End of iMacs?

[ignatius345]

That is to say, it could become a "large screen" iPad-like device, although of course it would use a keyboard and pointing device instead of a touchscreen.

I think the ergonomics of a desktop-based touch screen are too terrible to actually pursue. A screen mounted 90° in front of you for comfortable viewing would be exhausting to interact with via touch for more than a few moments at a time.

 

[orionquest]

iMac - or Mac AIO is the iconic Apple desktop it will never go away.

Pretty sure some combo of the Mac Mini or Mac Studio + monitor will fill the hole for the 27" iMac or iMac Pro.

 

[Onimusha370]

For the $1800 - $2300 27" Intel iMacs, it rather depends what you think is a worthwhile upgrade. The way I'd look at it is that the old $1800 i5 27" iMac was roughly equivalent, CPU wise, to the $1100 i5 Mini so it "felt like" you were getting the screen, speakers, webcam, keyboard and mouse for about $700. That deal is over.

Even if you decide that a base $700 M1 Mini + studio display is a "worthy upgrade" from an i5 iMac, you're paying $2500 (don't forget about $200 for a keyboard and mouse/trackpad). It probably is "worthy" CPU wise - but while the GPU thrashes the Intel Integrated in the old Mini it might not quite be so impressive c.f. the old iMac discrete graphics. You're also a bit swings-and-roundabouts on I/O and monitor support - fewer external displays, fewer USB 3 ports vs. better TB3 bandwidth on the M1, and the 10GB Ethernet option.

If you're looking at a top-end (but non-pro) iMac then the Studio Max plus Studio Display is pretty much the same as you used to pay for an iMac with the best CPU, best GPU and 32GB of RAM. Likewise, the Studio Ultra + Studio Display (or cheaper alternative) seems like a reasonable substitute for the iMac Pro (esp. with the 20 CPU core Ultra vs. the 18 core Xeon option that used to cost $7000+)

The downer is that the display panel is pretty much the same as you got 4 years ago, too (just 100 nuts brighter which may not even be helpful)....

What seems to be really missing are (a) the lowest-end 5k iMac and (b) a half-way house between the Mini and the Studio Max (to pair with either the Studio display or a third party unit). That would have been a M1 Pro in either Mini or Studio style. Personally, if that's what you needed, I'd pin my hopes on a (regular) M2 Mini appearing which is likely to offer better bangs-per-buck than the M1 Pro until/unless a M2 Pro appears.

I think the problem with the future of the iMac is that while some people like the all-in-one-ness of the iMac, others prefer the flexibility to chose your own displays offered by the Mini and Studio - so you'd have the Mini, Studio and iMac competing for the mid-range desktop market, and Apple don't like competing with themselves.

Completely agreed on what’s missing. The fact that there are no M1 Pro chips in the desktop lineup is bizarre.

Given that the 14 inch MBP starts at £1,899 (£600 more than the 13 inch MBP with M1) it feels strange that a 27 inch imac with the same M1 Pro, even without mini-LED/promotion, doesn’t exist around the £1,999 price point (which would be £550 more than the mid-tier 24 inch iMac). Even if they made this £2,499 and used the non-binned M1 Pro, I think this would be a compelling upgrade for all previous 27 inch imac users.

The other option is to put M1 Pro in the Mac mini as you say, which I think would be really compelling at say £1,199.

I think the heart of the problem here though is just how highly priced the studio display is. Considering it’s just a slightly larger version of the 24 inch imac display (£1249 for the iMac, which includes the guts of a £699 Mac mini and £200 of accessories) the price of £1,499 just for the 27 inch display seems crazy.

For simplicity in the lineup I wonder if they’d consider ditching the Mac mini and just letting us put any M1 configuration in the studio enclosure. Obviously it would have overkill thermals for the M1, but there’s barely any difference in portability/size taken up between the two.

 

[bushman4]

Doubtful that the 27” iMac is dead yet. Apple is waiting to see if the masses flock to the Mac Studio
However being that it is overkill and pricey for most current iMac users most likely Apple will bring out a new 27”iMac soon
This quarter’s (April -June)overall computer sales should tell the story and what to expect

 

[Xdibo]

Apple discontinued the 27" iMac Pro last year and the regular 27" this year. I find it doubtful that there will be a replacement. I see the 27" Studio Display and Mac Studio as the replacement. For a few reasons.

