I didn't say it wasn't.
I'd pay more for a MacBook Pro I could upgrade the screen or logic board in over time.
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.
Apple will courageously discontinue all iMacs in 3-5 years
- Thread starter Ryand123
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I didn't say it wasn't.
I'd pay more for a MacBook Pro I could upgrade the screen or logic board in over time.
Me too -- I wish Apple would make all their products designed to be upgradeable, repairable and ultimately used longer.
The Mac Mini has been out since 2005 and Apple has been making displays since the early 80s (and flat panel ones since the late 90s), so this doesn't really make much sense. It's been possible for quite some time to have a sleek setup of a Mini + Apple display.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
It comes down to only one variable to make or break OPs forecast: what move is more profitable?
I actually think Studio Monitor IS the 27" iMac but something happened to make them pull/hold back the version of it as such (and I don't believe that was chip shortage but perhaps simply "mo money" profit strategies). Instead, they launched the "matching" separate monitor at a very profitable price point (nearly as much as the same screen in a whole iMac 27" previously). A version of the same that is iMac Pro probably follows (also at a significant premium over traditional pricing).
AIO has the mass market appeal of take it home, plug it in and it "just works." No way to match that with separate parts... even if you split iMac into one box as computer and another box as monitor. That still leaves things to connect, must use right jacks, must have sufficiently good cables, must turn on/off 2 things instead of one thing, etc. The largest desktop market may be for those who want AIO simplicity, even at the loss of raw power, etc.
However, part of the allure in AIO is also VALUE. When facing the options of buying separate pieces for MORE than an AIO which has mostly the same bundled together, there is a natural attraction to the latter. If iMac "bigger" PRO rolls out somewhere down the line priced for fat corporate profits vs. perceived value, reception may be comparable to how the prior iMac Pro did with the mainstream public. Under those conditions, typical consumer MAY want to go to the trouble of separates... especially if the combination of like features & benefits is cheaper. Or 27" dreamers may find themselves rationalizing 24" as 'good enough' mostly due to relative affordability.
We Apple enthusiasts may struggle to appreciate the primary motive for consumer is price over power/specs but note which laptop sells the BEST vs. which laptop we judge as best. Note how much of the whole world owns Mac vs. the share of the generally much less expensive alternative(s).
I think 27" (or maybe bigger) definitely does return, priced much higher than traditionally and thus perhaps loses its traditional broad appeal to shifts to 24", Mac mini plus SOME monitor or even some "last straw" switches to PCs out of price hike frustrations. The absolute fans will pay ANY price but there's simply not enough of that group to let Apple freely hike prices to any level.
Thus, moving VOLUME of Macs has its place. As pricing rises, (demand) volume generally slides. How much Apple can pull pricing up is to be determined. But even Apple doesn't have unlimited pull on this topic. The market- which is mostly not the enthusiasts-to-worshippers that hang out here- literally decides that with their wallets.
- If it is more profitable to do away with iMac-type Macs, they go.
- If it is less profitable, they stay.
I actually think Studio Monitor IS the 27" iMac but something happened to make them pull/hold back the version of it as such (and I don't believe that was chip shortage but perhaps simply "mo money" profit strategies). Instead, they launched the "matching" separate monitor at a very profitable price point (nearly as much as the same screen in a whole iMac 27" previously). A version of the same that is iMac Pro probably follows (also at a significant premium over traditional pricing).
AIO has the mass market appeal of take it home, plug it in and it "just works." No way to match that with separate parts... even if you split iMac into one box as computer and another box as monitor. That still leaves things to connect, must use right jacks, must have sufficiently good cables, must turn on/off 2 things instead of one thing, etc. The largest desktop market may be for those who want AIO simplicity, even at the loss of raw power, etc.
However, part of the allure in AIO is also VALUE. When facing the options of buying separate pieces for MORE than an AIO which has mostly the same bundled together, there is a natural attraction to the latter. If iMac "bigger" PRO rolls out somewhere down the line priced for fat corporate profits vs. perceived value, reception may be comparable to how the prior iMac Pro did with the mainstream public. Under those conditions, typical consumer MAY want to go to the trouble of separates... especially if the combination of like features & benefits is cheaper. Or 27" dreamers may find themselves rationalizing 24" as 'good enough' mostly due to relative affordability.
