john-useless

I absolutely agree with everything Mike said in his piece — this is probably a good business proposition for Apple (in particular, to gain some experience with delivering live programming) and a revenue generator for the league.

I'm not a baseball fan; there's no major league team near where I live. I tend to watch only two or three games per year, and that's only when the World Series has a game 5 & beyond. As an Apple TV+ subscriber, I might actually be in Apple's target audience here. If one of the Friday night games has a close score in the late innings, I might actually tune in for a while.

tiger2 said:

Gotta believe they will add the larger iMac. Hopefully before 2023. What could possibly take so long?

My guess is that production capacity for 27-inch 5K screens has been a limiting factor. For whatever reason, the various manufacturers of monitors haven't found much consumer interest in 27-inch 5K screens. (There are plenty of 27-inch monitors out there, but they're 4K.) Lately, the only 27-inch 5K screens on the market have been Apple's (in the form of the Intel-based 27-inch iMac, obviously not a standalone monitor) and the LG UltraFine 5K Display. Assuming that LG is Apple's supplier for the 27-inch iMac's screen, and perhaps now for the new Apple Studio Display's screen, it could be that there's only one factory making these 27-inch 5K screens.

I ordered an LG UltraFine 5K Display in November 2021 and it didn't arrive until mid-January 2022. Could have been a pandemic-related component shortage … or it could also have been that production capacity was being used for something else — perhaps what we now know as the new Apple Studio Display.

Now that the last Intel-based 27-inch iMac has been discontinued, perhaps that production capacity will be available for a future Apple silicon-based 27-inch iMac.

cgWerks said:

Can someone explain the pricing of this display to me?

As others have already replied with good technical comparisons, I won't repeat that but will just share my story. I've had 27-inch iMacs at home & work for nearly a decade as my primary computers in each location — 2012 and 2013 models, respectively, both of which are pre-Retina models. I also have third-party 27-inch external monitors. This size screen works exceptionally well for me. I have been determined that when it came time to replace both iMacs, I wanted the same size screens but in Retina quality. 4K monitors (the Retina equivalent of old 1920 x 1080 HD displays) just don't have enough pixels for my needs; I really need 5K.

For my office, I recently replaced the old iMac with a MacBook Pro (14-inch, 2021 — with the top-of-line M1 Max) plus an LG UltraFine 5K Display (the 27-inch model, which of course is Retina quality) and an OWC Thunderbolt Dock (the newest Thunderbolt 4 model). I already have older external speakers & a subwoofer, plus additional external monitors, all of which I've connected via the dock to the new MacBook Pro. The LG 5K display is my "main" monitor.

To have roughly the equivalent at home — a 27-inch 5K Retina monitor and a Thunderbolt (3 or 4) dock equivalent, I could have bought another LG UltraFine 5K Display and another OWC Thunderbolt Dock … but those items together cost nearly as much as the new Apple Studio Display, which has higher quality speakers & a higher quality webcam and eliminates my need for a separate dock (your mileage may vary). I also like having the ability to buy AppleCare+ warranty coverage for $50/year that will likely protect my investment for many years into the future at reasonable cost (and well beyond LG's warranty).

Yes, the new Apple display is pricey … but in my case, it actually feels like an acceptable (and perhaps even good) value. I just ordered one (with the default stand and the standard glass). For the short term, I will bring home my new MacBook Pro from the office to connect to it when working at home. Perhaps in another six months or a year, I anticipate ordering a new Mac Studio (or perhaps a Mac mini with an M1 Pro processor, if Apple releases such a version in the future) to permanently connect to it at home.

I fail to see the value of a larger Mac mini, given that the Apple Silicon-based Mac mini line is not upgradable — consumers can't upgrade the memory, storage, or graphics.

A smaller Mac Pro ("Mac Studio"?), on the other hand, implies upgradability by consumers. Or does it? We have yet to see whether Apple will include upgradability of memory, storage, graphics, or other features on any Apple Silicon-based Mac. To date, no M1-based Macintosh has been upgradable internally, and they don't even support external GPUs. (Or am I forgetting something?)

I do see the value in having a traditional small-case, non-upgradable Mac mini with M1 Pro, M1 Max, and/or future M2 processors, given the well-established performance specs of Apple Silicon to date, with benchmarks that often meet or exceed Intel-based Mac Pro desktops. For those of us who need or even prefer desktop computers, I would love to have the option of keeping my existing monitors (and other external devices, like storage) while more affordably replacing the desktop computer itself every few years. The traditional small Mac mini has been great for that as long as its performance met your needs — and with M1 Pro, M1 Max, or future variants inside that take performance to Intel-based Mac Pro levels (if not beyond), the traditional small Mac mini might even be perfect for that.

On the other hand, if a future Mac mini equipped with an M1 Pro or M1 Max processor costs as much (or nearly as much) as a similarly-equipped iMac or MacBook Pro, what's the point? I hope Apple doesn't overprice these next-gen Mac minis.

I think the CalDigit Thunderbolt Element Hub actually pairs better with an M1-based Mac mini than it does with a MacBook Pro. With the Mac mini, the Element Hub's lack of an ethernet port and its large power adapter aren't the issues that they are with laptops.