I wouldn't go that far. I'm sure there are some lost sales. There are Mac users who are adamant about a 27" AIO or nothing.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP All Models 2023 Mac Pro! [MERGED]
- Thread starter OW22
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Part of that was likely because the iMac was the only affordable yet decently powered desktop Mac. The mini used to be quite weak, and the Mac Pro was big and expensive / AWOL). There are other options now, though unfortunately prices have gone up in real terms, what with the 5K display costing as much as a base 27" iMac on its own.
There was a brief hope that with Apple manufacturing its own chips, they might pass some cost savings onto the customer (stop sniggering at the back). Instead, they capitalised on their impressive chip performance to raise prices. Hopefully now that Qualcomm's acquired some of Apple's top chip designers, it looks like there'll be a bit of competition in the ARM space.
Apple capitalized on their impressive chip performance to increase their margins. And competition is happening but not just from Qualcomm. MediaTek just released their 9300 chip and it's fast and efficient. AMD's Zen5 (coming out next year) is supposed have significantly improved performance / watt. And next year Intel's Alder Lake is being released on their next-gen 18A process tech. The next two years will be some of the competitive ever in the silicon design space.
I don't believe a single customer bought a Windows AIO because they couldn't get a Mac AIO. I just don't see the person who cares less about the operating system than they do about having 1 less cable as being a legitimate thing in the real world.
If I do say so, myself... Called it, again.
Bottomless. Well. Of. Funding.
Intel in talks to build 'secure enclave' chip facilities for defense applications - SiliconANGLE
Intel in talks to build 'secure enclave' chip facilities for defense applications - SiliconANGLE
siliconangle.com
They don’t have an iMac Pro in the Studio. The two are completely different products.
Not a single lost sale for failing to offer it as an AIO? Mate you make a lot of sweeping statements.
Source?
Yep, they most likely didn't buy a Windows AIO, but a lot of them also likely didn't buy the almost double the price Studio with ASD.
I am one example of that user. I had tried the Studio/ASD setup, and it didn't satisfy me as much as an AIO.
As I, and others have pointed out (to your disagreement), the article you linked did not discard the long rumored 28-32inch iMac, just the 27inch size.
I, and I assume a fair few people here are awaiting the potential release of the 32inch 6k - a well documented rumor.
It's literally the exact same product in every way that counts. It's the high end Desktop, with (from all practical purposes) non-upgradable components.
From a paradigmatic point of view, calling an integrated display a meaningful difference is a shallow, fools' position.
Which happen to be correct.
macOS's market is people who want macOS first, and then buy a Mac to run it. No one who intends to run macOS is switching to Windows because they can't get a high end AIO from Apple. That's a laughable fantasy. If Windows was a possibility, they'd have bought a Windows AIO even if the big iMac was still in the market.
The death of the big iMac, and the introduction of the Studio are not a coincidence - the Studio and Studio display are literally Apple doing what people have been asking them to do for more than a decade - let them have the screen and the computer on indepenent upgrade cycles.
Last edited:
You are not going to buy a Windows AIO becaue you can't get an iMac, my point stands. You can get a Mac Mini, or a Mac Studio, and an XDR or a Studio Display. Apple has the product you want, it just costs you more than you'd like, and needs 1 extra cable. We're all crying you a river.
*edit* And the big AS iMac you're fantasising about would literally be the same cost, if not more than the Studio Display, or XDR and the Mini or Studio, which makes wishing after it all the more ridiculous.
I don't know if you even read the comment you just responded to.. where I clearly state the reason for not staying with the Studio/ASD combo being the form factor.
I am an ex-Mac Pro owner btw, and sure I don't need the Mac Pro now, although judging by your sig, it seems like you do. Well done to you.
I don't believe just because you own a previous gen Mac Pro, that gives you a right to belittle other users who aren't spending $15k+ on their Macs. Do you?
I read it, but it's a meaningless complaint, because no one who can't get an AIO Mac is going to buy a Windows AIO, they're going to buy a different Mac solution, and Apple still gets all the money.
So why do you think apple would devote a single cent to making an iMac, which would have worse environmental creentials, lower their volumes on Mac Minis and Mac Studios, require half a dozen new SKUs for all the config options and not net them a single new customer.
iMac customers have literally lost nothing in the switch from AIO to Computer + Display. Over 2 generations of machine, you have a cheaper TCO because you don't need to rebuy the monitor, you can have a faster upgrade schedule if you desire it because the comouter side is cheaper, you can have multiple displays that *exactly* match each other.
