iMac 30" 5.5K or 32" 6K was delayed this long...

[sack_peak]

... because of parts price.

I say this because the iMac 24" 4.5K that replaces the iMac 21.5" 4K share same price points.

2019 iMac 21.5" 4K Intel 14nm	Price	2021 iMac 24" 4.5K M1 5nm
iMac "Core i3" 3.6 21.5"	$1,299	iMac "M1" 8 CPU/7 GPU/2 Ports 24"
iMac "Core i5" 3.0 21.5"	$1,499	iMac "M1" 8 CPU/8 GPU/4 Ports 24"
iMac "Core i7" 3.2 21.5"	$1,599	N/A
iMac "Core i7" 3.2 21.5"	$1,699	iMac "M1" 8 CPU/8 GPU/4 Ports 24"

Even when the 2021 iMac screen size increased and parts improved in performance per watt, raw performance and power consumption.

Smaller iMac	2019 Intel	2021 M1
Chip die shrink	14nm	5nm
Dimensions	45.0 cm, 52.8 cm, 17.5 cm	46.1 cm, 54.7 cm, 14.7 cm
Avg Weight	5.66 kg	4.46 kg
Display	21.5" 4K	24" 4.5K
RAM type & speed	2666 MHz PC4-21300 DDR4	LPDDR4X-4266MHz
Power Consumption	166W	80-84W

So what price points can we expect for a 30" 5.5K or 32" 6K model?

2020 iMac 27" 5K Intel 14nm	Price	2024 iMac M3/M3 Pro/M3 Max 3nm
iMac "Core i5" 3.1 27"	$1,799	M3
iMac "Core i5" 3.3 27"	$1,999	M3
iMac "Core i7" 3.8 27"	$2,299	M3 Pro
iMac "Core i9" 3.6 27"	$2,499	M3 Max
iMac "Core i7" 3.8 27"; 5700/XT	$2,599	M3 Pro
iMac "Core i9" 3.6 27"	$2,699	M3 Max
iMac "Core i7" 3.8 27"; 5700/XT	$2,799	M3 Pro
iMac "Core i9" 3.6 27"; 5700/XT	$2,999	M3 Max
iMac "Core i9" 3.6 27"; 5700/XT	$3,199	M3 Max
2017 iMac Pro 27" 5K Xeon 14nm	Price	2024 iMac M3 Ultra 3nm
iMac Pro "8-Core" 3.2 27"	$4,999	M3 Ultra
iMac Pro "10-Core" 3.0 27"	$5,799	M3 Ultra
iMac Pro "14-Core" 2.5 27"	$6,999	M3 Ultra
iMac Pro "18-Core" 2.3 27"	$7,399	M3 Ultra

Apple delaying models due to parts price, parts availability or design targets not being met is not unheard of.

The price points above are likely the targets Apple has for the late 2024 iMac.

Android released its first AMOLED smartphone in 2010. It was delayed on the 2017 iPhone X due to color accuracy and burn-in issues. 6 years later no headlines or outrage of iPhone X with color inaccuracy or burn-in.

Back in 2018 OLED iPad Pro was all the rage. And yet 5 years later there is no OLED iPad Pro.

 

[theluggage]

... because of parts price.

Sorry folks, but my guess is that the 27" or larger iMac just isn't happening because the market isn't big enough for Apple anymore & Apple have gone down the Mini/Studio route instead.

It really is a "perfect storm":

• Demand for desktops in general is declining in favour of (increasingly capable) laptops
• With Intel, desktop Macs used more powerful processors and GPUs than MacBooks - now they all use the same chips (until you get to the Ultra) so if you have a MacBook Pro to use on the road you don't need to buy an iMac as well for "heavy lifting".
• The "small" 24" iMac has significantly improved performance and screen size c.f. the old 21.5" and will satisfy some low-end 27" users. If you wanted a higher-end iMac (let alone the iMac Pro) a Mac Studio or M2 Pro Mini plus Studio Display doesn't actually cost a lot more once you take the specs into account. Remember, the iMacs all came with a measly 8GB RAM (and unfortunately the cheap 3rd party upgrade option was always going to go away) while the Mac Studio is really in iMac Pro territory.
• What do you want - 27"/5k? 30"/5.5k? 32" 6k? YMMV but I think >> 27" in an all-in-one is just too cumbersome (its bad enough reaching behind a 27" iMac to get at the ports...) - Apple would probably need at least 2 different sizes to satisfy everybody, each with a smaller customer base.
• Tech seems in a state of flux at the moment - miniLED and OLED are well established in smaller displays, OLED in TVs, but not so much in large computer displays. Last I looked, burn-in was still a huge problem for OLED computer displays. Meanwhile, although the "old school" 5k panel in the Studio Display etc. is dated tech, its still better than most of the displays out there... I'm not sure its a good time to "invest" in an expensive display.
• Not everybody loves the iMac. Others want to be able to mix and match computers and displays, and upgrade them independently. Some of us only bought an iMac because, at the time, there was no viable "headless" Mac (in 2017 the choices were an already clearly dead-ended Trashcan or the 2014 worst. Mini. Ever. - even the 2018 Mini was knobbled by a lousy iGPU). We now have a half-decent choice between the Mini, "Mini Pro", Studio and "super-expensive Studio with PCIe slots" which is going to decimate the market for higher-end iMacs.

