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
By pure chance I never sold my unused 2019 3.6 imac, which can still run multiple OS’s, 64 & 32bit apps, and I think had the highest benchmark scores on geekbench of any Mac under $10,000. 2019 was peak 27” iMac. Mine will go back in its box for a later day, when I need one, and won’t have to buy someone’s used model.
The frequent replies of “you don’t need an iMac - it’s better to get a mini and a display” clearly don’t understand the appeal or market for an iMac.
What exactly is so revolutionary about buying a monitor and desktop separately? Why do people keep using that answer in reply to the lack of a 27” iMac??
What exactly is so revolutionary about buying a monitor and desktop separately? Why do people keep using that answer in reply to the lack of a 27” iMac??
Because as others have said, it disconnects the upgrade paths. I keep my monitors for a very long time but upgrade computers every year or two years.
Plus for me personally, I have a real big problem about non-matching monitors and I typically have 2 or 3 monitor setup. So with no equivalent 27" monitor that completely matches the iMac design (chin and all) is a big problem. The second reason for me is that looking at 60Hz all day causes my eyes to really hurt. Simply using 120 or 144 refresh rate has completely removed my eye strain issue. I can immediately tell if a monitor is on 60Hz even at the desktop. This is also the only reason I got the iPhone 13 Pro for the high refresh rate.
Let me first say that everyone's needs are different, but from my point of view the base M1 Mac mini with the 16GB RAM upgrade was a major upgrade from my 2019 i9 iMac with 128 GB of RAM. For my specific workflow, the M1 was better in real-world use than the i9 I had, even though on paper the i9 should still beat the M1. So the whole thinking the M1 is lowest processor which doesn't fit my needs so Apple needs to put in another processor between Mac mini and Mac Studio is not necessarily true in all cases.
Like I said, everyone has different needs and their experience will differ from mine. I just wanted to add my experience to the conversation in case it might change people's opinion that "M1 = lowest end = slow" attitude. The fact that a $1,200 Mac mini beat my $5,000 2019 iMac is quite impressive.
Like I said, everyone has different needs and their experience will differ from mine. I just wanted to add my experience to the conversation in case it might change people's opinion that "M1 = lowest end = slow" attitude. The fact that a $1,200 Mac mini beat my $5,000 2019 iMac is quite impressive.
I never understand the need for Target Display mode, I used it before and the implementation was poor. It didn't always work. For some reasons, I never considered the smaller iMac either it's not powerful enough or fixed RAM on later models. A bigger iMac suits so well in the bedroom or as a work from home computer thanks to the all-in-one design and good value.
As a Mid 2020 iMac user, it's sad that Apple didn't have a proper send off to one of the best products in the line up. The current 24" iMac has the raw performance however the built quality is pretty bad especially with the tiny stand and limited ports.
As a Mid 2020 iMac user, it's sad that Apple didn't have a proper send off to one of the best products in the line up. The current 24" iMac has the raw performance however the built quality is pretty bad especially with the tiny stand and limited ports.
exactly they removed the imac pro last year...so the 27" imac its gone like they said, but they are very specific for the 27" imac...people should ask them about the imac pro or even a better question would be if Apple will let just the 24" imac in their lineup
exactly...those who buy an imac, they do for the simplicity 1 cable does it all
This studio is perfect, its small for the power and so on...but its back to the old age where you have a box and a monitor
I still guess, like Gurman that an bigger imac pro will still come, thats why Apple is right when they say the 27" imac is dead. Why make just an 24" imac, invest R&D and all costs when you know the bigger imacs are the better sold imac with greater revenue ?!
WWDC mac pro+probably another display and in the fall we could see the bigger imac pro with some lower, just announced Mac pro specs
I have (at quick count of plugs out the back, and plugs on two hubs) 18 devices plugged into my iMac 27". A couple of those connections are daisy-chained to other devices, so it's actually more than that. Not including power and ethernet. Some of them need to be replaced by new ones, if I'm going to a new Mac/Mac OS (manufacturers stopped developing drivers to force people to buy the same but slightly different new products), but the count should stay the same. Actually, maybe not: with a new Mac that lacks an optical drive, I'll need to plug in one of those things, sometimes.
Gurmans recent predictions have been quite off remember…
-He said along with others that a squared off Watch was coming
-He said a new Mac mini was coming in spring 22
-He said the iPhone 14 will have always on display
Plus a lot more… most of what he is saying is just guesses…
Ross Young who is 100% accurate with displays has also confirmed that what they thought was a 27 inch iMac is now very likely to be a 27 inch monitor with miniLED.
1. That hole is likely going to be filled by an M1 Pro/Max Mac mini which is still present with intel on their website.
2. The pricing hole is filled by pairing the M1 Mac mini with the studio display… and the soon to be released M1 Pro/Max Mac mini with the studio display.