We Apple enthusiasts may struggle to appreciate the primary motive for consumer is price over power/specs but note which laptop sells the BEST vs. which laptop we judge as best. Note how much of the whole world owns Mac vs. the share of the generally much less expensive alternative(s).
I think 27" (or maybe bigger) definitely does return, priced much higher than traditionally and thus perhaps loses its traditional broad appeal to shifts to 24", Mac mini plus SOME monitor or even some "last straw" switches to PCs out of price hike frustrations. The absolute fans will pay ANY price but there's simply not enough of that group to let Apple freely hike prices to any level.
Thus, moving VOLUME of Macs has its place. As pricing rises, (demand) volume generally slides. How much Apple can pull pricing up is to be determined. But even Apple doesn't have unlimited pull on this topic. The market- which is mostly not the enthusiasts-to-worshippers that hang out here- literally decides that with their wallets.
Last edited:
For home use, value matters. For Pro use, not as much. The cost of a Mac is insignificant compared with the cost of the person using it.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Then viva $100K Mac! $200K. "Edition" Mac $2M.
All users- even those who are 'buying' a Mac with someone else's (like their company's) money- have their price limits.
Yes, there are some who could spend anything with no consequences but those don't exist in sufficient numbers to meaningfully grow Mac.
Back to mainstream reality: while I expect a resurrected iMac Pro (probably) "starting at $2999", I expect the perceived demand for it takes a great hit, shifting rationalizations to 24", base Studio or Mini + monitor. I suspect a lot of the collective whine is tied to "starting at 1799" great value, nicely configured for maybe $1000 more. Shift out to starting at $2999 or more and I bet 24" takes on an entirely different look... as does Studio and Mini + some monitor to the "I really want an iMac 27" crowd.
I myself have been a HUGE fan of 27" iMac for work and play. Why did I go that way vs. other options when I bought it? Best relative value at the time... better than pairing a seemingly underpowered Mini with a separate monitor, storage, etc and Mac Pro seemed "crazy" on a relative basis. Thus, the value proposition made iMac 27" 'good enough' for a good mix of needs.
Considering iMac 27" Pro pricing as I anticipate, I'd choose separates while barely giving it a thought. That AIO 'good value' nature of it WAS a lot of the buying draw for me. But of course, I don't represent everyone. Perhaps others would leap for iMac 27" pro pricing just like it is traditional iMac 27" pricing. Whine, gripe (about relative price increase) but then go ahead and pay up.
All users- even those who are 'buying' a Mac with someone else's (like their company's) money- have their price limits.
Yes, there are some who could spend anything with no consequences but those don't exist in sufficient numbers to meaningfully grow Mac.
Back to mainstream reality: while I expect a resurrected iMac Pro (probably) "starting at $2999", I expect the perceived demand for it takes a great hit, shifting rationalizations to 24", base Studio or Mini + monitor. I suspect a lot of the collective whine is tied to "starting at 1799" great value, nicely configured for maybe $1000 more. Shift out to starting at $2999 or more and I bet 24" takes on an entirely different look... as does Studio and Mini + some monitor to the "I really want an iMac 27" crowd.
I myself have been a HUGE fan of 27" iMac for work and play. Why did I go that way vs. other options when I bought it? Best relative value at the time... better than pairing a seemingly underpowered Mini with a separate monitor, storage, etc and Mac Pro seemed "crazy" on a relative basis. Thus, the value proposition made iMac 27" 'good enough' for a good mix of needs.
Considering iMac 27" Pro pricing as I anticipate, I'd choose separates while barely giving it a thought. That AIO 'good value' nature of it WAS a lot of the buying draw for me. But of course, I don't represent everyone. Perhaps others would leap for iMac 27" pro pricing just like it is traditional iMac 27" pricing. Whine, gripe (about relative price increase) but then go ahead and pay up.
Last edited:
While there are some merits to the OP's theories Apple will continue the iMac or some sort of AIO for as long as they think it is economically plausible. The format might change somewhat to what we know now, (Apple is good at that) but don't expect them to drop the platform anytime soon.
I often thought that they could design a display unit that has a MacMini slot for the Compute unit. Intel's NUC platform started with small form-factor computers that were powerful enough for "regular people" and a bracket to mount on the back of a VESA monitor. I think some 3P places sold a similar mount for MacMinis as well. Apple could take this one step further in true Apple style and design a monitor that allows you to pop in a Mini and "build your own iMac".