First they made a 24" iMac at 4.5K. An in between size of the 27" and 21" models. Which indicates that they intended it as a one size fits all solution.

A 30" would likely cost way too much. Apple is really stuck on Retina resolutions. If they made a 30" iMac. That would require something like a custom 5.5K panel. That paired with what would likely be a M1 Pro or M1 Max, at the least. Would mean the iMac would likely start at around $3K-$3.5K.

A 30" iMac would also overshadow the Studio Display and Mac Studio. Those two products would hurt each other's sales. In what is already a limited market.

Keep in mind that in the EU, the studio combi seems to be about 30% more expensive than in the US. Meaning it has gotten out of reach for a lot of iMac users today. including schools. Apple will wait a long time in the Apple shops to see those returning for an upgrade of their existing 27" iMac…

 

[theluggage]

The fact that there are no M1 Pro chips in the desktop lineup is bizarre.

I think its about 6 months too late to release a M1 Pro mini or 24" iMac: There are rumours of M2 (non-Pro) machines coming Real Soon Now - including definitely possibly maybe a M2 Mini - and the regular M2 is reputed to have 20-30% faster single-core performance and maybe extra GPU cores c.f. the M1. I'm not saying that the M2 is going to "beat" the full M1 Pro, but it could give it a run for its money and it could easily be a better all-rounder than the binned, 8 CPU/12 GPU M1 Pro.

 

[theluggage]

Keep in mind that in the EU, the studio combi seems to be about 30% more expensive than in the US.

In the UK - not EU any more, I know, but the tax system hasn't diverged much yet - most published prices include 20% VAT (sales tax) which most businesses don't pay (not sure about schools) - so in theory you take the dollar price, divide by 1.3 to get (optimistic) pounds then multiply by 1.2 to add the tax to get the inclusive price.

In practice you take the dollar price, cross of the '$' and write '£' - a sad fact that has been true of most US imports since forever, even when the tax wasn't included in the printed price and the pound was closer to $2.... Now, it's not far from being fair (there are import costs - the guy who goes through MacOS adding the 'u' to 'Colour' has to eat ) - also, with longer mandatory warranties it's not so essential to buy AppleCare.

 

[Blue Sun]

I don't see a 30" iMac coming this summer or ever. The 27" model seems to be dead, but Apple could revive it at any time, but I wouldn't expect it anytime soon.

I get the feeling that Apple are allowing the Mac Studio some product space to breathe and establish itself. I can see the larger iMac, maybe even the iMac Pro, returning in the next year or so.

 

[MajorFubar]

So in summary, to configure an apple silicon setup to replace the 27 inch iMac (and get similar/slightly improved performance) you’re having to spend an extra £750, and for this you lose the all in one design and the ability to upgrade ram and storage down the line. You can argue whether the studio display is overpriced or if the previous iMac was hideously good value, but either way - it sucks now.

With regards to the upgrade issue, I'm 100% certain you would have lost that anyway. Apple have yet to show us how they intend to make an M-series Mac upgradable in any way. I guess we'll find out when the M-series Mac Pro arrives, which we know is coming because they said so on March 8th. Pro users won't settle for a completely closed environment, that's for sure.

 

[Zendokan]

I wanted a new iMac 27" with an M1 Pro 32 processor, it would have been a great prosumer system.
Apple didn't provide it, so I did what I wrote in my signature:

Replaced my 2011 MBP 17" i7 by a 2022 MBP 16" M1 MAX 64
Replaced my 2010 iMac 27" i5 by a LG 27" UltraFine 5K screen after the 08-03-2022 (EDF) Apple Event.

So Apple could only sell me 1 new machine (MBP) instead of two and sponsored a 3rd party for the rest of my new set-up.

 

[Bodhitree]

For the $1800 - $2300 27" Intel iMacs, it rather depends what you think is a worthwhile upgrade. The way I'd look at it is that the old $1800 i5 27" iMac was roughly equivalent, CPU wise, to the $1100 i5 Mini so it "felt like" you were getting the screen, speakers, webcam, keyboard and mouse for about $700. That deal is over.

Even if you decide that a base $700 M1 Mini + studio display is a "worthy upgrade" from an i5 iMac, you're paying $2500 (don't forget about $200 for a keyboard and mouse/trackpad). It probably is "worthy" CPU wise - but while the GPU thrashes the Intel Integrated in the old Mini it might not quite be so impressive c.f. the old iMac discrete graphics. You're also a bit swings-and-roundabouts on I/O and monitor support - fewer external displays, fewer USB 3 ports vs. better TB3 bandwidth on the M1, and the 10GB Ethernet option.

