27" iMac is dead 😟

[guitarman1996]

I went to the apple store yesterday, the 24 inch looks like like it belongs in a nursery

My thing with it is the screen does look nice BUT I’m seeing in a well lit store and it was probably set up to appear the way it does.

I’m torn, I got to have an upgrade and can’t wait (my 27in screen is cracked to hell) but wasn’t looking to spend 2500+ NOR do I want an extra piece on my desk taking up another power outlet!

 

[dimme]

My thing with it is the screen does look nice BUT I’m seeing in a well lit store and it was probably set up to appear the way it does.

I’m torn, I got to have an upgrade and can’t wait (my 27in screen is cracked to hell) but wasn’t looking to spend 2500+ NOR do I want an extra piece on my desk taking up another power outlet!

I'm not you and we all have different needs. I was in your shoes this summer. my 27" iMac was unrepairable and need a new computer. At first I did not want to downsize to a 24", so I ordered a mini. Besides the usual web, office and email stuff I do photo work and could not find a screen that would work with the mini in my budget. I changed the order to the 24" iMac. I set it up moved it 3 or so inches closer to me and have not looked back. So for me the 24" grew on me

 

[guitarman1996]

I'm not you and we all have different needs. I was in your shoes this summer. my 27" iMac was unrepairable and need a new computer. At first I did not want to downsize to a 24", so I ordered a mini. Besides the usual web, office and email stuff I do photo work and could not find a screen that would work with the mini in my budget. I changed the order to the 24" iMac. I set it up moved it 3 or so inches closer to me and have not looked back. So for me the 24" grew on me

That’s my thought as well, just a few inches closer and I probably wouldn’t care. Lol I do the usual stuff you mentioned and also recording with Logic, nothing intensive though.

I remember when I got the 27in my thought was I would watch movies and all that thanks to the 5k but I don’t. Can’t stand to really lol. On the plus side if I went 24in I could upgrade a little and meet my 2k budget

 

[JLOAKS]

RIP to Steve's All-In-One philosophy. Or maybe this was geared towards the casual consumer line only.

 

[Appletoni]

Did anyone just catch John Ternus saying...

"making our transition nearly complete with only one product left to go, the Mac Pro"

That sound like the 27" iMac will not get updated to Apple Silicon. I hope it's not true. ?

I would buy it only when it comes with the M1 Ultra.
But a bigger screen is also needed.

I know a lot of people and me too need the M1 Ultra inside the MacBook Pro 16-inch, which could also have a bigger screen.

 

[CWallace]

Screen sizes grow over time, so it stands to reason that the iMac 24" will eventually be replaced with an iMac 27" and that iMac 27" will have much smaller bezels and a much smaller chin than the Intel 27" iMac so people who just did not want the Intel model because it was so dominating on an open desk will embrace it like they embraced the 24" model.

 

[icemantx]

RIP to Steve's All-In-One philosophy. Or maybe this was geared towards the casual consumer line only.

I would say the current iMac more in line with the philosophy of the original iMac line when you look at the design, colors and how it’s marketed. Not so much the later iMacs/iMac Pro. The 27” iMac has simply been replaced by the Max Studio / Studio display combo (would be nice to have an 27” iMac with M1 Pro/Max though).

 

[guitarman1996]

I'm not you and we all have different needs. I was in your shoes this summer. my 27" iMac was unrepairable and need a new computer. At first I did not want to downsize to a 24", so I ordered a mini. Besides the usual web, office and email stuff I do photo work and could not find a screen that would work with the mini in my budget. I changed the order to the 24" iMac. I set it up moved it 3 or so inches closer to me and have not looked back. So for me the 24" grew on me

Welp I ripped the bandaid and picked up the 24in, went the 1tb 16gig version. Setting up as I type and will let me son have the 27in. If he’s into it I may try to find a screen if I can.

 

[Blue Sun]

The fact they specify 'iMac 24"' gives me hope there might be eventually another 27-inch iMac. If the 24" is the only iMac going forward, they could have renamed the category "iMac" and not specified a size?

The old model might just have been antiquated enough they had to get rid of it before the replacement was ready.

I think you’re right. It was rocking the old Intel chip, it didn’t make sense to leave it available.

 

[icemantx]

I think you’re right. It was rocking the old Intel chip, it didn’t make sense to leave it available.

It does not make much sense to still keep the Intel Mac mini available though either, but it’s still there.

My feeling is they removed 27” iMac to push 27” iMac owners to the Mac Studio or 24”. Having said that. It is always possible the 27” iMac rises from the ashes again one day, but probably not for a year or more.

 

[ccsicecoke]

It does not make much sense to still keep the Intel Mac mini available though either, but it’s still there.

My feeling is they removed 27” iMac to push 27” iMac owners to the Mac Studio or 24”. Having said that. It is always possible the 27” iMac rises from the ashes again one day, but probably not for a year or more.

