canukstorm

rob53 said:

The only way to get a 27" 5K display, an actual replacement for the 27" iMac, is to get the Studio Display ($1599) and pair it with a Mac mini ($1299, M2 10/16 core, 16GB, 512GB). The base M3 is not that much faster than the base M3. This system would cost in the $2900 range. The M3 iMac only has 8/10 cores, 16GB 512GB for $1900, less powerful and smaller screen. The iMacs are now only for schools, some businesses and general home use, not for businesses needing to do real work. Apple has decided, and it might be valid, that separating the display from the computer is the best way for heavier users going forward. Sure, get a laptop but they're only for people with good eyesight and for those who already have or are willing to buy an external display or two or three. The base Mac Studio M2 Max isn't that much more than the top end Mac mini ($700 more) with much more room for growth. The Intel Mac I'm using right now is a fully blown 2019 model with top end graphics card and 72GB RAM, 2TB SSD. It cost almost $6K. Add the 2TB storage to the base Studio ($2599 M2 Max, 12/30 cores, 32GB, 2TB) and use the Studio Display ($1599) and for $4200 it absolutely blows my 8-core i9 to smithereens. This really is the successor to the 27" iMac. Both the Mac mini and Mac Studio don't take up much room, fitting underneath the Studio Display. Time to get used to it.

timmillea said:

CelticPaddy said:

timmillea said:

Yesterday's announcement feels more like the death knell for the Studio. It always was a short-term product to cover up the lack of a Mac Pro. Now that an M3 Max can be put in a MacBook, it can be put in the Mini. The Studio should always have been Mini-sized. Only the top end Studio configurations justified the extra size and heat sinking - the lower-end Studios never did. The M3 range of Mac Minis will be coming out in a few months. They will embarrass the current Studio models, which I would expect to be quietly dropped. 

It was never a short term product 

The Mac Studio is a design monstrosity. It should never have existed. The previous design generation at Apple would never have countenanced it. 

macxpress said:

roundaboutnow said:

Starting price of 14" MBP with M3 being less expensive than previous 14" MBP is interesting. That Space Black looks pretty cool too. Definitely something to think about...

I noted that they mentioned more than a few times how much better things would be for those still on Intel Macs (rub it in, why don't ya!), and in particular, how the 24" iMac M3 was offered as a replacement for either the 21.5" or 27" Intel iMacs. I wonder if that means we won't see a larger iMac any time soon.

Remember it's only an M3, not a Pro/Max and this replaces the 13" MacBook Pro w/TouchBar so technically it's more expensive. Yes, it's cheaper than any other 14" MacBook Pro previously, but it's more expensive if you wanted a lower end Pro model. However, I think you're getting a much better laptop too so it's deserved. It also only has 2 Thunderbolt ports versus 3 on the more expensive models and only supports 1 Display. 

AppleZulu said:

designr said:

Interesting that they kept comparing performance to the M1—as if the M2 didn't exist.

I mean I get it. Just funny. You gotta pat close attention to what (and how) Apple presents. They are very clever.

Apple doesn’t market current year devices as replacements of prior year devices. They really don’t even market them as replacements for two-year old devices, but the M1 is the first in the series, so it offers a good benchmark. Besides, they also repeated comparisons to Intel Macs as well. 

designr said:

Interesting that they kept comparing performance to the M1—as if the M2 didn't exist.

I mean I get it. Just funny. You gotta pat close attention to what (and how) Apple presents. They are very clever.