If I could find a dead 27 inch retina with a good display, I’d Do some tinkering to get the display working with an external device. It’s true that it’s far from a user-friendly proposition, but it is possible.
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.
Death of 27" iMac is a good thing.
- Thread starter satchmo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I still think that Apple will release a 27" (or large) iMac, for several reasons. In no particular order:
1. As far as performance, there is a huge hole in the current desktop lineup. The Mac mini and 24" iMac use the M1 chip (not Pro, not Max, not Ultra) and represent the low end of the desktop lineup. The high end used to be the Mac Pro, but now even the low-end Mac Studio (with M1 Max) has better performance than the mid-range, 16-core Mac Pro. There is no desktop in the middle, i.e. with M1 Pro chips (or equivalent), leaving a big hole.
2. This hole extends into pricing. If you need a new desktop computer, there is a gigantic price gap between the 24" iMac, which starts at $1,300 and has everything you need, and the directly comparable next desktop up, which starts at $3,800 for everything you need (base-level Mac Studio, Studio Display, magic mouse, magic keyboard).
Some people will semi-reasonably think this isn’t a fair comparison: if you already have a decent monitor, mouse, and keyboard, you only need the Mac Studio. But even if that's the comparison, because the keyboard and mouse are $100 each then the 24" iMac can be thought of as really starting at $1,100 (for computer plus monitor) versus to the Mac Studio at $2,000 (with no monitor), a $900 difference. This translates to over 80% higher cost for the Studio…and you don’t get a monitor. (For comparison, does the base MacBook Pro cost >80% more than the base MacBook Air? Does the base iPhone Pro cost >80% more than the base iPhone? Does the base iPad Pro cost >80% more than the iPad Air? No, no, and no! And they all come with the same hardware as each other, unlike the 24" iMac vs Mac Studio, which has no monitor!)
So from a purely price perspective (i.e. just what you're actually paying for, not taking into account if you “need” a monitor or accessories), there’s a gigantic hole.
3. I haven't seen anyone mention this one. The Apple website lists the following as their Mac options: MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac 24", Mac mini, Mac Studio, and Mac Pro. Note that the only one that specifies a size is iMac 24"! Why would they specify 24" when that’s the only size offered? Why not just say iMac?! (As a comparison, the MacBook Air only comes in 13", but they don't say MacBook Air 13" on their website, just MacBook Air.) So it doesn’t make much sense to specify 24"...unless there will be another size.
4. I think it's safe to say that the 27" iMac was the flagship Mac (does anyone doubt this?). There's a reason why every time you turn on the TV or watch a movie you’ll see the 27" iMac in every upscale office or boutique store or affluent person's house. The 27" iMac is shown whenever you want a sleek, upscale, professional look. And they were actually used in these settings in the real world too" If Apple has really killed the 27" iMac for good, what else is their flagship desktop? The Mac mini and Mac Studio are standalone, nondescript metal boxes, hardly flagship pieces of hardware. Definitely not the Mac Pro, which almost nobody actually owns (I have yet to ever see one in the wild), is rarely updated, and has never been their flagship. That only leaves the 24" iMac, which comes in playful cotton candy colors; again, hardly a flagship Apple product. (Unless we just unknowingly took a time machine back to 1998... For the past decade or more, flagship Apple products have been slim, sleek, and silver.) In other words, they need a flagship Mac for that sleek, professional desktop look. And there isn’t one now…unless a larger iMac is coming!
1. As far as performance, there is a huge hole in the current desktop lineup. The Mac mini and 24" iMac use the M1 chip (not Pro, not Max, not Ultra) and represent the low end of the desktop lineup. The high end used to be the Mac Pro, but now even the low-end Mac Studio (with M1 Max) has better performance than the mid-range, 16-core Mac Pro. There is no desktop in the middle, i.e. with M1 Pro chips (or equivalent), leaving a big hole.
2. This hole extends into pricing. If you need a new desktop computer, there is a gigantic price gap between the 24" iMac, which starts at $1,300 and has everything you need, and the directly comparable next desktop up, which starts at $3,800 for everything you need (base-level Mac Studio, Studio Display, magic mouse, magic keyboard).