Thing is, Apple could either make a new iMac that would delight one small segment of the market - OR they could do what they've already started and make products like the Studio Display and Pro XDR which they can potentially sell to all Mac - and maybe some iPad - users.

 

[sack_peak]

Sorry folks, but my guess is that the 27" or larger iMac just isn't happening because the market isn't big enough for Apple anymore & Apple have gone down the Mini/Studio route instead.

It really is a "perfect storm":

• Demand for desktops in general is declining in favour of (increasingly capable) laptops
• With Intel, desktop Macs used more powerful processors and GPUs than MacBooks - now they all use the same chips (until you get to the Ultra) so if you have a MacBook Pro to use on the road you don't need to buy an iMac as well for "heavy lifting".
• The "small" 24" iMac has significantly improved performance and screen size c.f. the old 21.5" and will satisfy some low-end 27" users. If you wanted a higher-end iMac (let alone the iMac Pro) a Mac Studio or M2 Pro Mini plus Studio Display doesn't actually cost a lot more once you take the specs into account. Remember, the iMacs all came with a measly 8GB RAM (and unfortunately the cheap 3rd party upgrade option was always going to go away) while the Mac Studio is really in iMac Pro territory.
• What do you want - 27"/5k? 30"/5.5k? 32" 6k? YMMV but I think >> 27" in an all-in-one is just too cumbersome (its bad enough reaching behind a 27" iMac to get at the ports...) - Apple would probably need at least 2 different sizes to satisfy everybody, each with a smaller customer base.
• Tech seems in a state of flux at the moment - miniLED and OLED are well established in smaller displays, OLED in TVs, but not so much in large computer displays. Last I looked, burn-in was still a huge problem for OLED computer displays. Meanwhile, although the "old school" 5k panel in the Studio Display etc. is dated tech, its still better than most of the displays out there... I'm not sure its a good time to "invest" in an expensive display.
• Not everybody loves the iMac. Others want to be able to mix and match computers and displays, and upgrade them independently. Some of us only bought an iMac because, at the time, there was no viable "headless" Mac (in 2017 the choices were an already clearly dead-ended Trashcan or the 2014 worst. Mini. Ever. - even the 2018 Mini was knobbled by a lousy iGPU). We now have a half-decent choice between the Mini, "Mini Pro", Studio and "super-expensive Studio with PCIe slots" which is going to decimate the market for higher-end iMacs.

Thing is, Apple could either make a new iMac that would delight one small segment of the market - OR they could do what they've already started and make products like the Studio Display and Pro XDR which they can potentially sell to all Mac - and maybe some iPad - users.

If there's a market for a gimped Mac Pro M2 Ultra that likely ships less than 100 thousand units annually then I'm sure there is a market for larger than iMac 24" that ships more than 1 million units annually.

The parts price likely forced the delay.

 

[theluggage]

If there's a market for a gimped Mac Pro M2 Ultra that likely ships less than 100 thousand units annually then I'm sure there is a market for larger than iMac 24" that ships more than 1 million units annually.

There's a very specific (and deep-pocketed) market for that - users who need PCIe cards for specialist interfaces, huge internal SSDs etc. It's "gimped" compared with the old Intel Mac Pro - but it is significantly better in terms of bandwidth and number of slots than the external Thunderbolt-to-PCIe housings which are the only other option for Apple Silicon.

There's nothing you can do with an iMac that you can't do with a Mini/Studio plus a display.