If you're looking at a top-end (but non-pro) iMac then the Studio Max plus Studio Display is pretty much the same as you used to pay for an iMac with the best CPU, best GPU and 32GB of RAM. Likewise, the Studio Ultra + Studio Display (or cheaper alternative) seems like a reasonable substitute for the iMac Pro (esp. with the 20 CPU core Ultra vs. the 18 core Xeon option that used to cost $7000+)

The downer is that the display panel is pretty much the same as you got 4 years ago, too (just 100 nuts brighter which may not even be helpful)....

What seems to be really missing are (a) the lowest-end 5k iMac and (b) a half-way house between the Mini and the Studio Max (to pair with either the Studio display or a third party unit). That would have been a M1 Pro in either Mini or Studio style. Personally, if that's what you needed, I'd pin my hopes on a (regular) M2 Mini appearing which is likely to offer better bangs-per-buck than the M1 Pro until/unless a M2 Pro appears.

I think the problem with the future of the iMac is that while some people like the all-in-one-ness of the iMac, others prefer the flexibility to chose your own displays offered by the Mini and Studio - so you'd have the Mini, Studio and iMac competing for the mid-range desktop market, and Apple don't like competing with themselves.

Good summary of where things stand. I think the idea was that a lot of the non-Pro users who were upgrading from a 27” iMac and wanted a larger display could get a Studio Display and pair it with an M1 Mac Mini. You’d be paying 3230 euros for a 16/512 config with keyboard and magic mouse, so still about 1200 euros more than the same config as a 24” iMac, which is quite a lot to pay for 3” of screen space at Retina resolution.

But you’d have the advantage that a lot of your investment would last beyond the lifetime of Mac OS updates to the M1 Mac Mini, since the screen is relatively future proof. Now if the screen had been mini LED for that price I might have been tempted, if I was in the market for a new computer.

 

[Andrew73875]

think the idea was that a lot of the non-Pro users who were upgrading from a 27” iMac and wanted a larger display could get a Studio Display and pair it with an M1 Mac Mini.

But these are just different product categories. iMac is an all-in-one solution which is good for certain things. And Mac mini/Mac Studio/Mac Pro are stand alone computers which are good for other things.

Here's a good explainer:

iMac should come in both 24" and 27", as any other Apple product does: Mac Books (14" an 16") iPads and iPhones.

iMac is an all-in-one solution which is simply the best on the market. It offers a simple setup (just plug it in) and all necessary accessories (keyboard, mouse etc). I hope to see 27" model coming soon.

 

[theluggage]

since the screen is relatively future proof. Now if the screen had been mini LED for that price I might have been tempted, if I was in the market for a new computer.

...and that, I think, is the major source of disappointment with the Studio Display. It is undoubtably a very nice screen today, there's only one other display - the LG - that offers that 5k sweet spot for MacOS, but its hard to get around the fact that it's just the same panel you could get in 2017 with slightly brighter LEDs, but no miniLED or other local dimming, which makes it hard to be confident that it's going to be an investment for the next 10 years.

 

[Onimusha370]

...and that, I think, is the major source of disappointment with the Studio Display. It is undoubtably a very nice screen today, there's only one other display - the LG - that offers that 5k sweet spot for MacOS, but its hard to get around the fact that it's just the same panel you could get in 2017 with slightly brighter LEDs, but no miniLED or other local dimming, which makes it hard to be confident that it's going to be an investment for the next 10 years.

Agreed. It’s not a million miles off the panel from my 2014 5k imac (Slightly better colour and brightness). To have so little progress in display options in 8 years is really disappointing.

 

[Bodhitree]

But these are just different product categories. iMac is an all-in-one solution which is good for certain things. And Mac mini/Mac Studio/Mac Pro are stand alone computers which are good for other things.

Here's a good explainer:

iMac should come in both 24" and 27", as any other Apple product does: Mac Books (14" an 16") iPads and iPhones.

iMac is an all-in-one solution which is simply the best on the market. It offers a simple setup (just plug it in) and all necessary accessories (keyboard, mouse etc). I hope to see 27" model coming soon.

Great to see Jobs onstage actually lowering the price of products to stay competitive.