If the AIO form factor is more important to you than all of that, maybe you need a (belittling) reality check.
Last edited:
Sure, but that's not for a lack of big iMacs specifically.
People who ae waiting on a big iMac have to buy a new computer eventually. So, they buy a Studio or a Mini, or a MacBook, because the iMac customer was never the "I need (dedicated hardware capability) more than I need macOS" customer.
Personally, I think Apple Silicon is a catastrophic blunder that will end as badly as PowerPC, and I think the compromises that go along with Apple Silicon (price rises, no GPUs, no storage or RAM upgradability) have a far greater effect on sales slowdowns than the lack of a big iMac.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, the computing and cosumer electronics industry is shifting, more and more, towards this model.
On a side note, I'd be surprised if there's a long-term for the Mac within Apple's roadmap. The future for Apple is mobile computing + wearables. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a day a few years from now where iPads will be much more capable, hardware + OS wise, to the point where most Apple users won't need Macs. Logic Pro and Final Cut Pro are already on the iPad. It's only a matter of time before Xcode makes its way to iPad. Once that happens, it'll be a matter of when, not if.
Then you have a whole technological counter culture typified by companies like Framework who are going further in the other direction than the industry ever has before.
I know which of these is more likely to fall afoul of regulators.
The problem remains that something capable of acting as a meta-device (like a Mac) is necessary to develop for these mobile and wearable devices. I don't think we're likely to see an iPad that can run a second copy of iOS in a simulator, so the Mac has a role, if only because Apple needs them in-house.
Unless they were to kill the mac as a product for consumers, and sell/lease an "Apple DevKit / DeBug" like the console makers do (the G5 Powermac was the Devkit for the XBox 360) to developers.
I'm sure Apple would much prefer we all stopped worrying our pretty little heads with hard things that need Macs, and just bake cookies for all the boys with iPads and Apple Watches, and subscription content.
In terms of function, or hardware spec, they may be considered the same product. However, many people care about how it looks. Different form factor is a different product.
May be that's our preference. However, we can't represent everyone.
In fact, my wife is an Apple fan. She use iMac since long time ago (many years ahead of me), bought the 1st gen iPhone, iPad, Airpod, Macbook Air, M1... And of course, we have the 5,1 as well.
But eventually, due to lack of an iMac that she want, she bought a Microsoft Surface Studio. Of course, not ideal because of not macOS, but she is quite happy with that purchase indeed. And TBH, the main reason for this purchase is the form factor.
For the users looking for iMac, they usually have no specific need to stay with macOS, but just prefer it. And if Apple cannot provide a computer that they want, they can quit.
I also don't know why Apple only release 24" iMac since 2021. Many users already get use to the 27" screen since 2009. Going backward isn't an option for many many people.
In fact, I do have friends (has no technical knowledge) who only buy AIO computer. You won't believe that some people even believe connecting a HDMI cable is beyond their ability.
Anyway, there are all sorts of different people on the world. Some are looking for bigger iMac. It's just that simple.
Some of them may be OK to switch to Mac mini + stand alone monitor. But some of them will simply quit.
If it's not the iMac they want, then it's not the Apple product they want.
Just like some people complained the 6,1 lack of internal storage. Then other people said that they can connect external storage via Thunderbolt, just one extra cable. In terms of function, there may be no noticeable difference for absolute most usage. But, able to keep everything inside the case is different.
Last edited:
Apple customers also have the option of paring a desktop Mac with a regular 4K screen. Sure, it may not be Retina TM, but a 27” at 163dpi is still plenty high enough to look sharp. A 32” at 138dpi is pushing it a bit, but will still look pretty good to many. And non-Apple displays can have other features, like multiple inputs, >60Hz refresh, VESA mounts etc., whilst costing a lot less of course.
I don't think that's the case - I actually suspect macOS and Apple ecosystem is more sticky now than it's ever been for the sort of user who wanted an AIO because they weren't confident about computers.
Everything is ecosystem lockin, and I'd bet that more people would go to a mini/studo & display to stay in the ecosystem, than would go to Windows to get an AIO.
I'd further bet that the number who'd leave for Windows is fewer, and of lesser value, than the costs & opportunity costs of developing a large screen iMac.
Right, but a surface studio is something she absolutely can't get from Apple for any amount of money, and still couldn't get if Apple made a big iMac today - it's a high resolution drawing tablet & touch enabled computer, with a proper filesystem, user access, memory capacity, desktop apps etc. It's not an AIO desktop, the way one from HP or Dell is.
