take the reins. But it is time. For the good of Apple it is time for Cook to leave the stage

I agree that Cook has been responsible for the mistakes you mentioned as CEO, but he has also had a lot of successes. I believe he has at least earned the right to stay and try to clean up things if he so chooses. The grass isn't always greener on the other side of the septic tank. As outsiders we really don't know what internal politics happened to allow these mistakes but we do know that Tim Cook is not a showboat so likely cleaned things up very quietly. The few possible replacements are still not ready to take the helm quite yet IMHO. 

I don’t imagine anyone is requesting or care about sleeker desktop Macs. Personally I would prefer a thicker one with great cooling and tons of ports so I can throw away all these hubs I need because my Mac lacks enough ports. 

I am using the beta version of iOS that allows ChatGPT integration. In my limited experience so far, the only useful part of Apple intelligence is the inclusion of Chat GPT. Exactly what has Apple been doing with their billions and years of research?  Is there any Apple specific parts of Apple Intelligence that I am not using or haven't noticed yet?  It's a shame that Apple had a huge lead when Siri was brand new but they let it stagnate for so long that it became a running joke in regards to ineptitude. 

I'm confused why anyone would need any specialized AI apps. What I mean is by that is currently ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude are the dominant players. All 3 offer free or paid premium versions. There are tons of specialized paid apps that use one of those 3 as their backbone so to speak, but they are all useless leeches.

Why use specialized apps when you can easily just do the task easily with ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude alone? Sure it takes a little training and learning to become an expert user, but we can now create and save our own specialized AI bots within ChatGPT which means those apps are becoming less relevant by the day.

Solid and honest review. I was on the fence to buy it last year but I'm glad I decided to wait. I will  almost certainly buy the second iteration especially if it includes the M4 which will help future proof it a bit more. 

AppleZulu said:

gwmac said:

So many of these posts are discussing equality, equity, righting past wrongs, and many other noble ideals. However, all of these posts are ignoring the actual topic which concerns DEI programs at companies. 

Are DEI programs effective? I would challenge anyone to provide one single study that proves they cause more good than harm. I can provide dozens of references to support the opposite claim that they do far more harm than good. 

Literally the first item in my search results:

“This is the critical finding of the whole study. While DEI strategies might yield positive results to an organization's diverse makeup and inclusive culture, mature DEI strategies have a concrete and positive impact on the business.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinamilanesi/2023/04/20/the-business-impact-of-diversity-equity-and-inclusion/

You know you’re in for a treat when a self-described DEI consultant pens an article proclaiming the business benefits of—surprise!—more DEI consulting. Carolina Milanesi’s Forbes piece might as well be titled “Why You Need to Send Me a Check Right Now.” Here are a few glaring weaknesses:

1. Where’s the Data?
For an article about “business impact,” she relies on vague assertions more than concrete evidence. Statements like “companies that invest in DEI see improvements in innovation” lack rigorous data to show any real cause and effect.

2. Self-Interest
She’s part of the DEI consulting industry, so she has a personal stake in pushing businesses to invest in more DEI. It’s like a raincoat vendor insisting monsoons are coming.

3. Overgeneralizations
She treats DEI as a universal cure-all without acknowledging that in some cases, DEI policies can backfire, cause resentment, or invite legal trouble—issues she conveniently sidesteps.

4. Cherry-Picked Success Stories
We hear about one or two alleged triumphs but never about failures or unintended consequences. Where’s the data on programs that triggered reverse discrimination lawsuits or harmed workplace morale?

5. Buzzwords, Not Substance
Terms like “innovation” and “growth” are tossed around, but there’s no deep dive into how, specifically, DEI drives these outcomes. It reads more like a sales pitch than a thorough analysis.

6. No Counterarguments
Truly robust pieces anticipate pushback and tackle it head-on. Milanesi glosses over controversies around DEI mandates, which does little to strengthen her position.

7. The “DEI Will Save the World” Mantra
She implies that embracing DEI solves every organizational woe. Yet real-life examples abound of ham-fisted diversity campaigns leading to groupthink, tokenism, or even lawsuits.

Overall, her article seems more like a pitch for DEI consulting services than a balanced look at the pros and cons. If the takeaway is “Pay for DEI or watch your company crumble,” the reader would be wise to dig deeper before buying in.

Dozens was hyperbole but here are a few:

1. Shortcomings in DEI Training

Claim: Mandatory DEI training is often costly and ineffective.

• Why Diversity Programs Fail (Harvard Business Review, 2016)
  Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev found that most diversity training programs do not change attitudes or improve outcomes long-term. Some can reinforce stereotypes or prompt backlash.

• Does Diversity Training Work? (Elizabeth Levy Paluck, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2009)
  Experimental evidence shows that one-shot diversity training sessions have minimal impact on implicit biases and can spark resistance rather than empathy.

• DEI Training: Harmful, Phony, And Expensive (Rod Dreher, The American Conservative, 2023)
  Dreher criticizes corporate DEI sessions for oversimplifying complex human interactions, often producing resentment instead of unity.

---

2. Potential for Reverse Discrimination and Legal Exposure

Claim: Ill-conceived DEI programs can trigger lawsuits and unintended forms of discrimination.

• Diversity matters: the four scary legal risks hiding in your DEI program (Fortt, Conley, & Alkhas, Reuters, 2023)
  This article outlines how programs that favor certain demographics can violate anti-discrimination laws, exposing companies to legal peril and reputational damage.