Some people will semi-reasonably think this isn’t a fair comparison: if you already have a decent monitor, mouse, and keyboard, you only need the Mac Studio. But even if that's the comparison, because the keyboard and mouse are $100 each then the 24" iMac can be thought of as really starting at $1,100 (for computer plus monitor) versus to the Mac Studio at $2,000 (with no monitor), a $900 difference. This translates to over 80% higher cost for the Studio…and you don’t get a monitor. (For comparison, does the base MacBook Pro cost >80% more than the base MacBook Air? Does the base iPhone Pro cost >80% more than the base iPhone? Does the base iPad Pro cost >80% more than the iPad Air? No, no, and no! And they all come with the same hardware as each other, unlike the 24" iMac vs Mac Studio, which has no monitor!)
So from a purely price perspective (i.e. just what you're actually paying for, not taking into account if you “need” a monitor or accessories), there’s a gigantic hole.
3. I haven't seen anyone mention this one. The Apple website lists the following as their Mac options: MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac 24", Mac mini, Mac Studio, and Mac Pro. Note that the only one that specifies a size is iMac 24"! Why would they specify 24" when that’s the only size offered? Why not just say iMac?! (As a comparison, the MacBook Air only comes in 13", but they don't say MacBook Air 13" on their website, just MacBook Air.) So it doesn’t make much sense to specify 24"...unless there will be another size.
4. I think it's safe to say that the 27" iMac was the flagship Mac (does anyone doubt this?). There's a reason why every time you turn on the TV or watch a movie you’ll see the 27" iMac in every upscale office or boutique store or affluent person's house. The 27" iMac is shown whenever you want a sleek, upscale, professional look. And they were actually used in these settings in the real world too" If Apple has really killed the 27" iMac for good, what else is their flagship desktop? The Mac mini and Mac Studio are standalone, nondescript metal boxes, hardly flagship pieces of hardware. Definitely not the Mac Pro, which almost nobody actually owns (I have yet to ever see one in the wild), is rarely updated, and has never been their flagship. That only leaves the 24" iMac, which comes in playful cotton candy colors; again, hardly a flagship Apple product. (Unless we just unknowingly took a time machine back to 1998... For the past decade or more, flagship Apple products have been slim, sleek, and silver.) In other words, they need a flagship Mac for that sleek, professional desktop look. And there isn’t one now…unless a larger iMac is coming!
Except it sounds like the same, or equivalent, display that has been used in the iMac since 2017. Which makes that price rather hard to swallow.
Not that it’s a bad display c.f. what else is on offer today even after 4-5 years - question is will that still be true in another 4-5 years, with miniLED imminent and maybe even microLED on that timescale.
Personally, yes, I prefer the idea of a separate computer and display - partly because I’d like the option of a different display setup and probably wouldn’t buy the Studio display anyway. However, if you really wanted a 5k, 27” display, the iMac was something of a bargain - a Mac Mini plus a Studio Display, not so much.
Also, even if I replace my iMac tomorrow, it ain’t going to landfill - its still a powerful system with a lot of uses that will get repurposed for something. Dunno about my 2017, but the newer iMacs will probably have a pretty good resale value now, too. So I’m not sure that the idea that the iMac display would be wasted when you upgraded has stood the test of time. May be a hangover from the good old days of the 80s and 90s when a 2-year-old computer was a historical relic.
Last edited:
Slowing down is probably the wrong way of looking at it. Instead there will come a day when your mac model doesn’t support the latest OS version. Once that happens, even the fastest mac becomes difficult to use well.
As an example, I gave my mom my 2009 Mac Pro. It is still plenty fast but it can’t run the latest versions of Turbo Tax.
iMac Pro in 2017 was priced at $4999 with the lowest spec. Even if they introduce a new 27" iMac Pro, it won't be cheap and that price tag is definitely not a replacement for people that was waiting the new Apple Silicon iMac 27"
Not explicitly, but at the end of the announcement, they clearly said that there was one more Mac to make the transition to Apple Silicon, and that was the Mac Pro.