No it does not make sense to have both 24'' and 27''. Too close in terms of size.

If it ever comes back again it would be 30''to 32'' similar to the size of Pro Display XDR

 

[Lioness~]

The fact they specify 'iMac 24"' gives me hope there might be eventually another 27-inch iMac. If the 24" is the only iMac going forward, they could have renamed the category "iMac" and not specified a size?

The old model might just have been antiquated enough they had to get rid of it before the replacement was ready.

Not necessarily, they just specify it.
Could just as well be to point out the opposite, this is just a 24" no 27".
I don't think it will come a larger iMac. If it will be anything, they're more likely to release a 32"-ish display.
I assume they don't want to release such big all-in-ones anymore. Just my thoughts.
But I don't know more than you, haha ?

 

[CWallace]

No it does not make sense to have both 24'' and 27''. Too close in terms of size.

And yet all the claims say the iMac Pro, if it does return, will return with a 27" display, though now with MiniLED and ProMotion. And that same new display will be going into a "pro" version of the Apple Studio Display at WWDC.

If it ever comes back again it would be 30''to 32'' similar to the size of Pro Display XDR

The minimum display would be 32" at 6K because it has to be Retina. And that panel is very expensive (Apple pays LG Display almost as much for it as they sell the new Apple Studio Display for) so any AIO using it would also be very expensive.

I can't see a 32" 6K display going into a consumer-level iMac, so that means it would be only in an iMac Pro paired with a Max model SoC and 32GB of RAM, minimum. So we're looking at the same $5000 base price of the 2017 Intel iMac Pro, at best.

 

[EugW]

The minimum display would be 32" at 6K because it has to be Retina. And that panel is very expensive (Apple pays LG Display almost as much for it as they sell the new Apple Studio Display for) so any AIO using it would also be very expensive.

I can't see a 32" 6K display going into a consumer-level iMac, so that means it would be only in an iMac Pro paired with a Max model SoC and 32GB of RAM, minimum. So we're looking at the same $5000 base price of the 2017 Intel iMac Pro, at best.

Apple won't do it, but my preference for a 5K resolution would actually be 29-30".

 

[CWallace]

Apple won't do it, but my preference for a 5K resolution would actually be 29-30".

Expanding to 29 or 30 inches would drop it below Retina, but not terribly so.

Still, I would guess Apple would go 5.5K at 30" (5856x3132).

 

[EugW]

Expanding to 29 or 30 inches would drop it below Retina, but not terribly so.

Still, I would guess Apple would go 5.5K at 30" (5856x3132).

The definition of "Retina" varies because the theories of what constitutes "Retina" vary. Remember, Jobs initially stated Retina was about 300 ppi, but that referred to a phone viewed at 12". The effective number would be lower for a laptop, and lower still for a desktop because of the distance to the screen.

Interestingly, if you use this website's mathematical definition of Retina, a 30" 5K 5120x2880 screen is Retina at 18" or further viewing distance, despite being "only" 196 ppi. Furthermore, a 32" 5K 5120x2880 screen is Retina at 19", at 184 ppi. At 29", it's Retina at 17", at 203 ppi.

It should be noted that OSHA states the minimum monitor viewing distance should be 20", so any of those would be considered Retina at that distance. Thus, a 29-30" 5K screen would be great. Apple's old 30" Cinema Display was actually 2.5K 2560x1600 and 101 ppi, so a pixel-quadrupled 5K 5120x3200 version would be 201 ppi, and that more than meets their definition of Retina.

But as mentioned, they won't do it, because they've standardized at 218 ppi. All of their all-in-one desktops and monitors are now 218 ppi.

 

[icemantx]

No it does not make sense to have both 24'' and 27''. Too close in terms of size.

If it ever comes back again it would be 30''to 32'' similar to the size of Pro Display XDR

As a current 27” owner for the last 7 1/2 years, I would be quite happy with a 27” iMac with an M1 Pro/Max. Being that it or a larger version do not exist (so far as we know) I will see how the Max Studio reviews/benchmarks come out and then decide on which one with the 27” Studio display. My late 2014 is ready to retire.

 

[SoYoung]

I'm extremely disappointed with Apple for this decision. There's now a big gap between a Mac Mini and a Mac Studio. It seems Apple really just aim at extremely casual costumers or the professional one. The Studio is just way too expensive and its clearly aim for pro users.

I'm looking for a refurb 2020 iMac right now, but I don't find any configuration I want with 2TB SSD so I don't know what to do. For graphic card, is the Radeon pro 5700 good 2 years later?

 

[henry72]

I'm extremely disappointed with Apple for this decision. There's now a big gap between a Mac Mini and a Mac Studio. It seems Apple really just aim at extremely casual costumers or the professional one. The Studio is just way too expensive and its clearly aim for pro users.