Make this aesthetically pleasing, easy to swap (and thus upgrade) with whatever format the next Mini ends up being and they can then kill off the iMac. Maybe even just make it an accessory for the Studio Display and then they can sell more SD's and Minis.
I often thought that they could design a display unit that has a MacMini slot for the Compute unit. Intel's NUC platform started with small form-factor computers that were powerful enough for "regular people" and a bracket to mount on the back of a VESA monitor. I think some 3P places sold a similar mount for MacMinis as well. Apple could take this one step further in true Apple style and design a monitor that allows you to pop in a Mini and "build your own iMac".
Make this aesthetically pleasing, easy to swap (and thus upgrade) with whatever format the next Mini ends up being and they can then kill off the iMac. Maybe even just make it an accessory for the Studio Display and then they can sell more SD's and Minis.
That was the problem, the Intel Mac mini was horribly underpowered and the Mac Pro horribly over priced. I bought 27" iMacs because that was the only option, not because I love AIOs (I don't like them at all).
Apple needs a (relatively) low cost desktop, especially for education and small business. Even if somehow those customers would want a separate computer and monitor (they don't), I can't imagine Apple cannibalizing their $1500+ Studio Display sales with a $600 version of it. And if they were able to somehow charge a premium for the two separate items, they will lose it at upgrade time when the customers just replace the mini.
Apple is not trying to get into the PC gamer space. If so, why would they move FROM the architecture that would make it easier for the AAA developers to port to Mac? Apple seems plenty content to compete in the family (aka Nintendo) space.
Lastly, I hate to use the corporate speak, but an AIO Mac is part of the company's DNA. Apple without an iMac would be like Honda without an Accord.
I think what we will see is a normal M1 / M2 Pro 27" iMac launched alongside the studio display for a year or so, then the studio display gets upgraded (maybe a 30" micro led), and the current studio display gets canned.
Then you have 24" M1 iMac, 27" iMac M1 / M1 Pro for typical use
30" Studio Display and Mac Studio M1 Max / Ultra for content creators etc
32" XDR / New Mac Pro for pros with the money to burn
Apple is not trying to get into the PC gamer space. If so, why would they move FROM the architecture that would make it easier for the AAA developers to port to Mac? Apple seems plenty content to compete in the family (aka Nintendo) space.
Lastly, I hate to use the corporate speak, but an AIO Mac is part of the company's DNA. Apple without an iMac would be like Honda without an Accord.
I think what we will see is a normal M1 / M2 Pro 27" iMac launched alongside the studio display for a year or so, then the studio display gets upgraded (maybe a 30" micro led), and the current studio display gets canned.
Then you have 24" M1 iMac, 27" iMac M1 / M1 Pro for typical use
30" Studio Display and Mac Studio M1 Max / Ultra for content creators etc
32" XDR / New Mac Pro for pros with the money to burn
So what is it?
1. Plenty (thermal) room in the iMac for the kind of HW Apple sells at the consumer level
2. Lifestyle/Simplicity, having just the power cable at the back of the iMac with 0 setup time is key to the iMac's success
3. For the type of casual gaming that Apple actually pushes even the M1 is already overkill
So unless something really drastic changes I expect to life to see an M10-iMac
Last edited:
I think they will eventually even add a Mx Pro version of the iMac so you really have 3 tiers
- Base model with a binned Mx Chip
- Mid tier model with a full Mx chip
- High end model with a M1 Pro chip
It’s just too great a machine to abandon it. I also think it sells quite well
- Base model with a binned Mx Chip
- Mid tier model with a full Mx chip
- High end model with a M1 Pro chip
It’s just too great a machine to abandon it. I also think it sells quite well
I think people are reading far too much into the fact that the SD has fans and an A-series processor. I'd say that the fans are there because you've got ultra-bright LEDs and an over-powered internal power supply (so it can charge a MacBook Pro) in a very confined space. Meanwhile - most high-end displays have some sort of on-board processor (if only to run the on-screen display) even if they don't have 3D audio, beam-forming microphones and fancy on-board webcam processing, so it makes perfect sense for Apple to eat their own dog food and use an A-series chip.
In comparison, look at the size of the coolers on the Mac Studio (occupying at least half the case) and how the heatsink assembly is in direct thermal contact with the CPU. The fans in the Studio Display are relatively small and nowhere near the processor - this is not set up to cool anything hotter than a regular M1 (and a 27" iMac replacement would have to support at least a M1 Max, and probably a M1 ultra).