Along with the simultaneous disappearance of the 5k iMac from the store, most people have interpreted that as meaning that there's not a direct Apple Silicon replacement for the 5k iMac in the pipeline.
Of course, that doesn't mean never, ever - but I wouldn't hold my breath.
This rumour would go some way to addressing that 'hole' in the performance range:
Updated Mac Mini Still Coming With M2 and M2 Pro Chips
Prior to yesterday's spring event, rumors suggested that Apple might unveil a new Mac mini, but instead we got the all-new Mac Studio, which is...
www.macrumors.com
...although if it happens too soon it would tick of people who bought the lowest-end Studio.
I wonder if the 24" iMac could get a M2 Pro option when it goes to M2.
The Mac Studio pretty much replaces the iMac Pro - $4000 for the M1 Ultra, $1600 for the screen... (but then we know that screen costs $600 too much).
There’s nothing good about ripping the monitor out of the 27” 5K iMac and selling it for nearly the same price as the iMac (a whole computer, not just a monitor with speakers and a camera) it was taken from.
Also, about you saying that the monitor will last way longer than an iMac: I’m still using my 2010 iMac (nearly 12 years old) as a monitor.
Also, about you saying that the monitor will last way longer than an iMac: I’m still using my 2010 iMac (nearly 12 years old) as a monitor.
The lack of a larger iMac now stinks. A huge hole in the lineup. Hopefully one day we see a 30” iMac at ~$2,000.
It's not just a monitor with speakers and a camera. It has mics too and a 64bit Apple Silicon SoC one generation older than the M1. With sufficient RAM and SSD it could run MacOS
The 27” 5K iMac was $2600 USD. The Studio Display is $1600.
As far as your 2010 iMac, that’s great for you. But unfortunatel’y not so great for every iMac sold in the last 8 years when Apple neutered Target Display.
I doubt it’s dead. Apple never said that.
Right now you can’t get the M1 Pro in desktop.
So, 24” M1 iMac, 27” iMac Pro with M1Pro + Max (just like 14” and 16” MBP’s) is probably incoming. Display on it will probably be just like studio display. Same specs. Camera, mics, speakers, all of it. Will probably look like studio display with a chin for the computer.
Right now you can’t get the M1 Pro in desktop.
So, 24” M1 iMac, 27” iMac Pro with M1Pro + Max (just like 14” and 16” MBP’s) is probably incoming. Display on it will probably be just like studio display. Same specs. Camera, mics, speakers, all of it. Will probably look like studio display with a chin for the computer.
One of the main problems with the 27" iMac (and even the smaller ones) is once the computer inside is outdated the screen which is still perfect becomes e-trash.
I don't know about you guys but when I buy a computer display I keep them for 3-4 computers. It's not unusual for me to keep a great display for up-to 9 years.
Those 30" Cinema displays for instance. I kept them from 2009-2018. I bought 3 laptops and 3 desktops during that time period and kept using my Cinema displays because they still looked good to me and offered a relatively high 2.5K resolution.
If I was to buy the Mac Studio display I'd probably keep that until 2030. But if I bought a 27" iMac I'd likely be replacing it after 5 years and needlessly lose the great display it comes with at the same time.
For Apple to essentially detach the display from the system with the Studio Display + System is the right call for consumers in my mind. And if you don't need that kind of high-priced display you can get a much more affordable third-party display to pair with the Mac Studio. Really it's a great compromise.
I don't know about you guys but when I buy a computer display I keep them for 3-4 computers. It's not unusual for me to keep a great display for up-to 9 years.
Those 30" Cinema displays for instance. I kept them from 2009-2018. I bought 3 laptops and 3 desktops during that time period and kept using my Cinema displays because they still looked good to me and offered a relatively high 2.5K resolution.
If I was to buy the Mac Studio display I'd probably keep that until 2030. But if I bought a 27" iMac I'd likely be replacing it after 5 years and needlessly lose the great display it comes with at the same time.
