Death of 27" iMac is a good thing.

[satchmo]

Ok that’s problematic for 2 reasons. One, you’re still starting at 2300 instead of 1500. Now, for 1500 with an iMac 27 inch, you got a great display, and up until 2020 you had the ability to upgrade storage, a feat which is impossible with apple silicon. Further, upgrading ram was a simple affair, just pop open the back door and put in the ram. Need a little more power? No problem, you could get the next model up, or even -gasp- replace the cpu! Up until 2020, the only thing you’re stuck with is the GPU.

Ok, apple silicon runs circles around an intel i5, no question. Here’s the thing: to be equivalent for many video workflows, 16gb of RAM is a laughable minimum, my work machine was 40gb. So now the mini won’t cut it, you’ve got to do the studio to even get 32 gigs of RAM. The price now starts spiraling, when before simply getting a low-end iMac did the trick, with options, of various difficulty, to keep the machine at the pace of your editing. That’s why people, ok maybe just me, bemoan the loss of the 27 inch iMac.

A low-end iMac 27, with 40 gigs ram, still doesn’t break the 2000’dollar barrier, but was great for moderate but not fancy 4K Final Cut editing with lots of layers and effects. An 8 gb mini? Nope. 16 Gb mini? Not really. Ok now you need a studio, and now you’re at almost twice the price of entry.

Except that the base iMac 27” started at $1800. And that was a pokey i5. You had to spend $2000+ for an i7 or i9 which makes it more comparable to the Mac mini + Studio Display. Plus the 27” iMac was a beast in term of size and weight, not to mention the fan noise and (the chin which bothers some).

It’s also been well documented that a base 8gb Mac mini can edit 4k video with ease. And bumping it to 16gb will more than handle many users. There are just so many Youtube videos out there that play this out.

Look I’m not saying the 27” iMac was bad. I had one for a time and didn’t even need that much power. What I am saying is this new Studio Display has allowed users to be more flexible in what they need and don’t need. And when, not if, the Mac mini receives a spec bump to M1 Pro or M2, it will fill in any gaps in the lineup.

 

[darngooddesign]

I can’t operate an iMac in clamshell mode. Which is what I do 99.9% of the time with all my laptops.

If you bought an iMac to use it in clamshell mode, you bought the wrong computer.

 

[profcutter]

Except that the base iMac 27” started at $1800. And that was a pokey i5. You had to spend $2000+ for an i7 or i9 which makes it more comparable to the Mac mini + Studio Display. Plus the 27” iMac was a beast in term of size and weight, not to mention the fan noise and (the chin which bothers some).

It’s also been well documented that a base 8gb Mac mini can edit 4k video with ease. And bumping it to 16gb will more than handle many users. There are just so many Youtube videos out there that play this out.

Look I’m not saying the 27” iMac was bad. I had one for a time and didn’t even need that much power. What I am saying is this new Studio Display has allowed users to be more flexible in what they need and don’t need. And when, not if, the Mac mini receives a spec bump to M1 Pro or M2, it will fill in any gaps in the lineup.

Real world? I bought a 2019 27 inch for my dad for 1300 at Best Buy open box, and my mom got a 2020 from apple for 1500. And yeah, you can get a 4K stream to edit on 8gb, but you’re going to lose all that speed of the fancy apple silicon and have crashes with longer timelines. No comparison.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Bring back larger iMacs and add back in a legit target display mode again so the e-waste concerns are mitigated.

 

[profcutter]

Bring back larger iMacs and add back in a legit target display mode again so the e-waste concerns are mitigated.

Exactly.

 

[Ethosik]

Why would you need to operate an iMac in clamshell? The principle reason for operating a laptop in clamshell is that the user considers both the display and keyboard to be inadequate for desktop use. Clamshell Mac = Mac mini.

This has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make, which is that laptops are also AIOs. People who complain about the "inflexibility" of iMac do not complain about the same characteristics in laptops. They don't complain that the display of a laptop can likely outlast the usability of the rest of the unit. They don't complain that, unlike an iMac's keyboard and tracking device (which are "modular" and easily replaced), they can't easily replace the keyboard and trackpad of a laptop. They don't complain of the lack of Target Display Mode. All this is forgiven in a laptop. Basically, iMacs are being held to a double standard.