I suspect that the reality is that 5k panels have just become too expensive to include in <$2000 all-in-one computers (at least with Apple's desired profit margin).
The Studio Display is a "twofer" in that it might also sell to deep-pocketed people who want the ultimate docking station for their MacBook Pro.
I agree - although there was a niche for the lower-end 5k iMac for people who just wanted a large screen and a modest CPU (and, of course, the whole iMac line grew from the strictly consumer/general user-focussed original), the higher-end iMacs felt like a compromised forced by the loss of the $2500-$3000 Mac Pro price point. And, as I've already pointed out, the outgoing 5k iMac with the best processor and GPU options cost just as much as a Studio Max + Studio Display combo. I suspect that the higher-end iMacs were helping to justify the inclusion of such a high-spec screen in the cheaper models by increasing "economy of scale" on the screen and housing.
It's worth remembering that the 24" M1 iMac "replaced" the smaller-screened, less powerful 21.5" iMac - so it was always going to compete with the lowest-end 27" iMac, moreso if a M2 version with M1-Pro-like performance appears in the near future. (...and as conspiracies go, I much prefer the 'higher-end 24" iMac was meant to get a M1 Pro" one over "Studio Display was going to be an iMac").
Other thing - my 3 main gripes with the Studio Display are (a) stand, (b) power cord and (c) lack of future-proofing. The latter is driven by the thought of 27" mini-LED/micro-LED/better OLED/whatever screens not being far off, while the SD panel is just a slightly tweaked version of 5-year-old tech. So how frustrating would it be to buy a 2022 5k iMac and have the screen tech obsoleted in a year or two?
I'm inclined to go with Occam's Razor and suggest that, if the 5k iMac had been selling hand-over-fist, Apple wouldn't have discontinued it.
There's a wider problem with the global economy there. I believe you can/could buy a circuit board that turns an iMac into a standalone display - but it's not that widely advertised and available plus, of course, you need to know which end of a soldering iron is hot. There ought to be a business opportunity for a service that takes your old iMac and turns it in to a standalone display - but I suspect that by the time you added up all the costs and labour it would be more expensive than a brand new display mass produced by cheap labour somewhere in the East. Especially if it were done properly by adding a TB3 controller board rather than needing two DisplayPorts. It ends up making poor economical sense unless you justify it as a matter of principle.
(Personally, my 5-year-old iMac is still an extremely capable computer and it would make more sense to keep it as a working unit).
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Fair points. What I would offer is this: if you opened up a Studio Display, removed the guts, opened up a MBpro M1 MAX 14", removed the guts, would the guts of the latter fit within the case of the former... especially with the much greater horizontal volume to spread some things out?
If SD was always intended to only be a display, why is it relatively thick (edge-to-edge) vs. iMac 27" (with whole computer inside too)? We can try to pin that to speakers and/or electricity plug needing some depth but that thickness is top to bottom, left to right. If the thickness is driven by say speakers and plug, it could have a wedge shape (fatter at the bottom) or the traditional iMac 27" convex shape to thicken the middle enough for such parts.
I'm not so confident 100 more nits would demand that much more thickness all over vs. 27" iMac. If you seen the tear downs, what "fills" the empty space in there? It looks like mostly nothing. In Apple designs (save maybe Mac Mini M1) Apple generally doesn't seem to like empty spaces. They either thin the case out to eat up the inner empty or stuff goes in those empty spaces.
Yes, compared to Mac Studio, it's easy to rationalize that there would be no way to fit M1 MAX into even SD thickness. But M1 MAX is also worked into 14" MBpro thickness. How thick is that? 1.55cm. How thick is Studio Display? Just about double MBpro at 3.1cm. Now yes, bigger screen likely needs some additional space to manage heat, etc but it's also got the added width (62.3cm vs 31.3cm) and height (36.2cm vs 22.1cm) to spread things out inside. I have to believe all of a M1 MAX 14" MBpro could have easily been worked into the abundance of SD space.
If so, that would deliver M1 MAX iMac 27" with stereo speakers, 1080p camera, a variety of ports, etc. Looking at how 14" MBpro with M1 MAX configs are priced, it looks like it would be impossible to price it around traditional iMac 27" "starting at" pricing considering the much bigger screen too. Thus, my assumption that it's simply deprecated for a while to then be resurrected as iMac 27" PRO with a much higher "starting at" price. Assume in the MBpro M1 PRO base config, add something for the much larger screen, subtract something for the trackpad (iMacs still ship with keyboard and mouse) and my guess of "starting at $2999" seems like a real possibility. M1 MAX probably takes that on into > $3500 territory.