If the big iMac had the Surface's touch screen and pen support, there'd be a great rationale for it - but it would cost more than a (mini/studio) plus (Studio display/XDR) plus (iPad Pro).
I'd put money on a 27"+ iPad Pro coming out, rather than a big iMac.
It's not really the same thing though - it's an aesthetic thing only for the iMac. The 2013 Mac Pro, and indeed the 2023 Mac Pro are absolute functionality compromises compared to the products they superseded.
If there was something an iMac could do (besides have one less cable, and be stolen as a single item, rather than require a theif to pick up two things) I'd be making the opposite argument, and hell if Apple refuses to make a giant iMac, frankly I think they should be forced to licence macOS to someone who will...
...but the question is whether Apple will do it or not, not should do it or not. It's petty clear that Apple's strategy is for the iMac to be a low end appliance computer, based on iPad internals, and for the area of desktops that used to be the big iMac, there's your choice of Mini and Studio, with Studio Display or XDR.
There's no upside for Apple to sell a big iMac, which is either going to cost as much as those combos, and people will complain about it being too expensive, or Apple takes a margin loss and erodes the perceived value of the Studio / Mini / displays.
Good point. 5,1 users didn't appreciate being told to suck it up and buy a cylinder + bunch of TB boxes, even if functionality was ultimately similar. Part of the issue is that as well as being sub-optimal aesthetically, it also winds up being more expensive in various ways.
I switched to Windows for form-factor reasons; I was fed up with Apple's refusal to make an expandable desktop PC for a sane price. It's a bit different from those wanting a big iMac, in that my desired form factor is antithetical to the core of modern Apple, whereas it's not completely impossible that Apple will make another big-screen iMac. That said, a major reason for me switching was to get off the perennial hope-train of Apple making a machine I wanted.
In some ways it's easier for computer literate types to make the switch, but on the other hand it's more hassle, as they tend to have accumulated a lot of apps and OS-specific tools. For a casual user, who's just using email, web and Office / Adobe apps, it's arguably more straightforward, even if they have less inclination to get involved in techy stuff.
Windows' integration with iOS is poo. Apple see to that. Even aspects that are officially supported are often broken, seemingly for years. It's almost funny how a company that puts loving care into UI design on the Mac produces the jankiest, bare-bones solutions for Windows; it's almost spiteful.
I agree that Apple has made its bed with the Studio / Studio Display, and is not about to undercut them by putting out a 27" iMac with an M3 Max. It remains an option they could take if desperate (e.g. if sales dropped hard), but for now at least it's not happening.
Last edited:
The Jank of Apple products on macOS is no less bad in most cases, sadly.
See I could buy the notion that large edu customers, like design schools would have wanted the 27", and maybe there's a loss there, but really, I just don't think the sales drop is attributable to the iMac itself. I think it's a larger malaise that's more about Apple Silicon requiring too many compromises, and taking away too many safety nets - you can't run windows if you're switching and the mac doesn't work out, you can't impove the specs if you get too low a config to start etc.
What Apple Silicon is doing just smells and feels to much like the PowerPC days.
AS machines require too much risk of later disappointment for a buyer, and frankly, I don't think a room full of billionaire executives are capable of appreciating that.
IDK, iCloud passwords, Bookmark syncing, iMessage integration on Windows might change your mind. The latter is more like a barely-tolerated workaround, but still.
Yes, going their own way with power efficient RISC architecture that initially impresses has a familiar ring to it. It remains to be seen if it will maintain its lead over the rest of the PC industry, but I wouldn't count on it. Qualcomm's recently announced X Elite seems very competitive with AS, which isn't surprising given it has some of the same architects.
Apple are a greedy company that take every opportunity to squeeze revenue out of you. Buying into a proprietary Apple platform that allows no upgrades is like sticking your head in the mouth of a lion and hoping it doesn't bite.
It's acceptable for phones and tablets, as their form factors preclude expansion anyway (though no one would be complaining if easily-replaceable batteries and microSD storage were a thing). It's borderline for a thin laptop, though even there, companies like Lenovo demonstrate that NVMe, SODIMMs and easily removable batteries and keyboards aren't science fiction. For a desktop, not being able to upgrade at least RAM and SSD is completely unacceptable.
Worse, Apple imply that soldered on, unified RAM and non-standard SSDs are essential to the performance benefits of the platform. If that's true, it's hardly a selling point. On the desktop, it essentially means exchanging power efficiency for the ability to upgrade the RAM, SSD, GPU or CPU of your computer later. You're only able to so at checkout, with Apple charging obscene markups. It's obviously Apple's wet dream, but has little to recommend it from the customer's point of view.