Also - the Mac Pro is a relatively simple design - the components are rattling around in a case originally designed for a big sweaty Xeon with external RAM and multiple space-heater GPUs. Designing an iMac that didn't look like a brick alongside the 24" and Studio Display would be much more complex and expensive.

 

[sack_peak]

There's a very specific (and deep-pocketed) market for that - users who need PCIe cards for specialist interfaces, huge internal SSDs etc. It's "gimped" compared with the old Intel Mac Pro - but it is significantly better in terms of bandwidth and number of slots than the external Thunderbolt-to-PCIe housings which are the only other option for Apple Silicon.

I believe you misunderstood what I wrote.

I am not questioning the use case for the Mac Pro M2 Ultra that has less than 100,000 annual shipments.

I am pointing out that the larger iMac that has higher demand is more than 10x that.

Hence my pointing out cost of display parts preventing Apple in offering it at the original iMac 27" price points.

There's nothing you can do with an iMac that you can't do with a Mini/Studio plus a display.

Also - the Mac Pro is a relatively simple design - the components are rattling around in a case originally designed for a big sweaty Xeon with external RAM and multiple space-heater GPUs. Designing an iMac that didn't look like a brick alongside the 24" and Studio Display would be much more complex and expensive.

The price points I provided on the tables will make people prefer an iMac 24" or larger over a Mac mini or Mac studio + display + keyboard + mouse.

There is a market for a larger iMac and they're unwilling to spend roughly $1k extra on your suggested alternative.

With emphasis what's holding it back is the parts price of the displays. Once it lowers to Apple's target price then they will offer it for sale.

 

[picpicmac]

There is a market for a larger iMac and they're unwilling to spend roughly $1k extra on your suggested alternative.

How do we know this? Because some forum members repeat this over and over?

I'm in the market to replace my old iMac. I'd take a serious gander at a 27" iMac if it were offered.

But I also believe most people are not like me.

By far the dominant Mac is the MacBook Air, followed by the MacBook Pro. Both can drive external displays. For many people, buying a MBAir and a second party 27" or 32" display makes a lot of sense. Such a combo gives the user one thing an iMac can't: portability.

I've pretty much convinced myself there is not going to be another iMac, or at least not another one anytime soon. So I'm spec'ing out a Mini + display system. As I don't plan on buying until Christmas (more likely after-Christmas sales) Apple still has time to surprise me.

 

[sack_peak]

How do we know this? Because some forum members repeat this over and over?

I'm in the market to replace my old iMac. I'd take a serious gander at a 27" iMac if it were offered.

But I also believe most people are not like me.

By far the dominant Mac is the MacBook Air, followed by the MacBook Pro. Both can drive external displays. For many people, buying a MBAir and a second party 27" or 32" display makes a lot of sense. Such a combo gives the user one thing an iMac can't: portability.

I've pretty much convinced myself there is not going to be another iMac, or at least not another one anytime soon. So I'm spec'ing out a Mini + display system. As I don't plan on buying until Christmas (more likely after-Christmas sales) Apple still has time to surprise me.

Laptops have been most of the PC market since as early as 2006 at roughly 80%. That was the motive why Apple abandoned PowerPC chips as they couldn't deliver a G5 in a PowerBook.

Last year Apple shipped 28.6 million Macs of which 5.72 million are Mac mini, iMac, Mac Studio and Mac Pro.

A laptop + display + keyboard + mouse is an acceptable and standard setup.

Going back... if the Mac Pro M2 Ultra that sells less than 100,000 units annually can get a refresh then why not a larger than 27" iMac that would likely ship more than 10x that?

Many point to the absurd price points of the 27" 5K & 32" 6K display as to why the price points I listed above could never be achieved. That is also likely why it has been delayed to hopefully 12 months from now.

 

[Barnclos]

With emphasis what's holding it back is the parts price of the displays. Once it lowers to Apple's target price then they will offer it for sale.

Apple has been quite bullish on the promotion of Mac (Mini or Studio) + Studio Display as the future for desktop.

That suggests that if/when the price points of 30"/5.5k or 32"/6k displays become 'acceptable', then Apple will offer these as new Studio Displays with improved performance rather than as a larger iMac.

if the Mac Pro M2 Ultra that sells less than 100,000 units annually can get a refresh then why not a larger than 27" iMac that would likely ship more than 10x that?

The Mac Pro M2 Ultra uses an 'old box', existing processors with new PCIe: as previously stated, the development costs are likely to be a lot less than a new iMac, so Mac Pro margins will be high (music to the ears of Apple).

