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.
I love the 27" iMac. It should not come back.
- Thread starter redheeler
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In our company, client requests come via email notification so it’s imperative to respond to emails within 20 minutes. There is just so much going on with several programs that operating on a single screen is basically not an option.
This makes no sense. Loyal customers are your best advertising and always have been. There is nothing more powerful than word-of-mouth advertising.
Those older customers have employees and children who are influenced by the decisions of their mentors. Operating a trillion dollar company based on the mindset of kids while ignoring the loyal, and profitable customer base is the definition of hubris.
As I said before, if you make the Mac unusable in the most important roles in an organization, you remove the barrier towards moving that entire organization to PC. This is why I feel the Mac Pro is so important. When the Mac Pro was the best machine money could buy, it used to be the very reason why so many people are moving to Mac, as having the media editor or graphics designer on Mac helped move the business manager, the receptionist the various executive, and not executive assistants, and even the accountant, to Mac. I was part of this change in our regional office. Now, with Apple not focused on fulfilling the roles of professionals, we are seeing a return to PC.
It certainly seems that Apple has abandoned the decades-long practice of the Apple ecosystem in favor of only investing in the most popular product lines. What is missing is that this ecosystem is a sales multiplier which dictates that while you might only sell a handful of Pro computers to an organization, having that organization on the Mac will increase sales of your other devices too.
Apple has been losing sales numbers for years and largely has done little to correct the problem.
Is Apple no longer interested in the Mac…?
Last edited:
I can confess what I said carries lots of hate towards Apple, but everyone is entitled to their own (mostly useless) opinions, so whatever.
Apple cares about Mac, just not in ways established user base want. Transition to Apple Silicon doesn’t come with no cost. Obsession with efficiency is good, but demanding workflows want job to be done fast, not slowly albeit extremely efficiently.
It has been apparent to me that Apple considers iPhone their gateway device (replacing iPod) instead of Mac, and most people probably won’t touch a laptop/desktop of any sort for a very long time. Mac, being still niche, now even more so (losing native Windows support), certainly disappoints folks who just want one machine to do everything. Is it good or bad? Only time will tell.
Yes the 24" iMac is solid in terms of performance and impressive but lets not fool ourselves - its a 23.5 inch screen and 4.5K not 5K and that difference in screen size is too much to loose - sorry - but why couldn't Apple put a similar configuration in a 27 inch chassis - Apple seriously, its just not good enough and as a long term customer over 30 years + I can only assume your happy about pissing off a portion of your loyal customer base!
Like someone else said, it's probably just because they want to sell their expensive Studio and Studio Display option instead, as it's way more lucrative.
I think the only flaw in your logic here is your talking about a base i5 iMac with a top end Max chip having wildly differing performance levels so comparing doesn't really work.
What I do agree with is that Apple is completely ripping the p*ss out of users who need ram. I could get away with a pro chip but I need 64gb of ram as a minimum as described earlier.
Putting 128gb of ram in a 2020 27" iMac is £334 from crucial
Apple wants £1000 to go from 32gb to 96gb on the Studio Max
£2700 to go from 32gb to 128gb!
Its literal insanity.
Because they have baked it into the architecture you have to play the ladder game, more ram more CPU more GPU. Thats not a Anyone that needs ram and as I said earlier if you are a pro it's so easy to saturate ram. Again im a graphic designer and photographer cpu needs are not crazy but the creative suite can completely saturate ram 64gb is not a lot when you are working and multitasking with productivity tools.
They have you bent over a barrel that 32gb to 128gb ram upgrade £2700 is more than the top end 2020 build to order iMac.
Its no suprise apple silicon is faster but considering the m1 is nearly as quick as the 3.6 Core i9 (I9-10910) in the BTO 2020 iMac its has got to the point where the speed of these chips is hugely overkill for the normal user.
Its ram, if you can do you work with 16 fine but the 2020 can go up to 128gb and as ive said it doesn't matter how fast the chip is, if your a heavy ram user the chip is not the bottleneck but the ram and its shared with your GPU. Those benchmarks dont tell the whole story and if your multitasking you might find the difference isnt all that different because of the speed of the swap and the lack of ram.
You cant defy the laws of physics.
Apple has gimped these chips because of it. If you want more than 64gb then you have to buy the highest end Max chip and the cost goes from £2299 for the base studio with 32gbs up to £4999 thats a £2700 increase. 128gb of ram on the 2020 is £335.
Justify that one.
Also when you compare ports it's worse missing USB A and SD and half the ports arent thunderbolt. The 24" is even more an appliance than the 27" was because once youve ordered it your done.
Spec the 24" with 24gbs and 1tb and your at £2400 which is a lot of money for a non pro machine. The Studio is £2299 with 32gbs and the Max chip.
The whole pricing structure is a mess.
Main draw of the 27 is you could replace most of the components if you needed too and it was the last available desktop Mac apple sold unless you had 15k+ to spend on a Mac Pro that was no faster.
