Has Apple forgotten the iMac?

[MisterK]

Apple has a problem with a bloated lineup and I like that they've once again made the iMac into a home/family computer as was originally intended. It allows them to be purposeful with design and targeting. Fun colours and consumer specs at a good price. The aluminum and industrial design language iMac they did for 10 years was unfocused and had to cater to grandma and kids and also to a creative director. By targeting the iMac it allows Apple space in their lineup to make professional desktops that are sleek and powerful. Grandma has a more suitable computer made just for her and so does the Creative Director. I hope they continue this focus to their laptops. It doesn't make sense that the Air is both an entry level laptop for a grade 6 student who wants Apple's cheapest laptop and for a C-suite exec, paid six figures, who doesn't need the power of a MacBook Pro. Apple should make an entry level laptop (like the iBooks of old) that is fun and colourful, and more rugged – the laptop version of the iMac. Something I can buy my kids. Then the sleek aluminum, industrial unibody Air can be for executives.

A lot is made of the simplicity of Steve Jobs' 4 quadrant matrix of mobile/desktop/consumer/pro computers.... I don't think that'll cut it any more. The market is now too big, but some restraint is necessary to make the lineup make sense and for people to know which computer is for them and for Apple to make the best decisions for various targets. How about this:

1. Entry Level "family" Laptop/Desktop
   • Fun, Colourful, Not too expensive, Durable
2. Pro "Workhorse" Laptop/Desktop
   • No concessions (for thinness), lots of ports, performance is paramount.
3. Luxury "Executive" Laptop/Desktop
   • Luxury is and portability is paramount. Give this one LTE, make it thin, Give it exclusive finishes.

 

[skylar3]

Apple has a problem with a bloated lineup and I like that they've once again made the iMac into a home/family computer as was originally intended. It allows them to be purposeful with design and targeting. Fun colours and consumer specs at a good price. The aluminum and industrial design language iMac they did for 10 years was unfocused and had to cater to grandma and kids and also to a creative director. By targeting the iMac it allows Apple space in their lineup to make professional desktops that are sleek and powerful. Grandma has a more suitable computer made just for her and so does the Creative Director. I hope they continue this focus to their laptops. It doesn't make sense that the Air is both an entry level laptop for a grade 6 student who wants Apple's cheapest laptop and for a C-suite exec, paid six figures, who doesn't need the power of a MacBook Pro. Apple should make an entry level laptop (like the iBooks of old) that is fun and colourful, and more rugged – the laptop version of the iMac. Something I can buy my kids. Then the sleek aluminum, industrial unibody Air can be for executives.

I agree, the example of the MBA demonstrates all the problematic. Before the new Air, it was clear: M1 MBA for consumers/students, M1Pro/MAX MBP for professionals or prosumers. However, I kind of believe that Apple is moving in the direction where "entry level" means "old hardware which is still capable" and everything else is available if you pay a higher price.

This has already happened with the iPhone (where the regular has an old processor and the SE a very old design), the MBA (where you must buy a 2020 model if you don't have much money to spend), the iPad (where the basic one has become more expensive, forcing people to buy the old 9th gen if they want the cheapest model).

 

[krazzix]

The first computer I bought was an iMac in 1998, and the last one I bought was the iMac from 2020. I also bought one in 2002 and 2011. And I bought a Macbook in 2006 because I traveled a lot that time.

So I hope my next computer will also be an iMac. I would hate it if it would only be a 'consumer' iMac and the only other option is a Mac Studio which is far more expensive and not an all-in-one which I want.

 

[theluggage]

A lot is made of the simplicity of Steve Jobs' 4 quadrant matrix of mobile/desktop/consumer/pro computers.... I don't think that'll cut it any more.

...apart from being invalidated by the expansion & diversification of the "mobile" category, people tend to forget that the "matrix" was designed for a company on the verge of bankruptcy, and also partly a reaction to the Mac "Performa" range which is (probably literally) the textbook example of a bloated product lineup.

I agree, the example of the MBA demonstrates all the problematic. Before the new Air, it was clear: M1 MBA for consumers/students, M1Pro/MAX MBP for professionals or prosumers.