Is there really a market for 1 million large iMacs? I'd suggest that:
- the old lower spec (i5) 27" market (basic home users) has gone to 24" M-series machines,
- the old mid spec (i7) 27" market (enthusiastic amateurs). These want a reasonably powerful machine for occasional photo/video/music production. Apple has strongly promoted the capability of M-series chips in these areas, so this market has gone to Mac Mini Pro (or occasionally Mac Studio) + Studio Display (or cheaper non-Apple displays).
- the old higher spec (i9) 27" market (professionals and amateurs with a well defined need) has gone to Mac Mini/Mac Studio + Studio Display.

That only leaves the die-hard all-in-one enthusiasts, where a large AIO as a 'lifestyle' choice. As soon as Apple identify a lifestyle choice, they don't worry about getting prices down, they set prices as high as possible. So I can only see a large iMac with a high-end processor, a gorgeous screen, and a high-end price.

 

[gpat]

The Mac Pro M2 Ultra uses an 'old box', existing processors with new PCIe: as previously stated, the development costs are likely to be a lot less than a new iMac, so Mac Pro margins will be high (music to the ears of Apple).

But then again, they could have just pushed ahead the old 27" iMac design and crammed your choice of M2/Pro/Max/Ultra chips inside.
Would've been the most predictable move by Apple but that way we wouldn't have seen the Mac Studio which was an highly desired class of computer by Mac users for more than a decade.
Either way, the new 24" always looked uncompelling to me.

 

[sack_peak]

Apple has been quite bullish on the promotion of Mac (Mini or Studio) + Studio Display as the future for desktop.

As there was a product gap in their product lineup. They have at least 1 million Macs to fit in.

That suggests that if/when the price points of 30"/5.5k or 32"/6k displays become 'acceptable', then Apple will offer these as new Studio Displays with improved performance rather than as a larger iMac.

I've been using Macs since 2000. I've observed that Apple Displays always came with the big & small size just like the iMac since the G4.

- 1999-2011 Cinema Displays
- 2011-2016 Thunderbolt Display
- 2019 Pro Display XDR & later with 2022 Studio Display 5K

The Mac Pro M2 Ultra uses an 'old box', existing processors with new PCIe: as previously stated, the development costs are likely to be a lot less than a new iMac, so Mac Pro margins will be high (music to the ears of Apple).

Mac Pro M2 Ultra's previous design was from 2019, marking 4 years by 2 months from now.

Prior to the 2013 model the previous tower design spanned 2003 G5 to 2012 Xeon.

The iMac 27" design spanned 2012-2022. So if you bought a late 2012 iMac 27" as I did it still looks "current" after 11+ years.

That even made me consider only buying a new Apple device every major redesign as you can keep your fashionable product for a dozen years and look "current". Like doing that with a car.

With the 2023 Mac Pro M2 Ultra I have little doubt it has a runway up to 2029.

Is there really a market for 1 million large iMacs? I'd suggest that:
- the old lower spec (i5) 27" market (basic home users) has gone to 24" M-series machines,
- the old mid spec (i7) 27" market (enthusiastic amateurs). These want a reasonably powerful machine for occasional photo/video/music production. Apple has strongly promoted the capability of M-series chips in these areas, so this market has gone to Mac Mini Pro (or occasionally Mac Studio) + Studio Display (or cheaper non-Apple displays).
- the old higher spec (i9) 27" market (professionals and amateurs with a well defined need) has gone to Mac Mini/Mac Studio + Studio Display.

The years of use, based on 1st owners is stated by Apple to be 4 years for Macs while Intel says 5-6 years for PCs.

Last Intel iMac 27" was the 2020 models which will turn 3 years last August. Rumor of a larger iMac stated it will come out approx 12 months from now.

As mentioned in the 1st post the last small Intel iMac was released in 2019 & the 1st small was released in 2021. A 4 year gap.

Also the labeling of the target market of each iMac is somewhat of a misnomer. Workplaces & schools with a very limited budget will buy the base models. While those with lux budget will go higher end.

That only leaves the die-hard all-in-one enthusiasts, where a large AIO as a 'lifestyle' choice. As soon as Apple identify a lifestyle choice, they don't worry about getting prices down, they set prices as high as possible. So I can only see a large iMac with a high-end processor, a gorgeous screen, and a high-end price.

If you were right then why no larger $4,999 to $7,399 iMac since 2021?