I think in order to stay relevant in todays computing market Apple does need to compete on price, and I’m a little disappointed that they are not using the Apple Silicon advantage to offer best-in-price-class products. The 24” iMac is a touch too expensive for the entry-level market, and the combo of Studio Display and Mac Mini is expensive and not competitive in terms of performance.

 

[Andrew73875]

The 24” iMac is a touch too expensive for the entry-level market, and the combo of Studio Display and Mac Mini is expensive and not competitive in terms of performance.

Agree. iMac with the 512 GB base storage and priced at $1099 would be a huge hit. (Also bring back the old design. It was way more elegant. Especially the iMac's stand and black bezels). Maybe they can put less powerful CPU to make it cheaper than the higher end models. Everyday users care more about storage capacity rather than powerful chips.

Similar thing happened to MacBook Air. It was the most popular and affordable model starting 2011. But then it became too expensive. As soon as Apple lowered the price to $999 it became a huge hit again.

 

[bsbeamer]

Personally do not see how Apple can continue to make their environmentally friendly claims and expect people to toss perfectly good 24”-30” 4K/5K+ monitors just to update SoC guts every 2-5 years when it can all be connected via single cable. Probably only matter of time before a MacMini system is small and light enough to magnetically stick to back of an iMac style monitor with MagSafe like connection.

 

[bluespark]

I think it’s clear that the Studio Display and Mac Studio together is intended to replace the 27” iMac. It’s a more modular setup in a time where you might want to replace your Mac Studio when an M2 Max or M2 Ultra comes out. It’s a new world where the Studio Display is a long-term investment, while the Mac Studio depreciates more quickly.

What I find disappointing is that Apple has completely overshot the price point. A 27” iMac with 6 core Intel i5 base config used to sell for 1999 euro’s, while a Mac Studio with Studio Display sells for 4108 euros. That’s a big hole in the product lineup for a semi-pro machine, which could be bought by those who need a little extra power and display room.

John Ternus said in the March special event, “there is one more Mac to update to Apple Silicon, and that is the Mac Pro.” To me that is a clear sign that there will be no in-between 27” iMac at a 2000 euro price point featuring M1 Pro, and instead Apple is creating a division in their machine lineup, making a clear distinction between Pro machines (which benefit from Pro, Max and Ultra chips and 32 GB or more of RAM and a larger number of ports) and consumer machines (which run the base M1, 8 or 16 GB of RAM and limited numbers of ports and external screens).

The whole point of course being to charge what the market will bear for the Pro machines, as they are doing for iPhone Pro and iPad Pro.

Bingo: The purpose of Ternus's statement was to cut off any expectations about a new iMac. That's not to say the 24" won't be updated at some point -- it almost certainly will (although not anytime soon). But I think it's clear that the 27" studio display is the successor to the larger-format iMacs.

 

[icemantx]

But I think it's clear that the 27" studio display is the successor to the larger-format iMacs.

Until it’s not (cough, cough, video ipod, trash can Mac Pro). That said, I can’t see apple introducing a higher end iMac with a larger screen any time soon.

 

[Bodhitree]

Bingo: The purpose of Ternus's statement was to cut off any expectations about a new iMac. That's not to say the 24" won't be updated at some point -- it almost certainly will (although not anytime soon). But I think it's clear that the 27" studio display is the successor to the larger-format iMacs.

Yes, absolutely. It’s not a bad strategy, but the pricing seems a little over the top. Ideally you’d want a Studio Display and an M1 Mac Mini to come in at the same price as the base spec 27” iMac, but that would mean that the Studio Display should cost about 1100 euros.

That the actual price is some 600 euros more is significant, that’s the price of an entire PC. I do wonder about that decision. Similarly, that there is no M1 Pro Mac Mini is also kind of telling. Apple still sells the high end Mac Mini with 6-core Intel i5 or i7 processor and up to 64 GB of ram. That Mini with an i7, 32 gb of ram and 512 gb storage is nearly the same price as the base spec Mac Studio, which is also 32/512.

I thought the video of Steve Jobs introducing the first Aluminum iMac and lowering the price at the same time was quite inspirational, but it was at a different point in Apple’s history. They had just introduced the iphone, and now the iphone has transformed the financial landscape of the company. They are no longer reliant on the Mac division’s income to sustain the company, and so they don’t need a laser focus on putting out competitive products.

 

[DSTOFEL]

……What I find disappointing is that Apple has completely overshot the price point. A 27” iMac with 6 core Intel i5 base config used to sell for 1999 euro’s, while a Mac Studio with Studio Display sells for 4108 euros. That’s a big hole in the product lineup for a semi-pro machine, which could be bought by those who need a little extra power and display room…..