I'd like to think that was a temporary situation necessitated by supply uncertainties in the lead-up to the "Back To School" season ("back to school" + 3 month lead time on shiny new MBAs would have been a disaster) - but, as you say, it matches the iPhone policy so it may be here to stay.

One key thing that has changed since "the matrix" is the increase in sales numbers - making affordable electronics (and/or maintaining high margins) is hugely dependent on economies of scale - and if, like Apple, you've got an international supply chain to keep fed, those volumes have to be pretty high. If the overall market is small, you can't afford to split it between too many different models. A larger market allows for more diversity - today Apple is selling shedloads of consumer laptops so it's not such a problem to have 3 overlapping models (M1 MBA, M2 MBA, 13" MBP).

I suspect Apple are finding that Apple Silicon has removed some much-needed product differentiation - even the "entry level" M1 MacBook Air is now massive overkill for general "personal productivity" computing, and perfectly capable of demanding tasks up to "prosumer" level - like HD video editing, audio production... or having more than 4 tabs open in the browser (bookmarks, folks, bookmarks...). The benefits of the Pro/Max variants are very much dependent on needing (a) more than 16-24GB of RAM and/or (b) running pro software that can actually use "more of the same" CPU and GPU cores. So, maybe it makes sense to keep the M1 around as the entry-level processor.

Whether Apple's desktop market is large enough to allow that sort of product overlap is anybody's guess - but it's likely much smaller and (as discussed earlier in this thread) will probably shrink further since Apple Silicon has largely obliterated the performance advantages of low-to-mid range desktops over laptops.

The desktop lineup is really quite straightforward now:

Entry: Mac Mini ("BYOKDM")
Mid: 24" iMac (which can now take on much that the midrange 5k iMacs used to do)
High: Mac Studio + choice of displays (even with Studio Display added, still competitive with the old high-end iMacs)

...it remains to be seen whether the 2019 Mac Pro will get a "like-for-like" replacement.

 

[Boidem]

Apple has a problem with a bloated lineup and I like that they've once again made the iMac into a home/family computer as was originally intended. It allows them to be purposeful with design and targeting. Fun colours and consumer specs at a good price. The aluminum and industrial design language iMac they did for 10 years was unfocused and had to cater to grandma and kids and also to a creative director. By targeting the iMac it allows Apple space in their lineup to make professional desktops that are sleek and powerful. Grandma has a more suitable computer made just for her and so does the Creative Director.

Yes. I remember the first iMac coming out to cries of 'oh but you can't upgrade it!' from many techynerds. I actually did 'upgrade' my iMac; it ended up with max RAM (1GB!!), and I swapped the HDD from 20GB to a much larger 80Gb one. I had no need of upgrading the graphics card or anything else really. I just loved the AIO form factor, and the simplicity of the thing. It's funny because friends would ask 'but where's the computer?', and I've had 2 friends repeat exactly that recently with my new M1 iMac! 'But it's just a screen??' It is so pretty. So thin!!! The ONE issue I have with its design is that I can't mount it flush on a wall, because of the power and other cables. But hey. It has a headphone socket! It's gorgeous and I love it.

 

[Gudi]

I think the most interesting aspect of the new iMacs is that you can't buy wrong (except for the color). Up until 2019 you could order the small iMac with a hard drive, fusion drive, or flash drive. And three different kinds of Intel CPUs i3/i5/i7, each with a different cache size, core count and clock speed. Also three different graphic cards and three memory sizes. Today even the 7-core gpu M1 is almost identical in performance to the most expensive 24" iMac money can buy or upgrade to. A spinning drive and fewer cpu cores are noticeable right from the moment you push the power button. But memory and storage size come into play way later on, if even at all. You buy them, because you feel better with more headroom. Not because you know, running the cheapest iMac with a 5400rpm HDD absolutely sucks.

 

[haddy]

I recently visited an office where they previously relied solely on iMacs, and it was weird to see some replaced by Mac Studios and studio Displays. For the one, they didn't look so nice and then they were s bit of overkill for the desired use. However, with the current line-up, there is no other alternative.

Oh well I'm big into "overkill". I have both a 2020(20.2) iMac maxed out, plus a Studio ultra maxed out with the apple Studio Display. I now use the Studio ultra all the time, and that is for browsing (Brave), email (Airmail). Also the 6 Thunderbolt ports on the Studio ultra are great for all my external SSDs.