Would it sell more than a million larger iMacs at that price range?

It will sell that much more units between $1,799 to $3,199.

Apple's working with their vendors to price it down hence the gap in the product lineup.

If you kit out a Mac mini or Mac Studio + display + keyboard + mouse it increases the price by approx $1k.

 

[sack_peak]

But then again, they could have just pushed ahead the old 27" iMac design and crammed your choice of M2/Pro/Max/Ultra chips inside.
Would've been the most predictable move by Apple but that way we wouldn't have seen the Mac Studio which was an highly desired class of computer by Mac users for more than a decade.
Either way, the new 24" always looked uncompelling to me.

Historically when the smaller iMac increases in display size it is synchronous with the larger iMac getting a bigger display size.

If Apple pushed out another iMac 27" 5K out it would only have a size difference of 4" and 0.5K from the 2021 iMac 24" M1.

The 1st 27" iMac came out 14 years ago in 2009 starting at $1699. As a larger iMac the 1st 24" iMac came out over 17 years ago in 2006 with starting price of $1999.

2021 iMac 24" M1 starts at $1299.

Parts price decreases over time applies to everything.

Many here would be shocked to know that 1999 Cinema Display 22" sold at $3,999. 2004 Cinema Dispaly 30" $3,299.

 

[theluggage]

Going back... if the Mac Pro M2 Ultra that sells less than 100,000 units annually can get a refresh then why not a larger than 27" iMac that would likely ship more than 10x that?

There's no basis for that 10x figure - in my earlier post I listed a whole series of reasons why iMacs are likely to be declining in popularity... and even if there is a gap in the market, those same customers are likely to buy Minis and Studios (and, if Apple are lucky, a Studio Display to match) or MacBooks instead.

It's also pretty unlikely that Apple are going to sell 27" iMacs starting at $200 more than the price of a Studio Display.

The Mac Pro is there for buyers who absolutely have to have high-bandwidth PCIe slots for specialist cards and would otherwise defect to PC (the alternative being a $1000 external box for a Studio with fewer slots and a fraction of the bandwidth). It is eye-wateringly expensive - partly because of the low sales volume - which they can get away because the target market have no real Mac alternative. It's also debatable whether it has a long-term future - Apple Silicon is not a good solution for the Mac Pro market.

Parts price decreases over time applies to everything.

Only if a technology takes off so the economies of scale can kick in.

I think that's the problem with 5k/220ppi displays: they're a "sweet spot" for Mac OS - for a variety of technical and historical reasons that don't really apply to other systems. In Windows, 5k is a lot of expense and complexity (worse in the past because they originally needed dual DisplayPort cables, and PCs were slow to adopt TB3 and DP1.4) for a relatively modest improvementing quality, and 1080p screens are ubiquitous - making 4K UHD more of a sweet spot). Dell and HP both launched 5k displays back when 5k first appeared but they were soon discontinued.

That's why you can throw a brick in Best Buy and hit a dozen 27" 4k displays starting at about $200, whereas AFAIK there are only 3 27" 5k options on the market, two of which (Samsung and Apple) cost ~$1600 while the LG Ultrafine still has the same $1300 RRP that it did in 2016 (you might get it cheaper - if you can find one). I'm assuming that the Samsung will drop in price once the stock gets rolling, but I doubt it will go much below $1000.

Many here would be shocked to know that 1999 Cinema Display 22" sold at $3,999. 2004 Cinema Dispaly 30" $3,299.

Not shocked, because I remember those days - they were definitely the "Pro XDR" displays of their days (except they came with stands!) - and, yeah, not many years later you could get a 2560x1600 or x1400 display for a fraction of the price. That hasn't happened with 5k though.

Snag is, Apple introduced 5k in 2014 and getting on for 10 years later 5k is still the highest you'll get in a 27" display without spending silly money for 6 or 8k. Apple sold the LG 5k display for years without a substantial price cut. Even the Pro XDR is getting on for 4 years old without an update or price cut.

 

[Strider64]

I have a strong preference for the Mac Studio because it isn't an all-in-one computer. I'd be more inclined towards a top-quality 30 or 32-inch display instead of an iMac. The only computer I've ever had issues with was my 27-inch iMac in 2020. Taking it to the Apple Store was a hassle, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic when I had to visit a store further away than my nearest one. Even without such challenges, I'd prefer to simply bring in my studio or, if necessary, ship it.