3. They mention 24” as it sat alongside a 27” previously… now the 27” has been discontinued I agree it doesn’t make sense to still have it listed as 24” however, the same applies to the HomePod… why do they call the current HomePod the HomePod mini when it’s the only HomePod available…
4. I presume the vast majority of iMac users are general consumers, Apple probably know this so gearing their flagship product to the general consumer with fun colours etc makes perfect sense, also even if a 27” iMac does see the light of day, I would expect the colours etc to be identical to the 24” as Apple have quite clearly set their displays (studio display/pro display XDR) coupled with their towers (mac mini/studio/pro) to be geared towards the prosumer market.
Last edited:
Apple should sell a new mini with the capability to mount it between the Cinema Display and a stand/VESA arm. This way you get the consumer and environmental benefits of keeping the display after the computer part becomes unreliable or outdated, but you can also keep a clean and uncluttered desk setup where the computer takes up no footprint and isn’t visible.
So, instead of adding a simple software feature back, Target Display Mode, it’s better to separate the computer and the screen, while the screen remains limited as a display, especially for not-Macs?
So the current M1 iMac is a bad design because it’s an all in one?
I digress. The problem is software, not hardware.
It’s Apple, not the customer.
So the current M1 iMac is a bad design because it’s an all in one?
I digress. The problem is software, not hardware.
It’s Apple, not the customer.
Last edited:
I have a 2013 27" iMac all maxed out (that was < $ 4000 at the time for 1 TB SDD and 32GB RAM and TotL Nvidia Geforce 780m GT). It's still fast enough for today's work and as I had to work from home a lot in the last years I was able to use it as a secondary display.
For gaming most devs scrapped Nvidia support years ago as Apple didn't introduce a Mac with Nvidia support anymore after that, but games that did run then still run now and pretty great. World of Warcraft still runs everything at 30 fps+ at high graphics.
Apple had to kill Target Display Mode because 5K isn't supported over a single Thunderbolt 2 connection (the one the first retina 5K iMacs had). It's sad it didn't come back when the iMac received Thunderbolt 3, but it makes the last non-retina 27" iMac maybe more useful later than some later iMacs.
But the world changed a lot. People want more portability. When I bought that iMac > 50% of all computer sales were still desktop. That's maybe like 30% now or possibly an even lower percentage (certainly for Apple). But I get it Apple doesn't sell the 27" iMac anymore, it just doesn't fit in their strategy anymore. When you have 1 component at max spec Apple wants you to have all components at one spec. For the iMac that would create some difficulties and a really small market.
I would really buy a new 27" iMac, but Apple needs to differ on it's strategy. I don't need the TotL CPU, but I like a TotL GPU. And the non-retina display is ok for me. I don't need a HDR mini-LED background display that will up the price by $ 1500,-. I think a lot of people think like that, but Apple doesn't, making the market for particularly the 27" iMac really small.
For gaming most devs scrapped Nvidia support years ago as Apple didn't introduce a Mac with Nvidia support anymore after that, but games that did run then still run now and pretty great. World of Warcraft still runs everything at 30 fps+ at high graphics.
Apple had to kill Target Display Mode because 5K isn't supported over a single Thunderbolt 2 connection (the one the first retina 5K iMacs had). It's sad it didn't come back when the iMac received Thunderbolt 3, but it makes the last non-retina 27" iMac maybe more useful later than some later iMacs.
But the world changed a lot. People want more portability. When I bought that iMac > 50% of all computer sales were still desktop. That's maybe like 30% now or possibly an even lower percentage (certainly for Apple). But I get it Apple doesn't sell the 27" iMac anymore, it just doesn't fit in their strategy anymore. When you have 1 component at max spec Apple wants you to have all components at one spec. For the iMac that would create some difficulties and a really small market.
I would really buy a new 27" iMac, but Apple needs to differ on it's strategy. I don't need the TotL CPU, but I like a TotL GPU. And the non-retina display is ok for me. I don't need a HDR mini-LED background display that will up the price by $ 1500,-. I think a lot of people think like that, but Apple doesn't, making the market for particularly the 27" iMac really small.
peeps is it only me or anyone else seeing the border of the studio display has the some width as the iMac 24/ will be the same for the future 27 imac that will be standing on the side of an studio display with same looks.
I work as a freelance video editor and the imac is my absolute weapon of choice over any Mac. Why?:
-it is powerful enough to handle any 4K offline edit (most actual films get still edited with 1080 proxies anyways)
-it has enough connectivity to be a part of a full scale editing suite in my studio
-I can take it with me in its own packaging in a really uncomplicated way. And I am able to carry one of the best displays on the market with a work capable computer.
This last bit is actually part of my freelance routine: I take it on longer jobs out of town to edit on other projects at that time. I take it to grannys house to work in summer from there. I even did one day edit jobs on location if the pay is right and take my own equipment.
And I’m for sure not the only one. Most offline editing suites which are apple based use the specced out imac. This might change definitely with the Mac studio, because it’s ultimately cheaper to just upgrade the little box. But that’s really only the case for fixed workplaces. Which I sadly/luckily don’t have. And I’m pretty sure with covid there are many like me.
So my hopes for next gear in studio is:
-iMac 27 with m1 ultra or whatever
-studio display (who knows maybe the pro version comes
Sorry for the long text I’m really not used to forum discussions and just making it worse myself haha
// oh and yesterday on twitter rightfully notes the gap of 2000usd between the mac studios. 3000€ Was the price of my last iMac specced out (but ram and ssd) so I guess sadly I’ll be having to pay 4000€ This time for more ram but there will be an option 3000€ entry level iMac
I work as a freelance video editor and the imac is my absolute weapon of choice over any Mac. Why?:
-it is powerful enough to handle any 4K offline edit (most actual films get still edited with 1080 proxies anyways)
-it has enough connectivity to be a part of a full scale editing suite in my studio
-I can take it with me in its own packaging in a really uncomplicated way. And I am able to carry one of the best displays on the market with a work capable computer.
This last bit is actually part of my freelance routine: I take it on longer jobs out of town to edit on other projects at that time. I take it to grannys house to work in summer from there. I even did one day edit jobs on location if the pay is right and take my own equipment.
And I’m for sure not the only one. Most offline editing suites which are apple based use the specced out imac. This might change definitely with the Mac studio, because it’s ultimately cheaper to just upgrade the little box. But that’s really only the case for fixed workplaces. Which I sadly/luckily don’t have. And I’m pretty sure with covid there are many like me.
So my hopes for next gear in studio is:
-iMac 27 with m1 ultra or whatever
-studio display (who knows maybe the pro version comes
Sorry for the long text I’m really not used to forum discussions and just making it worse myself haha
// oh and yesterday on twitter rightfully notes the gap of 2000usd between the mac studios. 3000€ Was the price of my last iMac specced out (but ram and ssd) so I guess sadly I’ll be having to pay 4000€ This time for more ram but there will be an option 3000€ entry level iMac
Sure, if you don't touch your computer from new then maybe, but if you update your computer regularly - by that I don't just mean OS updates, I mean software updates too, you'll find that software is optimized more and more for newer hardware. Hence it runs less efficiently on older hardware over time.
I'm sure it's all part of Apple's master plan to get users to upgrade their machines every few years! lol. But it makes sense - they will always optimize their software for their latest and greatest hardware, taking advantage of extra cores and system memory etc, while not running as efficiently on older hardware any more. Natural progression.
Not in my opinion. I have less stress grabbing one big box then all the little cables, a computer and a screen box. Of course if my destination has a proper screen I could only carry the Mac. But that is never the case
It really depends who exactly Apple is targeting with their products.
I see the Mac Studio as a desktop aimed at professionals. That in-between spot that the 27” iMac used to occupy, as a desktop for advanced home users who could spec up into a power users specification, that doesn’t exist anymore in the lineup as it stands. Instead we have an expensive Mac Studio and a cheaper 24” iMac.
From a corporate point of view, Apple is maximising the revenue it gets from the professional market, at the cost of leaving a few advanced home computing fans without a product to buy. The people who are going to be significantly out of pocket are the freelancers, independent contractors who buy their own equipment and who will suddenly have to get a more expensive setup.
In a way, Apple is shifting away from being a general-purpose computing company to supplying hardware to a few distinct markets: the lifestyle home user, students, the low-end enthusiast, and the professionals. The idea of being able to buy a full range of Apple computers which compete with PCs in the marketplace is disappearing along with the idea of using generic Intel hardware.
Instead we get form factors and price points differentiated for the different markets: the Mac Mini for the tech enthusiast, the 24” iMac as a lifestyle product, the low-end laptops for students and general use, the MBP and Mac Studio for professionals.
I see the Mac Studio as a desktop aimed at professionals. That in-between spot that the 27” iMac used to occupy, as a desktop for advanced home users who could spec up into a power users specification, that doesn’t exist anymore in the lineup as it stands. Instead we have an expensive Mac Studio and a cheaper 24” iMac.
From a corporate point of view, Apple is maximising the revenue it gets from the professional market, at the cost of leaving a few advanced home computing fans without a product to buy. The people who are going to be significantly out of pocket are the freelancers, independent contractors who buy their own equipment and who will suddenly have to get a more expensive setup.
In a way, Apple is shifting away from being a general-purpose computing company to supplying hardware to a few distinct markets: the lifestyle home user, students, the low-end enthusiast, and the professionals. The idea of being able to buy a full range of Apple computers which compete with PCs in the marketplace is disappearing along with the idea of using generic Intel hardware.
Instead we get form factors and price points differentiated for the different markets: the Mac Mini for the tech enthusiast, the 24” iMac as a lifestyle product, the low-end laptops for students and general use, the MBP and Mac Studio for professionals.
I don’t agree that the stuff is getting more expensive. At least as an video/film editor.
I can get baseline (still a super powerful) Mac studio which lasts me at least 4 years before I can probably sell it for around 800€. The same with the displays. I assume they could last me 8-10 years easily. The 5k standard on a 27” is so nice to look at that I probably don’t need more res for editing in near future, even if I edit 8k footage.
I think having crazy capable equipment at least for editors was never cheaper.
Before like 2010 or a little earlier it was so expensive to set up a video editing suite.
If I am a color grader on the other hand I will have to get a 6000+ workstation but still I can charge so much more for the service… I don’t know in my opinion it’s a great time for freelancer in media
I'm excited for the new products, but I really think this discontinuation is very shortsighted. I like the separation of display and computer, but not everyone wants to drop $2400 at entry level. I have only owned two iMac 27" over the last 10 years, and they've both been excellent. To me, it's the perfect hybrid of home computer and mid-level workhorse for graphics and video processing.
"dated" is not the same as "no longer useful as a computer". It's not the 1980s any more - when a 3 year old computer was usually a doorstop.
My 2017 (although I did get a high-ish spec one) is still perfectly usable for everything I need to do, even though a new Studio would be better. If I upgrade, it's not going to be thrown away.
- I could simply keep it as a backup computer that was still quite capable of handling the essentials if my main system was out of commission.
- I could sell it or hand-it-down - as a complete, all-in-one system
- I could put it in the lounge as an (overpowered but 'sunk costs') Zoom terminal sans messy cabling
- I could keep it to run any non-ASi/Monterrey-compatible software.
- I could BootCamp it and use it for any Windows needs I had
- I could use it with Luna Display as a second/third screen
- Or just use Universal Control or Synergy to run it side-by-side for things like browsing online documentation or previewing web pages.
I think the question here is, as the #4 largest manufacturer of personal computers, why can't Apple contrive to offer a large-screen all-in-one and a similarly-powerful headless desktop, so people can choose what suits them best?
For years, we've had decent all-in-ones but no credible mid-range headless system (the 2014 Mini was pathetic, then the 2018 Mini was knobbled by Intel iGPUs and the 2019 Mac Pro was unaffordable for most) now, we've got better desktops (M1 Mini and Mac Studio) so the high-end all-in-one immediately gets pulled. It's so frustrating when a Trillion-dollar company act like they're still trading out of Mum & Dad's garage.
I didn't really want an all-in-one when I bought my iMac - but the only alternatives were a PC or a 4-year-old Trashcan design that had already been declared a failure - and given the quality of the iMac display c.f. the price of the iMac it really was quite a good deal, and it's worked out OK.
What I don't really "get" is the idea of getting a headless Mac Studio/Mini and then spending a fortune for a very limited Apple display (or even the LG Ultrafine which was effectively an Apple Thunderbolt display sans pretty aluminium case - no 5k, but 4k displays work better on Mac than some people seem to think), when there is a whole world of 3rd party displays (ultra-wide, 28" 3:2, matched pairs of 24", huge 4k TV panels) to explore.
The Mac Mini and Mac Studio are a pretty good solution for bring-your-own-display - but if you wanted an integrated solution with 5k, Facetime, half-decent speakers etc. then the iMac was the perfect solution. Even when the old 1440p LED Cinema and Thunderbolt displays were current they made more sense as luxury MacBook docking stations than part of a modular system.
I'm disappointed by the price of the Studio Display with the same old edge-lit panel, but hardly surprised (after all, the old 1440p Thunderbolt display came in at $1000 in 2011 when 1440p was bleeding edge, but was still $1000 in 2016 when you could get 4k displays for that price). However, the choice for me was always going to be iMac vs. Mac Mini/Studio with 3rd party display(s).
The problem is that the display panel in the Studio Display seems to be little different from the one used in the iMac since 2017, and even that was just a "brighter" version of the 2015 display. It's already overdue to be replaced by something better. Five years will almost certainly see the availability of mini-LED displays, maybe micro-LED, possibly higher resolutions, possibly higher refresh rates. So, yeah, it's still going to be a perfectly good display after 5 years, but yeah, you'll most likely want a new one before then. Just like any new Mac you buy today will probably be a perfectly usable system in 5 years - just not cutting edge.