 

[wilberforce]

I think the most interesting aspect of the new iMacs is that you can't buy wrong (except for the color). Up until 2019 you could order the small iMac with a hard drive, fusion drive, or flash drive. And three different kinds of Intel CPUs i3/i5/i7, each with a different cache size, core count and clock speed. Also three different graphic cards and three memory sizes. Today even the 7-core gpu M1 is almost identical in performance to the most expensive 24" iMac money can buy or upgrade to. A spinning drive and fewer cpu cores are noticeable right from the moment you push the power button. But memory and storage size come into play way later on, if even at all. You buy them, because you feel better with more headroom. Not because you know, running the cheapest iMac with a 5400rpm HDD absolutely sucks.

yeah, the base non-retina 21.5" iMac with HD and i3 was cheap, but terrible value for money. Intended really for kids and schools, I'm sure some unsuspecting people with little money bought them and thereafter concluded that Macs suck.

 

[thingstoponder]

I think the market has shifted considerably since the original iMac all those years (decades!) ago. Most consumers buy laptops now (which seems so weird to me -- I haven't owned a laptop since 2010!) and so the focus is on that form factor. The iMac's role has been subsumed by the MacBook Air. I miss the attention lavished on it, too -- typing this right now on my trusty 2015 27", which has no replacement in the current line-up.

I just bought a refurb 2020 iMac. You can get a great computer for not much money, especially considering the cost of standalone 5k displays. Even a base model can be had for 1299 new at Best Buy now. I’d rather have that than an M1. I love the 5k display.

It should be a great machine for the next few years while the Mac continues to transition and Intel macs are no longer supported. It will also be a windows gaming machine.

 

[mr_jomo]

Apple has a problem with a bloated lineup and I like that they've once again made the iMac into a home/family computer as was originally intended. It allows them to be purposeful with design and targeting. Fun colours and consumer specs at a good price. The aluminum and industrial design language iMac they did for 10 years was unfocused and had to cater to grandma and kids and also to a creative director. By targeting the iMac it allows Apple space in their lineup to make professional desktops that are sleek and powerful. Grandma has a more suitable computer made just for her and so does the Creative Director. I hope they continue this focus to their laptops. It doesn't make sense that the Air is both an entry level laptop for a grade 6 student who wants Apple's cheapest laptop and for a C-suite exec, paid six figures, who doesn't need the power of a MacBook Pro. Apple should make an entry level laptop (like the iBooks of old) that is fun and colourful, and more rugged – the laptop version of the iMac. Something I can buy my kids. Then the sleek aluminum, industrial unibody Air can be for executives.

A lot is made of the simplicity of Steve Jobs' 4 quadrant matrix of mobile/desktop/consumer/pro computers.... I don't think that'll cut it any more. The market is now too big, but some restraint is necessary to make the lineup make sense and for people to know which computer is for them and for Apple to make the best decisions for various targets. How about this:

1. Entry Level "family" Laptop/Desktop
   • Fun, Colourful, Not too expensive, Durable
2. Pro "Workhorse" Laptop/Desktop
   • No concessions (for thinness), lots of ports, performance is paramount.
3. Luxury "Executive" Laptop/Desktop
   • Luxury is and portability is paramount. Give this one LTE, make it thin, Give it exclusive finishes.

That's a pretty good way to segment the marked - essentially how Microsoft has done it with their Surface line of devices. OK, maybe Microsoft lost a bit of cohesion by letting the Surface Studio 2 AIO fall behind spec. wise, but still pretty close.

How would we then categorize Apple's current line-up in these 3 brackets:

1: mac Mini M1, iMac 24" and macBook Air M1
2: macBook M1 pros 14 and 16", as well as the mac Studios
3: macBook Air M2 and TBD "desktop"

Given the mac Studio and the complementing displays now fill the previous 27"'s spot in bracket 2, it's probably a good guess Apple will launch a M2+ based iMac 27"+ as a luxury machine into category 3? Maybe a new 27" could be shoehorned into 2, but Apple would have to price it around USD 2.500 to not compete with the mac Studio sub-segment.