 

[sack_peak]

There's no basis for that 10x figure - in my earlier post I listed a whole series of reasons why iMacs are likely to be declining in popularity... and even if there is a gap in the market, those same customers are likely to buy Minis and Studios (and, if Apple are lucky, a Studio Display to match) or MacBooks instead.

Your alternative is roughly $1k more expensive than an equivalent iMac 27".

Cheaper products sells more.

Somewhat "old data" below

Some stats and facts Apple shared with us during the discussion:

• Apple’s research shows that 15 percent of all Mac users use at least one “pro” app frequently. These are apps for things like music creation, video editing, graphic design, and software development. Basically, apps that are performance intensive. An additional 15 percent of Mac users use pro apps less frequently but at least a few times per month. That 30 percent of the overall Mac user base is what Apple considers the “pro” market.
• Overall, the split between notebooks and desktops in Mac sales is roughly 80/20. (Personally, I’m a little surprised desktops account for even 20 percent of sales. I would have guessed 85/15, and wouldn’t have been surprised to hear 90/10.)
• Even among pro users, notebooks are by far the most popular Macs. In second place are iMacs. The Mac Pro is third. Apple declined to describe the Mac Pro’s share of all Mac sales any more specifically than “a single-digit percent”, but my gut feeling is that the single digit is a lot closer to 1 than it is to 9.

So: only 30 percent of Mac users are in what Apple considers the pro market. Most of those use MacBook Pros (or other MacBooks). Most of those who use desktops use iMacs. None of this is a surprise, really — and this is exactly why so many users who depend on the Mac Pro have been deeply concerned about its future. For Apple to care about the Mac Pro, it requires Apple to care about a small number of users.

Regarding iMacs, Schiller also said that new iMacs are in the works, slated for release some time this year (no specifics other than “this year”), including “configurations of iMac specifically with the pro customer in mind and acknowledging that our most popular desktop with pros is an iMac.”

It's also pretty unlikely that Apple are going to sell 27" iMacs starting at $200 more than the price of a Studio Display.

The 1st sentence of my 1st post was explicit about parts price.

The Mac Pro is there for buyers who absolutely have to have high-bandwidth PCIe slots for specialist cards and would otherwise defect to PC (the alternative being a $1000 external box for a Studio with fewer slots and a fraction of the bandwidth). It is eye-wateringly expensive - partly because of the low sales volume - which they can get away because the target market have no real Mac alternative. It's also debatable whether it has a long-term future - Apple Silicon is not a good solution for the Mac Pro market.

As I mentioned previously I am not questioning the use case. I am pointing to the reduced units shipped after the cheaper and more popular Mac Studio's debut.

I think that's the problem with 5k/220ppi displays: they're a "sweet spot" for Mac OS - for a variety of technical and historical reasons that don't really apply to other systems.

Other recent displays with the 220ppi

- 21.5" 4K starting 2015
- 24" 4.5K starting 2021
- 27" 5K starting in 2014
- 32" 6K starting in 2022

 

[gpat]

Historically when the smaller iMac increases in display size it is synchronous with the larger iMac getting a bigger display size.

Historically, yes.
But we've kinda hit a point of diminishing returns with 27" first, and with 5K second.
Getting the iMac up to 32"/6k is going to add more power/cost than its worth for the average iMac user.
Also, people in need of more screen estate will just add more external screens or turn to ultrawide, and no, we're not going to see an ultrawide iMac, it's too much of a niche, wouldn't fit well on most desktops.
The best idea in my opinion would be to get the whole iMac lineup to 27"/5k and differentiate them by SoC power.

 

[sack_peak]

Historically, yes.
But we've kinda hit a point of diminishing returns with 27" first, and with 5K second.
Getting the iMac up to 32"/6k is going to add more power/cost than its worth for the average iMac user.
Also, people in need of more screen estate will just add more external screens or turn to ultrawide, and no, we're not going to see an ultrawide iMac, it's too much of a niche, wouldn't fit well on most desktops.
The best idea in my opinion would be to get the whole iMac lineup to 27"/5k and differentiate them by SoC power.

Then why no iMac 27" 5K with the 2021 iMac 24" 4.5K?

 

[gpat]

Then why no iMac 27" 5K with the 2021 iMac 24" 4.5K?

Because mistakes happen, I guess.
And I guess it's the same reason for being precisely 888 days since the last iMac update.
Moreover, they decided to double down on another form factor, the classical desktop of all things.