…….Apple is creating a division in their machine lineup, making a clear distinction between Pro machines (which benefit from Pro, Max and Ultra chips and 32 GB or more of RAM and a larger number of ports) and consumer machines (which run the base M1, 8 or 16 GB of RAM and limited numbers of ports and external screens)……

+1 I just recently (3 weeks) replaced my 2015 27 inch i5 (2TB fusion) iMac. I went back/forth between whether to get the 24 inch iMac or the new Studio/Studio display. In the end, I went for a refurbished (from Apple) 24 inch 16GB, 512 SSD for $1,609 USD. For my use case (ie mainly Lightroom, a little Photoshop and the occasional FCP) it just works and will probably work just fine for 5 yrs. I just couldn’t justify the price jump to the Studio/Studio display for my use case.

 

[bluespark]

Yes, absolutely. It’s not a bad strategy, but the pricing seems a little over the top. Ideally you’d want a Studio Display and an M1 Mac Mini to come in at the same price as the base spec 27” iMac, but that would mean that the Studio Display should cost about 1100 euros.

That the actual price is some 600 euros more is significant, that’s the price of an entire PC. I do wonder about that decision. Similarly, that there is no M1 Pro Mac Mini is also kind of telling. Apple still sells the high end Mac Mini with 6-core Intel i5 or i7 processor and up to 64 GB of ram. That Mini with an i7, 32 gb of ram and 512 gb storage is nearly the same price as the base spec Mac Studio, which is also 32/512.

I thought the video of Steve Jobs introducing the first Aluminum iMac and lowering the price at the same time was quite inspirational, but it was at a different point in Apple’s history. They had just introduced the iphone, and now the iphone has transformed the financial landscape of the company. They are no longer reliant on the Mac division’s income to sustain the company, and so they don’t need a laser focus on putting out competitive products.

Good post. Completely agree.

 

[FreemanW]

Just upgraded my late 2014 5k iMac to a crucial 2TB SSD and went from 16GB to 32GB of RAM. Why upgrade a nearly 8 year old iMac? Simple reason actually. The current iMac is not the replacement for my 27” iMac I have been looking for and the studio + studio display is just too expensive for my use case.

I can keep going as it is until Big Sur is no longer supported in late 2023. Hopefully later this year new or upgraded products will be introduced that I can see as a good upgrade path for my use. If not, the wait my continue until I simply can’t wait anymore and will have to choose from what is available. I will never go back to Windows.

A little over one year ago, I replaced the 128 GB Apple proprietary SSD with a 1 TB and the 3 TB Seagate with a 4 TB Samsung and created a 5 TB Fusion in my late 2012 that has always had 32 GB of RAM since just prior to the power cord meeting it.
Pretty much the same reasons. I am disgusted with the planned obsolescence and the churning of capitalism, but that is life on the insane orb.
The Mac Studio with the M1 Ultra, 128 GB & 4 Tb + a Studio Monitor is one absurd price point ---- and if it weren't for the brainwashing and programming (with a pinch of valid logic) around the latest greatest bleeding edge hardware ----- would make some of the top end iMacs (Pro or otherwise) on the Refurbished side look like steals.
As for the 24" iMac . . . . . IMHO, Apple is going after the Walmart/Costco/WorstBuy/OfficeDepot crowd with this platform. A very stylish design for someone's expensive email / typewriter.

 

[FreemanW]

. . . . . oh, did you want a keyboard and mouse with that $8,100 computer setup?

Thank you, yes.

Okay, that'll be another $270, and Thank You . . . . . sucker

 

[AL2TEACH]

Great to see Jobs onstage actually lowering the price of products to stay competitive.

I think in order to stay relevant in todays computing market Apple does need to compete on price, and I’m a little disappointed that they are not using the Apple Silicon advantage to offer best-in-price-class products. The 24” iMac is a touch too expensive for the entry-level market, and the combo of Studio Display and Mac Mini is expensive and not competitive in terms of performance.

This most likely will never happen because Apple has to always make more profit every quarter to placate Wall Street and investors. Product/customers are second while profit margin is number one now. It's a sad state of affairs that all big companies chose to follow, aaahhh, the love of money. Nothing wrong with profit at all but there comes a point where it's gross/greed. okay, I will stop lol.