16:9 on anything less than 27" - bleurggh! Once you get to 27", 16:9 passes my litmus test of being able to display an A4 page at actual size, but even if DTP is getting so last century, more lines of text/code, more horizontal tool bars for a given screen width, is better. As you say, 16:9 is great for TV (except... more and more high-end TV shows now use wider ratios and come with black bars even on 16:9) but even for video production more vertical space for toolbars, timelines etc. is useful. At least the 24" iMac is 16:10 which is a bit better.
My Mac Studio setup has a pair of Huawei 3:2 4K+ (3840 × 2560) displays - think the width (and bulk) of a 27" screen with another 2" vertical space. Personally, I gladly accept the slight compromise in display quality c.f. a 5k@27" display for what is, for me, a more useful format.
Its a shame that there are so few options for 3:2 displays. Let's not derail this thread by discussing the politics of Huawei, but the objective fact is that not everybody could find them easily even if they wanted too, and even where you could buy them before (e.g. UK) I'm not sure the 28" Mateview is currently available.
So, yeah, if Apple wanted to tempt me back to a large iMac (or even an Apple display) in the future , making something with a "squarer" aspect ratio might make me think again given the lack of 3rd party choice. The Microsoft Surface Studio looks more like the sort of design Apple should be producing (although the appeal of the MS Studio itself evaporates once you look at the price and CPU/GPU spec - that screen, though...)
...but then, they haven't taken off, even on PCs, so maybe its a minority view.
When I went from a 15in. G3 iMac to a 17in. G4 eMac it felt like a step up. From the 17 eMac to a 21.5 iMac it was a significant step up. From the current 21.5 (which I have no issues with) to the 24 iMac it’s going to be a very nice upgrade in display and performance.
The issue with cost of RAM is not iMac specific—Apple does this across the board on all its computers. The issue with display size has already been answered by Apple although I don’t agree with their answer. By having the Studio Display as their only 27in. offering they’re pushing a significant number of customers to non Apple products as an alternative. The existence of the current iMac already argues Apple could offer an excellent 5k display for significantly less than the current studio display. Why they don’t is more perplexing than why they chose not to develop a bigger iMac. If Apple offered a nice 5k panel for $500 less than the current SD lots of Mac Mini and Mac Studio buyers (decided and potential) would go for it. Hell, I’d be tempted even though I prefer the AIO configuration.
There indeed remains a market for a larger iMac, but Apple evidently doesn’t see it the same way. They just don’t see it as worthwhile enough anymore.
On a more personal subjective note the video I posted a bit upthread has got me thinking. With the current M3 do I really need the 24GB or would 16GB suffice for my uses? Based on the test results the short answer is 16GB would work. But I think 24 is still a safer bet given I hope to have the machine rather long term.
On the issue of storage 256 is a non starter. Besides Apple’s 256 being slower (yeah, I know it’s relative) I need at least 512 given I’m currently using 62 percent of my current 500GB SSD. So the question is go for the faster 512 option with a more affordable external SSD as supplementary storage or opt for 1TB built into the machine?
I’m still leaning toward the 24/1TB configuration.
The issue with cost of RAM is not iMac specific—Apple does this across the board on all its computers. The issue with display size has already been answered by Apple although I don’t agree with their answer. By having the Studio Display as their only 27in. offering they’re pushing a significant number of customers to non Apple products as an alternative. The existence of the current iMac already argues Apple could offer an excellent 5k display for significantly less than the current studio display. Why they don’t is more perplexing than why they chose not to develop a bigger iMac. If Apple offered a nice 5k panel for $500 less than the current SD lots of Mac Mini and Mac Studio buyers (decided and potential) would go for it. Hell, I’d be tempted even though I prefer the AIO configuration.
There indeed remains a market for a larger iMac, but Apple evidently doesn’t see it the same way. They just don’t see it as worthwhile enough anymore.
On a more personal subjective note the video I posted a bit upthread has got me thinking. With the current M3 do I really need the 24GB or would 16GB suffice for my uses? Based on the test results the short answer is 16GB would work. But I think 24 is still a safer bet given I hope to have the machine rather long term.
On the issue of storage 256 is a non starter. Besides Apple’s 256 being slower (yeah, I know it’s relative) I need at least 512 given I’m currently using 62 percent of my current 500GB SSD. So the question is go for the faster 512 option with a more affordable external SSD as supplementary storage or opt for 1TB built into the machine?
I’m still leaning toward the 24/1TB configuration.
Last edited:
I realised I was comparing apples and oranges with the base iMac and Max chips - I was looking at the units as a whole in terms of price - you're right of course you can't compare the 2 in terms of performance - completely agree and agree with all your comments - that memory/price jump is just insane. would love to hear Tim justify that and none of that high end computing high end price crap you hear! Bent over a barrel just sums up Apple's attitude at the moment.
“Is it good or bad?”
Let me rephrase that: “Is Windows loosing the only real competitor it has for any use scenario good or bad?”