The power efficiency gap is also something that can close pretty quickly. Aside from the coming ARM competition, x86 has potential there too. It's actually pretty remarkable what Intel has been able to achieve whilst still having such a process handicap. A 13900K on 3nm would be pretty fearsome.
For you and me, may be we know that macOS and Windows are very different fundamentally.
But please trust me, many people have absolutely no idea about that. Many people even still believe they can buy a Mac to play Windows games. For them, the difference is the UI.
Can I use Facebook? Yes, then it's good.
Can I use Spotify? Yes, then it's good.
Can I check email? Yes, then it's good.
...
I said many user can just quit. Because all they need is just some basic functions. macOS or Windows doesn't really matter. The surface studio shipped with a pre-installed Windows. Which for them, same as an iMac shipped with macOS.
Plug in the power cord, turn it on, follow the on screen instruction to get to the desktop. Then they can do the basic stuff.
Many many of them never spend $1 to buy any software in Apple Appstore. So, change to MS Appstore is no big deal. They can still get what they want. Especially, in general, Windows has wider support of software than macOS.
The reality is that, Windows is the main stream out there. Android users are more than iOS users. Even a person who love Apple eco system. He still need to frequently deal with friends that has no Apple device. And somehow they learnt how to do what they want without Apple restriction.
For example, a person want to send a photo from his iPhone to he Mac, he may use Airdrop. But how can he send photo to his friends? The answer for them is usually Whatsapp /LINE / WeChat... Which is no OS specific. So, if he quit Mac and buy a PC, how can he send photo to the PC. Then answer will be Whatsapp (despite the photo will be highly compressed by default, which most likely they don't know).
Interestingly, for professional users, they may be easer to be locked by a eco system due to their investment of time and money. e.g. Video editors may not want to give up FCP in macOS but use DV in Windows (this may be not a perfect example, but you should able to get the idea what I am talking about).
But for a super normal home user. There is usually nothing really lock them into the Apple eco system. When the iMac screen isn't big enough, then can really simply gone. And they may never think about that eco system thing before purchase (some of them may even believe that they can restore a macOS TM backup on a PC). Until they get the new PC, then realise it's a bit annoying. But that's it. They can still do all the daily basic stuff without any big trouble (or they still have questions everyday, and asked for help).
P.S. I am an admin of a local Mac Facebook group. Which has ~75k members. Lots of activate discussion every day. And I really see all sorts of interesting questions. Many many many people really don't know what's the difference between Mac and PC. They really believe it's just the looking, or Apple call their computer "Mac". Many of them buy the Mac, and then realise they don't know how to use it. And many of them can quit without hesitation if the computer's form factor isn't what they want.
That why I said the main reason behind that particular purchase is the form factor. That touch screen is just a bonus. She doesn't even know what's inside the Surface Studio (e.g. which CPU / GPU / etc). All she know is that's a 28" good looking AIO computer can put on her desk (which only has limited space).
Again, we can analysis this purchase in a very profession / technical way. But many people really won't think that deep. They just want a big screen AIO computer on the desk.
I am not talking about the whole 2013 Mac Pro or 2023 Mac Pro. That example is specifically focus on the storage connection method. So, still the same aesthetic thing only. Still the same "identical function, but looks different".
I don't know What Apple strategy is. And I don't know will they release a larger iMac or not. But TBH, if I can make the decision, I may go with the following.
Mac mini only has the basic Apple Silicon chip, Mac studio has the Pro and Max only, Mac Pro has the Ultra (2x Max) only.
4K 24" iMac only has the basic chip, 5K 27" has Pro and Max, 6K 32" iMac Pro has Ultra.
Macbook Air has the basic chip only, Macbook Pro has Pro and Max.
Last edited:
Apple has specifically ruled out a 27" iMac, so that one's out (could change in the future I guess). The thing with Ultra users is that they likely want multiple screens, plus 6K (XDR?) screens are very expensive. If I was going to have 2x 6K screens, I wouldn't want my computer built into one of them. Especially given the current rate of progress - early indications are that the new M3 Max MBP outperforms the M2 Ultra Studio, released earlier this year...
The Studio Ultra is ~AUD$13k, the XDR Display, ~AUD$8.5k
I don't believe there is any sane world where Apple can sell an AUD$21k+ AIO computer.
I just don't see how anyone in their right mind is going to weld a display THAT expensive, to a computer THAT expensive. The iMac Pro was under AUD$8k, for comparison.