Like any other piece of computing hardware, iMac is a choice that suits some but does not suit others. It's inevitable that people feel compelled to explain why a particular product does not suit their needs, but in a thread where folks are semi-mourning the demise of a product they like, what's the point of telling them that they never should have liked it in the first place?

You really are misunderstanding the point I am making. You are saying Laptops are AIO and more popular therefore desktop AIOs are equivalent. I told you the ONLY reason I buy laptops is to use them in clamshell mode. I don't care if its AIO, I don't use the screen 99% of the time. And the 1% of the time, I am traveling and don't do a lot of big work because I need at least two monitors for my workflow.

Which is why I stated I can't use an iMac in clamshell mode. If I was unable to use a Macbook Pro in clamshell mode, I would not use them. I know a lot of professionals that use them in clamshell mode 99% of the time. So while the laptops are "popular" the fact that its an AIO system is not the deciding factor here. You were the one that brought laptops in the discussion when we are talking about desktops here.

 

[henry72]

I don’t think it makes sense for Apple to bring back the iMac Pro, but there is clearly a gap between the 24” iMac and the Studio Display with a Mac mini or Mac Studio.

Yes I know there are cheaper monitor options but they’re crap compared to the iMac 4.5/5K screen.

 

[arvinsim]

I don’t think it makes sense for Apple to bring back the iMac Pro, but there is clearly a gap between the 24” iMac and the Studio Display with a Mac mini or Mac Studio.

Yes I know there are cheaper monitor options but they’re crap compared to the iMac 4.5/5K screen.

Maybe they should just release a cheaper, standalone 24" 4.5k display

 

[AL2TEACH]

WHY do people keep telling those of us who want an AIO solution that it’s better to separate it?? Sure, better for you.

Obviously I’m aware I can’t separate the screen from the computer. OBVIOUSLY.

But iMac fans understand what we appreciate about iMacs. I don’t care if I can’t upgrade one component after 5 years. I want to use it for 7-8 years. I’m not a pro. I do routine daily work on it. The footprint is nice. The simplicity is nice. The esthetics are nice. The single cable is nice. I’ve owned one since late 2013 and it’s now slowing down for my use case. I’d like to buy one for another 7-8 years...

I've read all the comments here and to me, you hit it right on the head and with simplicity.
I've had 2 27' iMacs, the first one and this one (iMac Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2015). The only update to this iMac was replacing the HD with a SSD. It still serves my needs but I was really wanting to see a new 27' or larger iMac. Guess the wait will be longer now because I DON'T want the 24' iMac.

There is nothing new about the Studio and getting a monitor. The reason I got a 27' iMac years ago was because the Cube/toaster lol) just couldn't do it anymore so now it's packed in the closet. Years later, Apple has redesigned the Cube and it's now called Studio.
Seeing and realizing Apple is all about profits, which they should be lol. I would not put it pass em to see how many people buy the new Cube (Studio) and then come out with a new iMac.

Don't get me wrong here, I think the Studio is a good buy for those that want it. I think laptops are good buys for people that want it. You want blazing power or great specs then that's what you want and more power to ya.

For me and many more, brojan has said it best.

 

[bluecoast]

Environmental issues are going to be bigger in the coming years even way more than they are now.

So detaching the high performance computer from the screen and ensuring that the screen gets many years of use is great, as the OP said.

Plus there’s good resaleability of the Mac studio to those that are ok with ‘good’ performance that a 2-3 year old computer will give.

I still think that there’s a place for the iMac as typically these machines are bought for light productivity / media creation tasks - which given how fast even the M1 is they should still be fine 5+ years out.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Environmental issues are going to be bigger in the coming years even way more than they are now.

So detaching the high performance computer from the screen and ensuring that the screen gets many years of use is great, as the OP said.

Plus there’s good resaleability of the Mac studio to those that are ok with ‘good’ performance that a 2-3 year old computer will give.

I still think that there’s a place for the iMac as typically these machines are bought for light productivity / media creation tasks - which given how fast even the M1 is they should still be fine 5+ years out.

But you have to balance that with the overall use of materials. Separate CPU and display uses more materials than an AIO... and so it goes.

 

[bluecoast]

But you have to balance that with the overall use of materials. Separate CPU and display uses more materials than an AIO... and so it goes.

True, but I still think you are likely to keep the studio display for a longer time than a professional all in one.

Even if the studio display ends up feeling lower end in 5 years it’s going to great being twinned with a Mac mini / Air or something.

Pivoting a little - the Mac Pro is going to be fascinating. This is traditionally the ultimate modular computer, yet the Max processors are systems on a chip.

 

[Realityck]

I know many here were waiting for that 27" iMac, but in some respects it's demise was not only warranted, but a good thing.

Spending $1600 USD on a Studio Display is an investment...but it will likely last longer than any 27" iMac would have.

Personally I look at the 27" Studio Display as a adaptation of the 24" iMac. They literally cannibalize their 27" iMac mock up and converted the project to be just a TB3 27" display. The problem with it is its a nice pairing for the Mac Studio, but the speakers, FaceTime camera are redundant for someone with a 2021 14"/16" MBP. When you can get most of this for less with a M1 24" iMac, and they cleverly used only the A15 to run the FaceTine duties its like this could have been sold for way less then $1599. Not like a 27" screen is that expensive, neither is the build over the slightly smaller 24" iMac.

Apple needs to put out there a less smart 27" 5K display. Think about the pairing, would someone that buys a $899 Mac mini pair it with a $1599 Studio Display, not likely.

I would not be shocked to see the price of this display drop as it becomes older. Kinda like how the overpriced AirPod Max has. That started at $549 and now on sale for $429 at times.

 

[blairh]

Apple needs to put out there a less smart 27" 5K display. Think about the pairing, would someone that buys a $899 Mac mini pair it with a $1599 Studio Display, not likely.

I would not be shocked to see the price of this display drop as it becomes older. Kinda like how the overpriced AirPod Max has. That started at $549 and now on sale for $429 at times.

That's exactly what I'm doing. M1 16 GB Mini plus ASD.

No chance the display goes down in price over time. They never did that with their previous displays.

 

[turbineseaplane]

No chance the display goes down in price over time. They never did that with their previous displays.

Only potential variable is third party sellers, who seem to have sales on most all Apple stuff

 

[nitecapt]

I know many here were waiting for that 27" iMac, but in some respects it's demise was not only warranted, but a good thing.

Here's why.

We know when iMacs get old and slow down, they're usefulness is limited. Specifically because of their inability to be used as a secondary target display.

By separating the display from computer, your new Studio Display with never be obsolete (well unless you want 8K or 120hz or 32").
Pair it with a M1 Mac mini for $2300 USD which is probably where the 27" iMac would have been priced.

And down the road, as your needs change, upgrade to a M2 Mac mini, or even a Studio Mac.
Sure that all-in-one is gone, but a Mac mini is pretty minimalist.

Spending $1600 USD on a Studio Display is an investment...but it will likely last longer than any 27" iMac would have.

Does this all signal the end of the IMAC?

I get the sense that with the absence of discussion or mention of a future iMac, perhaps we have seen the last of them and we will have to buy the studio if we want power computing. Why would they make an IMAC if you can buy the studio and the less expensive screen?
Your thoughts?

 

[profcutter]

Yeah, as much as it pains me to say it, this does sound like the deathknell for the iMac.

 

[whitby]

I liked the high end 27" iMacs for some reason. They are easy to setup, generally very reliable (I have had 5 or 6 of them), had more than adequate performance and, despite some opinions, was not a bad looking machine (I am not one of those that automatically rejects anything older than some arbitrary number of years in age as useless and past it).

I regret the end of the 27" iMac for two reasons:
1. There is no direct replacement at present. The base Mac Studio plus Studio display cost in excess of $3500 (not counting the fact that you need a keyboard and mouse which adds another $200 or so if you select the Apple options, which I hate). The base 27" iMac was around $2k (I know it was not that good, but you could get an i5 5K 27" iMac for that price).
2. You cannot even buy the Mac Studio replacement (they are quoting 10 to 12 weeks for anything other than the base unit) if you want a decent spec. system.