Or:
“Is millions of loyal customers loosing support and device updates for their workflow, including the majority of videographers and filmmakers good or bad?”
Apple has an obligation to its customers, especially those of us who convinced our employers to spend more money to move to Mac, to maintain this client base. Failing in this area is a bait and switch from the decades push to growing the Mac user base.
Depends what your doing, if your doing singular projects rather than multi projects at once then it might work. I can do a days work on my 16gb m1 air but its not a great experience.
Like I posted above the iMac with 24/1tb is more expensive than the Mac Studio and you get 32gbs of ram and the max chip and is still £300 cheaper. Better in all respects will allow growth and has twice the ram than the 16 your worried about. You can always add storage too, as long as your not slamming that internal drive swap will be ok.
Unless you're buying the low end the cost of buying the iMac just doesn't make sense. As the pro configs of the MacBook Pro are more appealing Mac Studio is cheaper etc etc
iMac 24/1tb is £2400
You would be better off buying a Mac mini m3 when they come out with 16/1tb for £1299 and buying the studio display.
At least then next time you only have to replace the computer. Its £400 more and you get the 27"
Or buy the mini and buy a different display.
The other thing thats annoying is I use 3 displays and if you want to use at least 2 displays your set up will always look silly because apple will never make an accompanying display.
The other thing to look at is the refurb store. The base M2 Max studio is often £1700 and the studio display is £1269 under 3k for a better combo.
Thats the thing once you start delving you end up spending more money with hardware thats probably too much for the use but its better value for money because the ram and SSD upgrades are insanely expensive.
^^ Truth is Apple’s 24 and 27 displays are knockout and so is their build quality. I sell displays every day and most everything else looks cheap.
And, candidly, it’s not just a matter of dollars. If it was everyone would buy separate components. An AIO, particularly an iMac, is a distinct user experience, one I’ve enjoyed for over twenty years. I have no compelling reason to walk away from it.
And, candidly, it’s not just a matter of dollars. If it was everyone would buy separate components. An AIO, particularly an iMac, is a distinct user experience, one I’ve enjoyed for over twenty years. I have no compelling reason to walk away from it.
You’re pointing out people’s obsession with the 27" while you’re obsessing about the 24” model being perfect and one size fits all. Maybe perfect for you but not for others.
In my opinion and from reading comments I find that people in general want choice something like 24” and 27” to choose from. They don’t ask Apple to discontinue the 24 and replace it with 27 the way OP is hoping 27” iMac would never come back. I’m sure a 27” iMac would be cheaper and less cumbersome than combining Studio Display and a Mac Mini on a desk.
People want choice.
It doesn't work well on a Mac. Works perfectly fine for other platforms. It's Apple/macOS fault, not the 4k resolutions.
?
Apple Mac revenue by quarter 2006-2024 | Statista
In the fourth quarter of Apple's 2024 fiscal year, sales of Apple Mac computers generated around 7.7billion U.S.
www.statista.com
This thread is surreal. Some years back, it was years between Mac Mini updates, there was a lot of angst pleading for 'headless' Macs but iMac was Apple's golden child, and the thinking was that frequently updated compelling value and performance Mac Minis might gut the market for iMacs. The Mac Pro was too expensive; we wanted something less high end, maybe a mini-tower, IIRC.
Now in this thread...the iMac doesn't get enough love but hey, you can go buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio.
On the 24" vs. 27" front, anybody know what the relative sales figures were for the last generation or two of Intel-based iMacs, when both sizes were available?
I prefer 27" for the added screen space (more work space) and comfort in sitting well back from my monitor (it's my understanding prolonged staring at things close to the face, like smart phone screens, puts a strain on the eyes).
Now in this thread...the iMac doesn't get enough love but hey, you can go buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio.
On the 24" vs. 27" front, anybody know what the relative sales figures were for the last generation or two of Intel-based iMacs, when both sizes were available?
I prefer 27" for the added screen space (more work space) and comfort in sitting well back from my monitor (it's my understanding prolonged staring at things close to the face, like smart phone screens, puts a strain on the eyes).
so buy the studio display when it's 1299. it seemed like it was 1299 on amazon for much of last winter/spring. I got mine for about 1199 through a friend and I love it Hookedup to a Mac mini. its easily better than my 2017 I9 iMac ever was.
macOS on 32” 3840x2160 scaled to 2560 x 1440 doesn’t much bother me much…..
most of the time….
if I don’t think about it….
Or look too closely
But that’s not the fault of the display, that’s ENTIRELY a macos issue
And presumably intentional because Apple doesn’t want a not Apple display to look good
The pleading for a headless mac, the “x-mac” if you will, wasn’t just about an appliance without a display, but an apple branded actual normal computer natively running macOS that allowed one to swap storage, ram, gpu, etc
What Apple has done now is doubled down on selling disposable appliances while taking away the built in display without decreasing the price accordingly
Last edited: