tenthousandthings

Here we go again! They already have a Retina (218 ppi) 4.5K foundation for this generation of iMac, which would only be incrementally larger at Retina 5K with the current bezels. Both the 21" and the 27" are gone, replaced by the 24". But that does not mean a larger unit is not in the works.

So then, what Retina resolution might they be looking at? Here is a list of 16:9 HD (high definition) resolutions. For fun, I've included some of the higher multiples that have never been used. The obvious target for a 30" Retina iMac is 3240p. I'd also love to see them come out with two new Studio Displays at 2520p and 3240p, matching the iMacs. Let Apple's marketing people figure out what to call those resolutions. Thunderbolt 5 puts all of these possible higher resolutions into play, but for 3600p and above, I think we're looking at panels denser than 218 ppi. Dell's 31.5" 4320p (8K) is 280 ppi.

mac_dog said:

For the first time, Apple has disappointed. I just purchased the studio display and the camera is of such an inferior quality. I think my iPhone 4s may have had a better camera. Not up to the Apple standard — and this is saying something. I haven’t been this disappointed in an Apple product since before Steve Jobs returned to Apple in the 90s. Unfortunately, it’s the only monitor available in the machine that meets my needs and I can’t hold out another year for a larger iMac. 

Once I turned off Center Stage, it was fine. It’s like it was trying to be an iPad. I’m happy with it now.

The part of this story that catches my eye is “Apple is working on multiple new monitors” — that is the lede, IMHO. The promise of Mac Studio and the enhanced Mac mini is they give Apple incentive to provide more choices when it comes to displays. Indeed, it’s possible that’s the whole point. 

The industry knows this, and it’s no coincidence that after years of indifference toward the Retina 5K iMac, suddenly Dell has a competitive 6K and Samsung has finally come out with a 5K Studio Display copycat (pricing on it has just become known this week, it’s about what you would expect, around what the LG UltraFine 5K used to cost). 

tht said:

thedba said:

9secondkox2 said:

chutzpah said:

Have you seen how big the heat sinks on the Ultra chips in the Mac Studio and Pro are?  Highly unlikely they’d try to jam that into an iMac chassis.

And what iMac chassis would that be? We aren’t talking about the 24” and we haven’t seen the 32” yet. 

A M2 Ultra won’t be jammed into any iMac. An M3 will. And it’s likely this which has held up the offering. 

Heat sinks don’t only go straight up or even have one shape if you remember. After seeing a ton of stress tests, it seems overkill as the thing never throttles no matter how much you throw at it for however long - and does so without using the fans hardly at all. 

To state the obvious:

1. A big iMac has lots of space for heat dissipation - especially for a 3nm SOC. And then there are fans. A 32” diagonal footprint is a lot bigger than the 7.7” Studio. 

2. A big iMac, iMac Pro, iMac Studio or whatever does not have to be as paper thin as the little one. MacBooks aren’t the same thickness. iMacs don’t have to be either. And to be performant, they shouldn’t be. 

Small minded people get funny about things. And people who get threatened by something become suddenly small-minded. Especially those lacking engineering knowledge or a grasp of history. Just because the Studio is designed a certain way doesn’t mean that’s the only way to do it. Apple did fine with an iMac that not only had to manage a hot, fast Intel chip, but also a fast discrete GPU. They’ll design the new iMac to be even better thermally with a far more efficient 3nm SOC package. 

The only way it doesn’t happen is if Apple simply doesn’t want to. There is no engineering/thermal barrier anymore than their was for the MacBook Pro before apple made it thicker to accommodate M Max chips. 

The one elephant in the room that none of you have discussed is how much would a 30” or 32” iMac cost?

We know that an Apple Studio Display at 27” and 5K resolution costs $1600.

Well at 30” it can’t stay at 5K, if it wants to retain the “Retina” moniker at 218ppi. It’s likely to be bumped up to $2000  for a 5.5K display (very conservative estimate if Apple were to release such a display). Add an M2 or M3 in there and it suddenly jumps to $3000 starting price (again very conservative estimate).

If they decide to go with a 32” iMac then 6K is the way to go (all because of that pesky “Retina” label at 218ppi). What would a starting price be for such a machine? $4000, $5000???  

$3000 for an M3
$3500 for an M3 Pro
$4000 for an M3 Max

Yes, very expensive, but it's going to be up there if this 30" monitor is something like 5600 x 3100 resolution. One hopes it would be a 120 Hz miniLED with 50,000 back lights and 13,000 dimmable zones. They really at least should put the computing bits (the SoC and logic board) into an interchangeable module so that customers can upgrade to M4 or M5 generation boards, at least done by Apple service centers. A monitor like this is a big investment and people will be keeping it for a long time.

That $1800 iMac 5K was basically a $1300 monitor with a $500 computer inside. A M2 Pro or M3 Pro Mac mini is $1300. A 30" 220 DPI monitor is going to be $2000. Isn't going to be affordable for most people. Would hope they sell the display as an external monitor when TB5 comes around.

The 32" Dell 6K is $3,200 (with an LG IPS Black panel). So a Studio Display 6K with the same or similar panel would come in right around there, exactly double the base price of the current 5K Studio Display. So, yes, you're probably looking at a $4,500 starting point for a true iMac 6K. I can't really see any other way.