The least they could have done is:
1. Tell us they were discontinuing the 27" iMac.
2. Tell us their upgrade path. I have a top end 27" iMac and the cost to get to something that is roughly equivalent is $4500 plus trade in, in the new Apple Silicon world.
3. Kept the 27" iMac around until the replacement is actually available.

I have not appreciated Apple treating us like idiots. I mean just removing the 27" iMac from the store without saying anything, why would they do that? Did they think we would all rush out and spend a lot more money on a new system that you cannot even buy (unless you jumped on immediately at the end the presentation and bought them without having any idea what you were getting).

I feel a sense of being let down by Apple where there was often a clear path to the new machines and what they would give us for a modest increase in outlay and a decent trade in on the old machines. I am now seriously considering going back into the PC world where I can control things a little better (I built my own machines for many, many years) and abandoning Apple, especially as I, now, cannot emulate the Windows world (I need things like SQL Server) on my Apple system as easily.

I know I am venting a little and I am sure people may consider my issues as illogical, but I hope Apple reads these forums and I can make some small difference, but somehow I doubt it.

 

[profcutter]

I don’t think your response is illogical, Apple’s decisions of late are making for some very difficult financial decisions. For folks who can afford them, great. But inflation is real, and most folks I know have less money lying around this year, not more. I realize that MBPs have been pricey for a long time, but 3.5k is a hard pill to swallow for a well-kitted 16. Likewise, the entry level 27 inch imac, and the ones right above, were respectable machines for a passable price of entry. The 24 inch simply doesn’t do what the 27 does. I know apple silicon is faster, but the display is such an integral part of the experience, I do wish that the world’s richest company could make some sacrifices and keep a similar user experience available with apple silicon. I’d even be ok with Exxon-Mobil taking the number one spot again.

 

[Lioness~]

Packed the old 2013 27" iMac down. Return to be recycled.
Had a few iMac's in a row now.
Welcoming Mac Studio and Studio Display greatly, see how long delivery will actually be.
Display in May, Mac in June it says now.

My beginning of my Apple and Mac started with PowerMac 7200 and separate monitor.
I am glad Apple ditch larger iMac 's actually, and going back to separate units. I feel happy with my purchase this far ?

 

[blairh]

Once the 24" iMac came I did not expect a new 27" model. It's simply too close in size. I only held out hope due to the initial iMac Pro news, but that machine isn't coming out now until 2023 and will likely be far more expensive versus the previous $1,800 27" iMac.

If we do see a larger consumer-based iMac I believe it will be 30" and will come at some point in 2023. The 24" iMac does not feel like a size that will satisfy all potential customers for an Apple AIO. It's also limited to 16 GB of RAM (for now).

To the people that wanted or needed a larger iMac, I push you to purchase a refurbished unit from Apple. They are legit just as good as a new iMac.

 

[profcutter]

Packed the old 2013 27" iMac down. Return to be recycled.
Had a few iMac's in a row now.
Welcoming Mac Studio and Studio Display greatly, see how long delivery will actually be.
Display in May, Mac in June it says now.

My beginning of my Apple and Mac started with PowerMac 7200 and separate monitor.
I am glad Apple ditch larger iMac 's actually, and going back to separate units. I feel happy with my purchase this far ?

Is your 2013 a 5k? Does it still work?

 

[Lioness~]

Is your 2013 a 5k? Does it still work?

No, not a 5K. Was before that. So no, I don't want to use it as only a monitor, if that was your thought ?
It's time to be recycled.

 

[profcutter]

Fair enough!

 

[Moonjumper]

Does this all signal the end of the IMAC?

I get the sense that with the absence of discussion or mention of a future iMac, perhaps we have seen the last of them and we will have to buy the studio if we want power computing. Why would they make an IMAC if you can buy the studio and the less expensive screen?
Your thoughts?

There has been the Mac mini and Mac Pro for many years, and standalone displays (including from Apple until the last few years). Nothing has changed. The use case for the iMac is still the same as it was before. It was also the standout computer that offered something different to the opposition, and was prominent in promotion of Macs.

My first Apple product was an iMac, and currently have an iMac. My favourite ever computer is an iMac (the G4). I think the iMac has a place, although the Studio is great new addition, and the Studio may be my next Mac, even if the top-end iMac does return.