So I still think SD is iMac 27" with some other decision applied to release it as SD only for now. That thinking has nearly nothing to do with it having an A-series chip inside but simply observations about the atypical thickness based on typical Apple design choices and the hard reality that a powerful M1 MAX-based computer has been successfully worked into a thickness about HALF the SD and in a considerably smaller space... with a 1080p camera and great stereo speakers and a selection of ports and power connection too (PLUS a keyboard and trackpad)... and dual aluminum shells to hold 2 parts vs. this conceptual iMac which would be only 1 whole sans keyboard & trackpad.
Kill it for a while, then relaunch as iMac Pro with M2 PRO & MAX options and perhaps the old "starting at $1799" gets begrudgingly washed by new "starting at" (about) $2999 for those that really, REALLY want a bigger iMac AIO. As much as I've personally enjoyed owning iMacs for more than 10 years, I'd have zero interest at that starting price... instead embracing the separates approach. Why, because at the end when one part conks or macOS upgrades make an otherwise fine computer and monitor increasingly obsolete, an AIO is basically entirely lost. $1799 base doesn't make the common scenario of having to throw out a perfectly-good screen too soon so difficult to swallow. But- IMO- around double that would.
In the meantime, establish SD at $1500-$2K. Naturally adding a "whole computer inside" rationalizes pricing at least into the upper $2XXX. At re-launch, brand it as PRO to "help the medicine go down." Throw up some highly-select, ambiguous charts comparing the power of this iMac PRO "at only" $2999 vs. the former Intel-based iMac PRO hardware at $4999, etc. and boom, iMac 27" at about double the prior price seems palatable. Mission accomplished. Subsequently report another quarter(s) of record profits even if unit volume may slide vs. traditional volume.
Last edited:
Something interesting I learned from the iFixit SD teardown is that its power supply board has circular cutouts which go around its thicker coil components, you can see them in this image, as opposed to just stacking them. It could have been as thin as the iMac-24 had Apple used an external power supply.
I think it could have been a lot of shapes but Apple decided on the rectangular one. Apple is moving away from the thin-edge optical illusion used with the MacBook Pros and iMacs.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Something interesting I learned from the iFixit SD teardown is that its power supply board has circular cutouts which go around its thicker coil components, you can see them in this image, as opposed to just stacking them. It could have been as thin as the iMac-24 had Apple used an external power supply.
I think it could have been a lot of shapes but Apple decided on the rectangular one. Apple is moving away from the thin-edge optical illusion used with the MacBook Pros and iMacs.
No issue from the optical illusion deprecation (I've personally NEVER been a fan of "thinner" at functional tradeoff decisions) but that doesn't change the reality that in doing so, they opened up more space inside. I'm confident a "whole" iMac 27" could fit within the SD case, bet it exists in the iMac labs and bet someone will soon splice the guts of a MBpro into the SD to "create" a hacked iMac 27" M1 MAX to prove it can be done even by relative amateurs. Recall the guy who hacked an M1 Mac Mini (guts) into an iMac case to create "the worlds first M1 iMac." I suspect we'll see this particular encore of that sooner or later.
Last edited:
If that was the point you were making I agree, but think that it would have a chin.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Why would it need a chin? Traditionally, we've rationalized chin with:
- Speakers, but SD has great speakers sans chin.
- Computing guts, but SD has full A-Series guts sans chin.
- Ports, but SD has a few ports sans chin.
- Power supply, but SD has that sans chin too.
- RAM expansion, no possibility of that with Silicon.
- Air vents, but SD has that sans chin.
I actually like the look with the chin and the white (grey) bezels
the studio always a paring with any cheap display for those that only care about the power
I think they discontinued it because as you mentioned yourself, the 5K display has become so much pricier that they’d likely have to offer it at a starting price of 2.200 or higher, which is a steep increase. The old iMacs were sitting in between the pro and consumer devices. A basic M1 5k iMac doesn’t make much sense so it’d have to be an M1 Pro / Max which is another few 100 extra.
the studio always a paring with any cheap display for those that only care about the power
Nope. the iMac is going to be the Macbook Air of Apple's desktop business.