 

[sack_peak]

Because mistakes happen, I guess.
And I guess it's the same reason for being precisely 888 days since the last iMac update.
Moreover, they decided to double down on another form factor, the classical desktop of all things.

Personally I wish Apple just continued with the last Intel industrial case design for all the M1 Macs like the Mac mini, Macbook Air and Macbook Pro 13".

I'd have bought a 2021 iMac 27" 5K M1 or M1 Pro if they did not move to a iMac 24" 4.5K.

 

[ignatius345]

Personally I wish Apple just continued with the last Intel industrial case design for all the M1 Macs like the Mac mini, Macbook Air and Macbook Pro 13".

I'd have bought a 2021 iMac 27" 5K M1 or M1 Pro if they did not move to a iMac 24" 4.5K.

I've thought the same thing. I bought an M1 MacBook Air with exactly the same design as the 2020 Intel i5 Air I replaced with it. Outwardly it was the same machine, but with 2-3x the battery life, zero fan noise and dramatically better performance. I'd have taken that same upgrade to my iMac 5K in a heartbeat.

As it is, I'm using the M1 iMac. As much as I love its design and performance, I'd have definitely preferred an M1 5K iMac with a "legacy" design and a larger display.

 

[sack_peak]

As it is, I'm using the M1 iMac. As much as I love its design and performance, I'd have definitely preferred an M1 5K iMac with a "legacy" design and a larger display.

Given the 2021 iMac 24" M1 new design and Apple likely to be able to push down parts price for a 30" 5.5K or 32" 6K display for a future larger 2024 iMac I'd welcome the change when they manage to match prices to

- M3: $1,799 to $1,999
- M3 Pro: $2,299 to $2,799
- M3 Max: $2,499 to $3,199
- M3 Ultra: $4,999 to $7,399

Now, if Apple could strengthen my currency by 30% to USD.

Apple has historically did price cuts and pass on the savings to customers.

$4999 Pro Display XDR 32" 6K & $1599 Studio Display 27" 5K will experience lower MSRPs in future or product refresh to cheaper models.

Remember Thunderbolt 5 80Gbps (bi-directional) 120Gbps (uni-directional) will be part of the M3 within 6 months before April 2024. So whatever bottlenecks that requires custom silicon to overcome will be resolved.

Looking forward to TB5 on all 2024 Macs & iPad Pro. Thunderbolt 4 is limited to 40Gbps (bi-directional) will be for iPad Air M2 and future iPhones and lower tier iPads within this decade.

 

[picpicmac]

no specifics other than “this year”)

That probably would have been 2017, the date of that blog post.

And that is important to this discussion. We're nearly 7 years on from that blog post and the reality is that Apple has demonstrated no urgency to update or expand the iMac line.

But Apple is very much interested in keeping the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro turning out new models.

Since I'm shopping for an iMac alternative and considering a Mac Mini, I've been shopping for displays.

It's one of those things that hasn't changed much from many decades before: the display market is a field of landmines, with a great many models in a spectrum of pricing, and of dubious quality if online reviews are to be considered.

32" is too big for me. I sit two feet or close to the display and 27" is about as large as I wish to go.

And as was laid out above, the choices in 27" monitors is huge, for 4K, but very few for 5K and almost none for 4.5K. Even though the Mac user interface paradigm prefers very particular resolutions, people get by with 4K monitors in which MacOS simply scales 2x the lower resolution.

This is why I'm giving Apple until the rest of the year before I spend my money. Whatever new iMac model may come, it will have a quality display and a resolution intended for MacOS. I still hope that Apple may announce a new iMac soon, at least by next January if not this November. But my hopes are fading, as I realize that it is unlikely that Apple will announce a new product too soon after the Christmas buying season.

So I'm reconciling myself to accept that if a new iMac is coming, it may not come until next year's WWDC. Which is too long a wait for me.

 

[theluggage]

Somewhat "old data" below

Yes - old data from April 2017, when:

• iMacs still had faster desktop-class Intel CPUs and better GPUs than MacBook Pros
• The only other Mac desktops were the 2013 Trashcan (which Apple had just admitted was a dead end, but wouldn't be replaced until late 2019) and the 2014 Mac Mini (probably the worst received Mini ever).
• The only other 5k display option was the LG Ultrafine (at about $1200 if I remember correctly)

...plus they don't say how many of those iMac sales were the (then) 21.5" - which, as the cheapest option, would probably have been the biggest selling iMac.