 

[johannnn]

The iMac was once the desktop device that put apple back in the game of computing

This was before laptops started to rule the earth. Which teenager wants a computer that they can't move? In 2022?

Furthermore, the smaller model has not been updated since the m1 cpu, so it is basically slower than the m2 iPad Pro..

M2 seems to have incremental upgrades only. I don't see any problem with bi-annual updates to the iMac. And a comparison to something that runs iOS seems unnecessary, it's iOS lol.

 

[bushman4]

Have a feeling a 27” iMac Pro or iMac Ultra is in the works Not every office works on Laptops or Mac Studio. There is a need and demand
Hopefully we see it soon

 

[skylar3]

Have a feeling a 27” iMac Pro or iMac Ultra is in the works Not every office works on Laptops or Mac Studio. There is a need and demand
Hopefully we see it soon

it is possible, yet we don't know where this would be positioned in apples lineup. If it's similar in price to studio+studio display, it could possibly lead in fewer sales of those.

Maybe the perfect iMac 27 (or whatever "bigger" screen size) would be M2pro/max with integrated studio display. Just a step down from Mac Studio, just a step up from Mac mini.

 

[Boidem]

This was before laptops started to rule the earth. Which teenager wants a computer that they can't move? In 2022?

Teenagers don't really buy Apple Macs, unless their parents buy them for them. Teenagers buy cheap laptops. But they do also buy Airpods, Apple Watches, and of course iPhones (or their parents do). Most teens are happy enough with a hand-me-down laptop or whatever. Most teens don't spend all that much time in front of larger screens than their 'phones. Teens aren't really a big part of Apple's compouter buying demographic. That's more people with a bit of money to spend (ie the parents). Apple's desktop customers are still an important part of their sales model. Desktops are still very important to many Apple customers.

Have a feeling a 27” iMac Pro or iMac Ultra is in the works Not every office works on Laptops or Mac Studio. There is a need and demand

Obviously there's a demand. And Apple are pretty good at seeing such things. The 24" iMac was released as a 'tester' to see if a lower end desktop was still viable in today's market. Obviously it still is. Now they have this information, they'll be working on a larger model, I have no doubt. There is a huge gap between the iMac and the Studio, so obvs Apple are going to cater for that. People need to stop worrying a be a little more patient. Good things come to those who wait...

 

[maflynn]

Do you think the iMac won't play any significant role in Apples lineup in the future?

The imac is largely a consumer device and its been updated with the M1. Apple did a stop gap move, in creating the iMAc Pro, because they failed to really address professional users and the aging trash can Mac Pro.

I'm not saying professionals never used the iMac but its largely a consumer device. I'd love to see a larger monitor on the iMac with more horse power so here's hoping 2023 will have that

 

[Pezimak]

But the current iMac will most likely get an M3 chip next year, which could be as powerful as an M1 Pro chip? It's clear Apple has purposely limited how it will use the M2, and so expect M3 next year in most of its lineup.
Makes it seem like a pretty good 'family' computer to me?

 

[okkibs]

Moving away from the iMac completely would be a good thing. Introducing the new 23.5" iMac just perpetuates the drawbacks of an AIO for no benefit over a Mini or Studio paired with the Studio Display. The only real advantage of the 27" Intel iMacs was their good pricing considering the 5k display panel.

Sure the pricing is way worse with the Mini/Studio and the Studio Display. But that's not a flaw of the design or an inherent drawback of not making it an AIO. It was just Apple's choice to price the mediocre Studio Display like that despite the existence of the LG UltraFine 5K.

How many threads have I read over the years where people asked if they can use their beautiful iMac's 5k display with a new Mac they bought, and realized they have to replace the perfectly working display just because it's an AIO. That negates some of the 27" Intel iMac pricing advantage, unless you keep the iMac for a long time. How long? I am still using a 4k monitor that's now 8 years old and I'll be using it until 30" miniLED displays become widely available. Most people would keep their displays longer than their computer, if possible.

On the other hand an 8 year old 5k iMac from 2014 would be entirely useless to me nowadays despite a flawless 5k panel.