For Apple to essentially detach the display from the system with the Studio Display + System is the right call for consumers in my mind. And if you don't need that kind of high-priced display you can get a much more affordable third-party display to pair with the Mac Studio. Really it's a great compromise.
Thats what most hope for, its going to have some kind of rebirth eventually.
Perhaps there were two straws that broke the camels back the first is the size and quality of the 27" display. We all would love to see a 27" 5K Promotion display. Second you prefer some kind of thin design that is capable of operating a M1 Pro or M1 Max inside similar to the 24" form factor.
Remember there were some reports of delays for the 27" compared to the 24" so they put it off indefinitely it seems. Then the decision was to announce a new mid-priced desktop and separate displays in place of.
Indefinitely is a term you use when you have no ETA to something. All the sites say the same thing, it was discontinued because it disappeared from the store. Also Apple didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on why it discontinued the desktop.
You are left with neither a no or a yes that's the last you will see a larger 27" iMac.
This argument that displays last much longer than computers sound good but isn't valid.
It reminds me of the arguments about DSLR cameras and lenses - the wisdom was to invest more in good "glass" because it lasts longer than camera bodies.
Yeah, well, until mirrorless cameras came along and you wanted to buy all new lenses to match.
In 5 years time you will want one of the new displays that is bigger, miniLED or OLED, 120 Hz, HDR, new connectivity, and the new technological features we have not yet imagined, and it just looks better.
Also, the displays in the 27" iMac, which are basically the same display in the 27" studio, do not have a history of physically lasting a long time. Image retention on the 2014 screens, pink edges on the 2015 screens. Don't be too sure the studio display does not develop a similar defect - it is made by the same manufacturer, with the same technology.
It reminds me of the arguments about DSLR cameras and lenses - the wisdom was to invest more in good "glass" because it lasts longer than camera bodies.
Yeah, well, until mirrorless cameras came along and you wanted to buy all new lenses to match.
In 5 years time you will want one of the new displays that is bigger, miniLED or OLED, 120 Hz, HDR, new connectivity, and the new technological features we have not yet imagined, and it just looks better.
Also, the displays in the 27" iMac, which are basically the same display in the 27" studio, do not have a history of physically lasting a long time. Image retention on the 2014 screens, pink edges on the 2015 screens. Don't be too sure the studio display does not develop a similar defect - it is made by the same manufacturer, with the same technology.
Base 5K iMac was $1800: https://web.archive.org/web/20220206093035/https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac-imac
It's not just a monitor with speakers and a camera. It has mics too and a 64bit Apple Silicon SoC one generation older than the M1. With sufficient RAM and SSD it could run MacOS
Is all that really worth $1600 when a whole iMac with the same display was being sold for $200 more?
I'm guessing you mean a computer manufacturer, as I know for a fact that companies often offer "bundle" deals on equipment all the time. I'm not talking about a HUGE discount, but maybe at least a couple hundred. As for other computer manufacturers, I don't know. I've only bought Apple computers for many years now for personal use.
I agree getting rid of the 27" iMac was a good thing. Apple's product line should be as simple as possible. The iMac has always been an entry-level consumer computer.
And at this stage, people should be owning their computers for 5-10 years. Getting a Mac Studio with a display is a better value for that time-frame.
And at this stage, people should be owning their computers for 5-10 years. Getting a Mac Studio with a display is a better value for that time-frame.
Have never liked all in ones, be it 27 or 22 or whatever inch.
Monitors last a lot longer than the computers.
Monitors last a lot longer than the computers.
But old displays are still usable, and that's really important. I have a 2010 27" iMac that I still use as a display because of Target Disc Mode. The display quality isn't nearly as good as it once was, but it still works and that means I can still find a purpose for it. By contrast, my 27" 2017 iMac is starting to seem dated, and its lack of Target Display Mode means it won't have a second act once it's no longer useful as a computer. And that's true even though the screen is still absolutely beautiful.
If I buy a Studio Display now, will I want a new display in five years? My history says no, but even if I do, I am confident the Studio Display will remain useful even after that time. That's good for the environment and ultimately good for me as a consumer.