Since then, Apple Silicon has mostly removed the difference between laptops and desktops, there has been a massive shift towards "flexible working" which favours laptops, and Apple offer a decent range of Mini and Studios along with a choice of two official Apple 5k and 6k displays. Oh, plus the "small/cheap" iMac market is still catered for by the 24" which is far superior to the old 21.5" iMac in most ways.

Data from 2017 means almost nothing today. Its impossible to know how many people bought the iMac then because they really wanted it, or because - for many years - it was the only viable desktop Mac.

 

[Chuckeee]

Yes - old data from April 2017, when:

• iMacs still had faster desktop-class Intel CPUs and better GPUs than MacBook Pros
• The only other Mac desktops were the 2013 Trashcan (which Apple had just admitted was a dead end, but wouldn't be replaced until late 2019) and the 2014 Mac Mini (probably the worst received Mini ever).
• The only other 5k display option was the LG Ultrafine (at about $1200 if I remember correctly)

...plus they don't say how many of those iMac sales were the (then) 21.5" - which, as the cheapest option, would probably have been the biggest selling iMac.

Since then, Apple Silicon has mostly removed the difference between laptops and desktops, there has been a massive shift towards "flexible working" which favours laptops, and Apple offer a decent range of Mini and Studios along with a choice of two official Apple 5k and 6k displays. Oh, plus the "small/cheap" iMac market is still catered for by the 24" which is far superior to the old 21.5" iMac in most ways.

Data from 2017 means almost nothing today. Its impossible to know how many people bought the iMac then because they really wanted it, or because - for many years - it was the only viable desktop Mac.

I believe more and more that you are probably correct. The future for a large display iMac is a compact Mac desktop (mini, mini pro or studio max) and a stand alone display.

Myself and other have grown impatient (or desperate) waiting for a SoC large screen iMac and have gone this route. And the overall consensus seems to be that this is a GREAT alternative. This all works since the current compact Mac desktops are powerful state of the art Mac (vs the crippled Mac mini of the past), are small and quiet enough to fit easily on a desk (no Mac Pro trashcans or towers) while still being affordable (as compared to a 27” iMac).

 

[ignatius345]

Given the 2021 iMac 24" M1 new design and Apple likely to be able to push down parts price for a 30" 5.5K or 32" 6K display for a future larger 2024 iMac I'd welcome the change when they manage to match prices to

- M3: $1,799 to $1,999
- M3 Pro: $2,299 to $2,799
- M3 Max: $2,499 to $3,199
- M3 Ultra: $4,999 to $7,399

Based on the cost of the base model Apple Studio Display, though ($1600), I would not see any bigger screen iMac coming in under $2K. After all, at that point you're talking about the ASD display or bigger, but with a whole Mac built into it. It doesn't make any sense that they'd sell that for only $200 over the cost of the ASD.

 

[sack_peak]

Based on the cost of the base model Apple Studio Display, though ($1600), I would not see any bigger screen iMac coming in under $2K. After all, at that point you're talking about the ASD display or bigger, but with a whole Mac built into it. It doesn't make any sense that they'd sell that for only $200 over the cost of the ASD.

See my 1st sentence of my 1st post.

Your point of view is correct when display parts do not go down in price over time.

It is likely why Apple did not release a larger than 27" iMac with the 2021 iMac 24".

Most of my replies on this thread provides links to lowering of display price over time.

The Apple Studio Display ($1600) you mentioned I provided a citation to that on the post you partially quoted.

- $3,999 1999 Cinema Display 22"
- $3,299 2004 Cinema Dispaly 30"
- $4,999 2019 Pro Display XDR 32" 6K
- $1,599 2022 Studio Display 27" 5K
- $969.99 LG UltraFine 27MD5KLB-B 27" 5K
- $1,296.99 LG UltraFine 27MD5KL-B 27" 5K

PC OEM prices for 27" 5K panels start at $407.31?

Apple is enjoying a very nice margin with the current 2022 Studio Display 27" 5K.

This is why I am pointing out that doing seperates is approximately $1,000 more expensive than a iMac.

Many here like seperates because they replace their Mac mini or Mac Studio every 4-6 years and want to extend the useful life of the display by say more than a decade. This does not gel well with anyone who want the latest display technology when they replace their computer.

But the up front cost of any device on day 1 becomes cheaper by year 4-6 assuming MSRP remains the same due to inflation.

$1799 in 2020 does not have the same buying power in 2024.