You can see exactly where Apple is heading with the iMac when you look at the 23.5" M1 iMac. It's got yet another lackluster display panel and is limited to the maximum specs of a Macbook Air, anything beyond 250GB/8GiB is super pricey. This is an AIO desktop computer, if I am going to accept the drawbacks of that I want an option to go beyond 2TB/16GiB, I want at least the M1 Max that's in a Macbook and for that absurd pricing that would result I'd expect a 120Hz miniLED panel.

Otherwise I'd rather take the M1 Mini with the 5K Ultrafine. At least then I can actually keep that display for a long time and use it with my Macbook. Way more versatile and if anything it will be cheaper in the long term. And I can actually have a M1 Max/Ultra for a desktop computer, which I find more reasonable than a desktop computer that's slower than the 14" Macbook.

Maybe the perfect iMac 27 (or whatever "bigger" screen size) would be M2pro/max with integrated studio display. Just a step down from Mac Studio, just a step up from Mac mini.

And what stops anyone from buying a Mac Mini or Studio now, or later their M2 refreshes, with the 5k Ultrafine monitor today What advantage would that perfect 27" iMac of yours have? Don't say pricing, because a 32GiB/MAX iMac wouldn't be cheap in a world where Macs are still sold with 250GB/8GiB defaults going into 2023.

I can't even see the desk space limit as a valid point here, since a Mac Studio is already tiny (especially considering its performance). That was sometimes the reason for someone going for an iMac Pro over a Mac Pro in the past.

 

[Boidem]

Moving away from the iMac completely would be a good thing. Introducing the new 23.5" iMac just perpetuates the drawbacks of an AIO for no benefit over a Mini or Studio paired with the Studio Display.

No, sorry. The new 24" iMac is considerably cheaper than a MacMini and Studio display, spec for spec, even if the Studio display is larger. Plus smaller, lighter and uses less energy. Those are just 3 very significant benefits. So I don't knoiw what you're talking about really. I think too many people mistake personal preference for what Apple 'should do'. I've said this before; Apple know more about their market than anyone on here. I believe moving away from the iMac would be a very stupid move on Apple's part, considering the iMac is their best selling desktop computer...

You can see exactly where Apple is heading with the iMac when you look at the 23.5" M1 iMac. It's got yet another lackluster display panel

You're talking rubbish now. Best 24" display I've ever seen. 4.5k, same resolution as that fabled 5k display you're going on about, etc. Lackluster my arse! 🤣🍑

This isn't about YOU. Stop thinking it is. It's about a much, much wider market.

 

[theluggage]

No, sorry. The new 24" iMac is considerably cheaper than a MacMini and Studio display, spec for spec, even if the Studio display is larger.

Not wrong (the SD alone costs more than any of the base iMacs, duh!), but it doesn't make sense comparing a 24" display with a 27" display.

Closer is a Mac Mini + 24" LG Ultrafine 4k display, which comes in at $1400 c.f. $1500 for the 8-GPU iMac. Still, that's a slightly lower-res display ("4k" UHD @ 24" is still pretty good & "retina class" though) & no webcam, keyboard, mouse so yes, it's still more overall & not as neat and pretty.

What is true is that the Mac Studio + Studio Display combo comes in at exactly the sort of price you'd expect for a 10 core, 32GB iMac with a half-decent GPU and a lot cheaper than the iMac Pro was. So the price hike is only affecting the ~$2000 range previously occupied by the i5/i7 iMacs... and the real savings cut in 3-4 years down the line when you can upgrade the Mac and keep the display.

I believe moving away from the iMac would be a very stupid move on Apple's part, considering the iMac is their best selling desktop computer...

...but is it still their best selling desktop? ...and which iMac is the moneyspinner? My suspicion is that the 24" hits that spot and that a lot of former 5k iMac owners will prefer the Mini or Studio route - especially at the higher end where they may want to choose between a SD, XDR or different sizes and arrangements of 4k.

Plus, as I think I've already posted in this thread, Intel iMacs delivered significantly more performance than Intel MBPs. Not so with Apple Silicon - until you get to the M1 Ultra - so for many people there will no longer be a reason to get an iMac instead of/as well as an MacBook Pro. Laptops were already outselling desktops & desktop sales are only going to go down (relatively) so "best selling desktop" might not be such a big deal. Plus, the new improved "small" iMac, the Studio and the M1 Mini are all poaching 5k iMac customers.

