roundaboutnow

dewme said:

DAalseth said:

dewme said:

The fate of the 27” iMac is anyone’s guess. At this point it’s a safe bet that we will never see a transitional version of the 27” iMac, i.e., where Apple shoves Apple Silicon magic into the same chassis the last Intel version 27” iMacs used. Personally, I think Apple will go in a totally new direction if they do a larger than 24” format all-in-one. They may not even call it an iMac and keep the current 24” iMac as the only iMac. I also think it may be a massive touch based device somewhat akin to Microsoft’s Surface Studio. Imagine a very large touch based all-in-one Mac with significant Apple Silicon based performance that can be used by itself but also be paired with a Mac Studio or Apple Silicon Mac Pro for extremely intensive 3D design, simulation, modeling, and tasks requiring unparalleled graphical performance capability. Of course this sounds like an exceedingly niche product, but as long as the Mac Studio and 27” Studio Display are still around, the music has stopped playing and all of the available chairs are already taken. The 27” iMac is the odd man out. 

Overall I agree with your analyses. I would doubt though that the replacement for the 27” iMac might be a touch screen. Apple seems to be very intent on keeping their touch devices separate from the Macs. If they ever do make a really big touch device I would expect it to run ipadOS. 

Yeah, it's a stretch.

Apple could seemingly do a quick & dirty Apple Silicon 27" iMac by putting the guts from a 14"/16" Apple Silicon MacBook Pro into a variation of the Studio Display. Would anyone buy it?

I would think that the quick and dirty approach could attract a lot of buyers. Well, maybe not "dirty." A clean, updated enclosure design along the lines of the 24" iMac shouldn't be a stretch...

...but with just a little more time, perhaps the 27" iMac turns into a 27"-28" M-whatever iMac with a 5.5K display.

Lots of people have suggested the next bigger iMac should be a 32" or some ultra-wide screen format. I would worry about the price of this approach. Those not wanting to wait, and/or that have the budget will pair a Mac mini or Mac Studio with a nice screen like the Studio Display or even the XDR (with the obvious added benefit of allowing CPU upgrade while keeping the display).

However, keep in mind that the 21.5" 4K iMac turned into a 24" 4.5K iMac. The value proposition of Apple's AIOs have always been quite good, especially with the 5K iMac, and so it is with the 24" iMac. AFAIK, you can't even get a separate 4.5K monitor anywhere, but somehow, Apple was able to put one in for a decent price. For that price, I don't think you could build an equivalent separate Mac/display. Yes, a mini with a 4K would be close, but to keep a similar pixel pitch as the 24" iMac, the 4K should not be larger than 24", and there are not as many choices on these. Don't get me wrong, the typical 28" 4K monitors are nice, but I guess I am spoiled by my 27" 5K iMac.

I suppose the economics going from 4K to 4.5K and going from 5K to 5.5K are not the same, so I won't hold my breath for a 5.5K iMac -- I just can't imagine Apple not coming up with some sort of replacement for the 27" 5K iMac in the near future.

JP234 said:

ITGUYINSD said:

JP234 said:

So give up a Thunderbolt port on your Mac to get more thunderbolt ports? You had two, now you have three. And some USB ports, Ethernet, and an SD port.

I got a dock with HDMI,  Ethernet, SD, micro-SD, (2) USB 3.0 for $16.19 on Amazon.

Is this one really worth $300? Not to me. Maybe you.

Depends on what Mac you connect it to.  Worst case, the MBP 13 M1 has 2 TB ports.  One used for this dock, leaves me with 1 on the MBP and 3 on the dock.  4 Total by my count.  And it's not just "some USB" ports, they are 10Gbps each.  So yes -- if you just need some generic ports to plug in a mouse or a thumb drive, a $20 dock is fine

For those who need more TB4 ports and high-speed USB 3.2 ports plus Ethernet, this is good.  Expensive, but good.  There isn't much else out there like this.

Like M68000 said -- no HDMI is a big bummer.

Your math is just one port off: you have to connect one of those 3 on the dock to one of the TB ports on your Mac. That's a total of 3.

Thunderbolt is expensive tech, no matter who's producing it, and it's really only useful to a handful of professionals in the I/O intensive applications. 10Gb/s USB-C will do just fine for the other 99.99%. So will two USB-C ports, for that matter.

FTA: On the front of the dock is a Thunderbolt 4 host port, which connects to your Mac and can provide 96 watts of power delivery. 

kelpaff said:

I just called Apple support about the iPhone 13 sounding horrible when making and receiving a call. The only thing they suggested is for me to take it into an Apple store for a diagnostic check. But since I bought it through Verizon i’m sure I’m stuck with this iPhone 13 that hurts my ears! Why can’t Apple admit there is a problem with removing the noise reduction feature and just send me an iPhone 12. I would gladly send back the 13. 

It's not like all iPhone 13 have a problem you know...

If there is a legitimate problem, it would be covered under warranty. You should be able to take it to an Apple store, but contact Verizon for details about warranty and returns. 

I've asked this before in other posts a few months back...

I wonder why Airplay isn't used in AirPod pro. It's WiFi based (2.4GHz, same as Bluetooth) and supports Apple Lossless (IIRC, limited to 16-bit/44.1KHz, but that's still pretty good).

There are combo transceiver chips that do both BT and WiFi. https://www.broadcom.com/products/wireless/wireless-lan-bluetooth/bcm4313

I'm sure there is a reason Airplay is not used. Power consumption might be one issue. (But maybe a low-powered version of Airplay could address this?)

Marvin said:

Holographic Facetime is a possibility, this would need the glasses to scan the wearer's face or articulate a face from voice. This has some interesting possibilities as shown in the following video:



You would effectively see a person in the same room. This could be used for remote education and would be a lot more effective trying to do a remote classroom. Remote fitness classes would be better with a full body accessory scanner, possibly an iPhone.

For some people it could replace using an iPad or iPhone like students taking notes in classes. They can have a hardware keyboard and be typing but using the view in the glasses instead of an iPad screen.

The "PORTL" display is nothing more than a "transparent" LCD -  a conventional LCD panel with the backlight unit (BLU) removed. Best image visibility is when the LCD panel is in front of a very well lit and evenly illuminated box. I've had several of these boxes built for retail applications. What's cool is that you can put actual product inside the box, and then have some interesting "reveals" and informational content on the LCD.

What Nussbaum did was pay attention to how images look best on the transparent LCD, and then optimizing the image capture side with a matching white background. The slight shadow behind the subject adds an extra illusion of depth, but make no mistake--it is not a 3D hologram by any stretch. The effect looks very good IRL, but these videos and photos of the experience make it look much better than it really is. He deserves props for his attention to detail, but it is not as groundbreaking as it seems.