• 7 Ways Your DEI Initiatives Are Harming Your Company and How To Resolve It (Brian Dapelo, LinkedIn Pulse, 2023)
  Highlights that forcing diversity quotas without proper checks can lead to new forms of workplace inequity, ironically eroding trust among employees.

---

3. Cult-Like or Illiberal Dynamics

Claim: In some cases, DEI fosters an environment of conformity and ostracizes dissent.

• Opinion | Free speech on campus is another casualty of war (Fareed Zakaria, The Washington Post, 2023)
  Warns that, under DEI banners, universities sometimes restrict open discourse or cancel events if they diverge from a sanctioned viewpoint.

• The Silencing of Heather Mac Donald (Multiple media outlets, 2017)
  Demonstrates how certain academic communities have disinvited speakers who challenge parts of the DEI narrative, exemplifying how groupthink can stifle debate.

• Dangers of the Conventional DEI Initiatives (Dr. Ted Sun, Transcontinental University)
  Argues that quota-driven DEI policies ignore deep-seated biases and inadvertently intensify divisions, rather than fostering true dialogue.

---

4. Superficial “Check-the-Box” Approaches

Claim: Many DEI initiatives focus on optics—hitting numeric diversity targets—rather than addressing systemic root causes.

• The Failure of the DEI-Industrial Complex (Harvard Business Review, 2022)
  Critiques the expensive, top-down model of DEI that rarely measures real improvement in inclusion or retention.

• Diversity Inc. (Pamela Newkirk, Basic Books, 2019)
  Investigates how major corporations throw money at diversity “magic bullet” solutions, yet racial inequitiesoften remain as stark as ever.

---

5. Economic and Organizational Inefficiencies

Claim: DEI can misallocate substantial resources with little demonstrable ROI.

• Why Diversity Training Doesn’t Work: The Challenge for Industry and Academia (Catherine Hein, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2019)
  Reveals that many corporate interventions have no measurable positive effect on productivity or retention, casting doubt on the ROI of large-scale DEI spending.

• Diversity Wins: How Inclusion Matters (McKinsey & Company, 2020)
  While widely cited for linking diversity to better financial performance, the report itself admits that correlation does not equal causation—and that poor implementation can undermine potential gains.

---

Putting It All Together

1. Critical Research Gap
   Milanesi’s article touts broad “innovation” benefits but fails to detail how DEI programs specifically achieve these outcomes—or address the possibility of negative side effects.

2. Ideological vs. Practical
   Many DEI arguments rely on moral imperatives, yet skip the pragmatic concerns—such as legal liability, reverse discrimination, and employee pushback—that actual business leaders must face.

3. One-Size-Fits-All Thinking
   Real inclusivity requires nuanced approaches, not generic mandates or quotas. Genuine change happens over time, through mentorship, leadership development, and open dialogue—not checklists or forced trainings.

4. Accountability Is Key
   Critical voices aren’t advocating against diversity; they challenge superficial, dogmatic, or self-serving approaches. The best solution? Evidence-based reforms that measure real progress, respect individual freedoms, and encourage genuine inclusion rather than lip service.

---

Recommended References for Further Reading

• Dobbin, F. & Kalev, A. (2016). Why Diversity Programs Fail. Harvard Business Review.
• Paluck, E. L. (2009). Does Diversity Training Work? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
• Fortt, S. E., Conley, D., & Alkhas, N. (2023). Diversity matters: the four scary legal risks hiding in your DEI program. Reuters.
• Dapelo, B. (2023). 7 ways your DEI initiatives are harming your company and how to resolve it. LinkedIn Pulse.
• Sun, T. (n.d.). Dangers of the Conventional DEI Initiatives. Transcontinental University.
• Newkirk, P. (2019). Diversity Inc. Basic Books.
• Harvard Business Review. (2022). The Failure of the DEI-Industrial Complex.
• Zakaria, F. (2023). Opinion | Free speech on campus is another casualty of war. The Washington Post.
• McKinsey & Company. (2020). Diversity wins: How inclusion matters. McKinsey & Company.

---

In sum, there is a legitimate debate over how best to achieve genuine inclusivity. Data and case studies demonstrate that poorly executed DEI can do more harm than good—creating legal headaches, fostering resentment, and entrenching stereotypes. Rather than uncritically accepting calls for more DEI consulting, leaders should scrutinize which measures truly yield lasting, positive outcomes, ensuring their time and resources bolster real equity rather than merely feeding an industry echo chamber.

9secondkox2 said:

gwmac said:

This is what I and a lot of other 27 inch iMac owners have been waiting on.  My only remaining decision is what monitor to buy. I want to get at least a 32 inch so was considering the

Dell UltraSharp 32 4K Thunderbolt Hub Monitor - U3225QE

Does this seem like a good monitor to pair with my new studio? I get a $200 Dell credit every 6 months with my Amex Business Platinum card so that will knock it down to $749. 

Nah. We've been waiting on a new 32" iMac.

That would be my preference but the chances of that are slim to none at this point. I would have been happy with a M4 iMac 27" but that also doesn't seem to be in the cards. My advice is just get a new studio like the rest of us. 

This is what I and a lot of other 27 inch iMac owners have been waiting on.  My only remaining decision is what monitor to buy. I want to get at least a 32 inch so was considering the

Dell UltraSharp 32 4K Thunderbolt Hub Monitor - U3225QE

Does this seem like a good monitor to pair with my new studio? I get a $200 Dell credit every 6 months with my Amex Business Platinum card so that will knock it down to $749.