The Studio Display isn't just a display for the Mac Studio - it's a docking station for a MacBook Pro, too. If it succeeds* then it could be a bigger money spinner than an iMac would be.

Basically, Apple did move away from the 27" iMac when they started selling displays again, although I think the 24" probably serves a role for people who want an all-in-one.

(* I could whinge about some of the SD features, but that's another thread).

 

[okkibs]

What is true is that the Mac Studio + Studio Display combo comes in at exactly the sort of price you'd expect for a 10 core, 32GB iMac with a half-decent GPU and a lot cheaper than the iMac Pro was. So the price hike is only affecting the ~$2000 range previously occupied by the i5/i7 iMacs... and the real savings cut in 3-4 years down the line when you can upgrade the Mac and keep the display.

Additionally, the cheaper iMacs came with spinning rust by default or alternatively a 250GB SSD. If you wanted to configure it with 500GB of Flash storage or more like the base model Studio, the pricing was already worse. And upgrading storage on iMacs isn't something customers would typically do, since it requires taking off the display which is one of the most difficult procedures for Macs.

The last Mac I had that came with a HDD was a Macbook in 2012 and I switched that out for a SSD on day one. Among the very top of customer complaints about iMacs is "why is this brand new Mac slower than my old Windows computer?" and the reason is always the HDD.

Once you compare pricing to a Mac Studio with the LG Ultrafine 5K instead of the Studio Display, pricing is very reasonable (as the Ultrafine costs just half as much and includes a VESA mount). And for many, the Mini will do bringing the price down even further.

The choices of Mini/Studio configurations and support for virtually all displays on the market makes me wonder why anyone would shed a tear for the 27" Intel iMac. It did have a great 5k panel included for the price though.

 

[JerryDon]

To all of the above people - Thank goodness for OpenCore. Still loving my Late 2012 27" (running Ventura 13.0). Although Apple Dev's are busting their ass to make it tougher with each OS upgrade/update. I wouldn't have a wimpy-assed (not quite 24)" monolithic offering.

 

[skylar3]

The Apple silicon iMac Pro we want might arrive in 2023

A new report claims Apple is working on a new model with a ProMotion display and M2 Pro/Max chip.

www.macworld.com

 

[rpmurray]

it is possible, yet we don't know where this would be positioned in apples lineup. If it's similar in price to studio+studio display, it could possibly lead in fewer sales of those.

Maybe the perfect iMac 27 (or whatever "bigger" screen size) would be M2pro/max with integrated studio display. Just a step down from Mac Studio, just a step up from Mac mini.

The Mac Studio is an oddball. I think Apple had to throw that out there when they couldn't deliver the Mx Mac Pro fast enough, so it's sort of in the position that the iMac Pro was in before the 2019 Mac Pro was released. I'm sure that once the Mx Mac Pro is released Apple will treat the Mac Studio like a red-headed stepchild, much like how they didn't do much upgrading with the iMac Pro. They can then deliver to us the larger new Mx iMac that the Studio Display was supposed to be before they replaced the logic board with an iPhone, and tried to pretend that it was supposed to be a stand-alone display all along. Which is pretty obvious when you look at the specs.

 

[ignatius345]

Another very important factor that many on here seem to miss, is price. The first iMacs were I think starting around £600-700, so around £1050-1250 now. The base M1 iMac is currently £1250. The most recent base model 27" iMac was £1799. So significantly more.

No. Significantly less. You're not adjusting your figures for inflation.

That first iMac came out about 20 years ago. Here in the US, the iMac G3 was priced at $1299. That's almost $2400 here in 2022, which is a solid $1100 more than the current 24" iMac M1 sells for right now.

So, in fact iMacs (and indeed all Macs) have gotten massively cheaper over the years.

 

[Spock]

No. Significantly less. You're not adjusting your figures for inflation.

That first iMac came out about 20 years ago. Here in the US, the iMac G3 was priced at $1299. That's almost $2400 here in 2022, which is a solid $1100 more than the current 24" iMac M1 sells for right now.

So, in fact iMacs (and indeed all Macs) have gotten massively cheaper over the years.

I paid $1499 for a clamshell iBook in 2001 the alternative was the $2599 PowerBook G4.