It's hard to imagine Apple building that. Far from being "small-minded," many of us here thought there would be a large Apple-silicon iMac, using many of the same arguments 9sec is still clinging to, but that was before the Mac Studio, the Studio Display 5K, and now the Mac mini with M2 Pro. I know I did, along with others. But there's a difference between speculation about future hardware and flat-out denial in the face of new information. The idea that somehow the M2 prevented a larger iMac from being built is bunk. Apple chose to go in a different direction. You saying this hypothetical iMac should ideally be modular tells us all we need to know about why.

9secondkox2 said:

tenthousandthings said:

9secondkox2 said:

macxpress said:

9secondkox2 said:

The big iMac cant come soon enough. 

The Mac mini and Mac Studio with external display added just isn’t for me. After enjoying the iMac 5k for 7 years, it’s too lame to go back to a traditional PC setup. The iMac was a beast too. 

Going 3nm, I’m betting they can use the Ultra in the 32” chassis and a 6k screen. 

The only real drawback is going to be price gouging from Apple. After pushing the Studio as a wannabe iMac replacement, apple found a way to seriously overcharge. In 2030, you could load up the iMac 27” with significantly impressive power and it was a good deal. The Mac Studio, while a nice and capable machine is a horrible deal in comparison. 

That makes me think the big iMac will be labeled “Pro” and carry the Max and Ultra chips. This will allow Apple to charge about what the Stidio plus display costs and that would really suck. 

The other option would be to limit it to pro and max and sell it for a good amount cheaper, but that would be artificially limiting the performance. No thanks. 

Hopefully it’s not too far out. By this time next year is as long as it should be. Plenty of people are losing enthusiasm as it is. No one asked for the big iMac to go away - literally the worst thing about the Apple Silicon transition. And the Mac Studio is not at all a suitable replacement. Let’s get that big iMac 6k rolling. And with m3 Ultra please. If the old iMac could accommodate the hot Intel chip and separate GPU without issue, the new one can accommodate a single 3nm SOC that runs FAR cooler and barely ever needs to use its fans as is. 

No, it's not gonna be a Pro iMac. There's no room in Apple's lineup for yet another Pro Desktop when they already have Mac Studio and Mac Pro. It simply doesn't make any sense, especially since the Mac Studio is selling so well. Why anyone would want an iMac Pro over a Mac Studio is beyond me unless you just care about how it looks. The average consumer buying a Mac Studio doesn't give a rats ass about how it looks on their desk compared to what could have been with an iMac Pro. 

You seriously need to get over this iMac Pro thing that you seem to keep pushing over and over again...I'd be extremely surprised to see it happen. It's like Apple releasing a 15" MacBook Air Pro. 

You seem to be more than a little misinformed and history-deficient. Yes, Apple already has a Mac mini. Yes they have a Studio. And yes, even a Mac Pro. They even have *gasp!* a small version of the iMac. Being that the small iMac exists, there is obviously still a major market for such sleekness. Historically, apple has had small and large iMacs - and even an iMac Pro. I know. Must be shocking news.  […]

You jump to the conclusion that the 24" iMac is a replacement for the small 21" iMac 4K, and not a replacement for the large 27" iMac 5K. But Apple exactly split the difference between the two with the 24" iMac 4.5K.

Common sense argues that this medium-sized  iMac is a replacement for both the small and the large iMac.

You are not alone in seeing the 24" size as an increase in the smaller form factor and concluding there must also then be a corresponding increase in the size of the larger form factor. But nothing in what Apple has said or done so far actually suggests this.

You miss the part where apple has been on a path of larger screen sizes lately. Chopping 3 inches of screen off is clearly not meant to indicate a replacement. Comon sense says ADDING 3 inches is and it is viewed as an upgrade for the small iMac. Not a backward step. But hey, great mental gymnastics on display there. You should audition for AGT. 

Sarcasm doesn't change the fact Apple replaced both the 21" and 27" iMacs with the 24" iMac. That's not semantics. It's what they did.

Yes, something is up with the iMac. It hasn't been refreshed for M2, and that's a mystery. It could be the M3 flagship, like the MacBook Air was for the M2. But that's unlikely. It's still very much possible we'll get an M2 iMac (with option for M2 Pro, maybe also M2 Max) and an M2 iPad Air (closing out the M2 transition) before the A17 launch, and M3 won't come until WWDC 2024. That would follow the M2 timeline (A15 launched September 2021, M2 launched June 2022), and it would mean a simple, two-year refresh cycle for M-series hardware. That 30" iMac of your dreams would launch in 2025, along with new Apple displays that use Thunderbolt 5.

Here's the big picture I think you are not seeing. When Apple first created the iMac 5K in 2014 they had to use a custom, internal dual DisplayPort 1.2 controller to drive the 5K screen. There was nothing else like it. I work in the visual arts, and I can still remember when I first saw it. It was stunning. That era is gone. They no longer need to stuff everything into an iMac to stay ahead of the curve. Apple could make a 10K Pro Display XDR and drive it with a single Thunderbolt 5 cable.