I'm looking for a refurb 2020 iMac right now, but I don't find any configuration I want with 2TB SSD so I don't know what to do. For graphic card, is the Radeon pro 5700 good 2 years later?

I am very disappointed too! There is clearly a big gap between a 24" iMac and a Mac mini/Mac Studio for consumers.
Most consumers just want an iMac, not a display and a computer.

I think I would rather downsize to a 24" than getting an Intel iMac now.

 

[wilberforce]

I'm extremely disappointed with Apple for this decision. There's now a big gap between a Mac Mini and a Mac Studio. It seems Apple really just aim at extremely casual costumers or the professional one. The Studio is just way too expensive and its clearly aim for pro users.

I'm looking for a refurb 2020 iMac right now, but I don't find any configuration I want with 2TB SSD so I don't know what to do. For graphic card, is the Radeon pro 5700 good 2 years later?

I have 2020 iMac, i7, 2TB, 5500XT. It is a better performer than a 24" M1 iMac. It performs about the same as my 14" M1 Pro.

I see lots of i7 refurb iMacs with 2TB. i7 is the sweet spot - much better than i5, and i9 is not much better than i7.

5500XT is a good GPU, no complaints.
5700XT is a great GPU, if you have GPU intensive work.
The 5700 is kind of an awkward middle ground - a bit better than 5500XT but not nearly as good as 5700XT.

I suggest do not get i5 and 5300 unless you are really tight on budget

Hope this helps

 

[OW22]

I hate the fact you'll need more cables now. Cable to power the Mac, cable to power the display and cable to connect the display to the mac.

 

[CWallace]

So been listening to all the post-Event podcasts with the various hosts discussing the demise of the 27" iMac and what the future may or may not hold.

At the moment, I tend to think we will not see an iMac Pro. I just don't see the market for it when we have Mac Studio and an Apple silicon Mac Pro coming now that Apple is back in the display business (and now beyond just the absolute top end).

Jason Snell thinks that Apple will take a page from the PowerPC days and just offer the same configuration in two sizes - 24" and 27". And before people complain those sizes are two close, Apple used to sell iMacs in 17" and 20" and 20" and 24" models.

I believe Apple is waiting for the launch of M2 before they start updating the existing line-up and offering new models. Offering the M2 Pro on both the Mac mini and a new 27" iMac model would offer a lower entry-point to the Mac Studio (with or without an Apple-branded display) while still leaving M2 Max and 64+GB exclusive to the Studio.

Fair warning though - an M2 27" iMac is going to start north of $2000 (my guess is $2200-2500).

 

[icemantx]

So been listening to all the post-Event podcasts with the various hosts discussing the demise of the 27" iMac and what the future may or may not hold.

At the moment, I tend to think we will not see an iMac Pro. I just don't see the market for it when we have Mac Studio and an Apple silicon Mac Pro coming now that Apple is back in the display business (and now beyond just the absolute top end).

Jason Snell thinks that Apple will take a page from the PowerPC days and just offer the same configuration in two sizes - 24" and 27". And before people complain those sizes are two close, Apple used to sell iMacs in 17" and 20" and 20" and 24" models.

I believe Apple is waiting for the launch of M2 before they start updating the existing line-up and offering new models. Offering the M2 Pro on both the Mac mini and a new 27" iMac model would offer a lower entry-point to the Mac Studio (with or without an Apple-branded display) while still leaving M2 Max and 64+GB exclusive to the Studio.

Fair warning though - an M2 27" iMac is going to start north of $2000 (my guess is $2200-2500).

Create a 24” that has black borders in a darker metallic body with an M1 Pro / M2 Pro (when/if available) and you will make many (not all) current 27” iMac owners satisfied if there is simply no 27” iMac alternative coming.

 

[blairh]

So been listening to all the post-Event podcasts with the various hosts discussing the demise of the 27" iMac and what the future may or may not hold.

At the moment, I tend to think we will not see an iMac Pro. I just don't see the market for it when we have Mac Studio and an Apple silicon Mac Pro coming now that Apple is back in the display business (and now beyond just the absolute top end).

Jason Snell thinks that Apple will take a page from the PowerPC days and just offer the same configuration in two sizes - 24" and 27". And before people complain those sizes are two close, Apple used to sell iMacs in 17" and 20" and 20" and 24" models.

I believe Apple is waiting for the launch of M2 before they start updating the existing line-up and offering new models. Offering the M2 Pro on both the Mac mini and a new 27" iMac model would offer a lower entry-point to the Mac Studio (with or without an Apple-branded display) while still leaving M2 Max and 64+GB exclusive to the Studio.

Fair warning though - an M2 27" iMac is going to start north of $2000 (my guess is $2200-2500).

Gurman says the iMac Pro is still coming. ?

 

[norwaypianoman]

? More like they chopped the head of the iMac 27, and the Mac survived the french revolution ?

The iMac 27 is split in two, and there is a new standard.