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.
iMac 30" 5.5K or 32" 6K was delayed this long...
- Thread starter sack_peak
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Personally, I view this issue through what I think are slightly less complex optics; I focus less on the resolution or the price, and more on the practicality of the physical device sitting on a desk. (Not that those former factors are entirely without value... but rather, that I value the latter more.) Based upon that metric, I feel that the 27" iMac is and always has been the absolute perfect size for a computer display... and I say this while sitting at work in front of a set of (older) 30" displays. (No, I didn't get to pick them out; inherited from the previous occupant of this desk.) I don't honestly think that most people have had the opportunity to sit in front of displays of this size for long periods at a time, so I would offer this anecdotal take: understanding that they're not Retina (obviously) and they're 16:10 rather than the usual 16:9... but they are nonetheless freaking massive space hogs. I mean, they're also not necessarily bad displays, per se... but they simply take up an unreasonable amount of space on my desk, for what they offer.
My 5K iMac at home, however, takes up just the right amount of space for a computing device, in my opinion. And the fairly inexpensive 27" 4K display sitting next to it is a pretty decent compromise for the price, between the cheap junk that most PC users buy and the unobtainium that are embodied by most 5K and 6K displays.
So really, I think that Apple did a fair amount of research when they developed that 27" form factor, years ago, and I think they also know full well that a 30" or larger iMac just wouldn't make fiscal sense to most customers... but then they kind'a developed themselves into a corner with that 24" Silicon Mac, because how do you work a 27" Silicon Mac back into the product matrix alongside that?
It's a bit of a sticky situation.
My 5K iMac at home, however, takes up just the right amount of space for a computing device, in my opinion. And the fairly inexpensive 27" 4K display sitting next to it is a pretty decent compromise for the price, between the cheap junk that most PC users buy and the unobtainium that are embodied by most 5K and 6K displays.
So really, I think that Apple did a fair amount of research when they developed that 27" form factor, years ago, and I think they also know full well that a 30" or larger iMac just wouldn't make fiscal sense to most customers... but then they kind'a developed themselves into a corner with that 24" Silicon Mac, because how do you work a 27" Silicon Mac back into the product matrix alongside that?
It's a bit of a sticky situation.
Historically whenever a smaller iMac adds a few more inches the larger iMac also gets a larger display at the same time.
iMac 27" 2.5K came out in 2009. iMac 27" 5K & 21.5" 4K came out in 2014.
iMac 24" 4.5K came out in 2021. When 32" 6K panel pricing goes down below $1k then we will see iMac 32" 6K.
The XDR 32" 6K display is over 4 years old by now. It will be 5 years old by WWDC 2024.
The market it is positioned in has higher-end displays going for 5 figures so Apple's 32" 6K is very cheap relative to it.
Relative to any iMac 27" it is very expensive.
After 5 years in the market I would not be surprised the economies of scale will allow it to be priced down to under $1k for the panel.
I disagree with this; I'm not at all convinced that the prices for a 6K panel suitable for an iMac display will ever go down to that level -- but this is perhaps beside the point that I was trying to make.
The point is, Apple's 32" 6K displays are (as you alluded) targeted at a significantly different market segment than is the iMac. The 6K display is a proper professional grade product, and professionals are more likely to invest in a high-end display and then amortize it over the course of three or more generations of computers. Thus, it can't be an iMac in order to fully meet the needs of this market segment.
So of course the iMac is significantly less expensive... because it's not generally targeted at the professional market; it's much more suitable as a consumer product, targeted at people who tend to spend somewhat less. This is all part and parcel with my assertion that the 27" form factor is essentially the sweet spot for iMacs.
Yeah, but that was history, and as I pointed out in previous posts there have been significant changes in the market - particularly in the demand for laptops vs. desktops, and the performance of laptops. We've had 21.5 & 27" iMac models from 2009 until 2021 - the point at which Mac desktops started using the exact same processors as laptops, also the start of the current "flexible working" boom which favours laptops. We've also had the M1 Mini which - in most respects - was a huge improvement over the Intel Mini.
I think what Apple has done is consolidate the 21.5" and low-end 27" into a 24" half-way-house while releasing the 5k Studio Display as something that can be paired with any Mac - laptop or desktop. There's been no sniff of a new "large" iMac that can't be explained by "analysts" who saw leaked pictures of the Studio Display.
...yet there's no real competition that would force the price of a 6K 32" down to iMac-friendly levels. There's the Dell 6K for about $3000 which is certainly "more affordable" but doesn't have the local dimming of the Pro XDR.
Apple were a bit... optimistic when they made that comparison at the Pro XDR launch. The Pro XDR is a mini-LED display with under 600 "dimmable" zones. The $40k Sony reference display they compared it with is a dual-layer display with every pixel having 'dimming' control - which is what the niche market of people doing professional HDR movie grading need. The Pro XDR isn't really an alternative to a $$,$$$ reference display unless you were planning to buy one for bragging rights... See:
The problem with economies of scale is the "scale" bit which the niche market for larger iMacs might not be able to provide - for a tech to plummet in price it needs to take off in the PC/gaming market. Generally 5k/6k - or more precisely displays with a fixed linear resolution of ~ 220ppi - mainly appeal to Mac users for technical and historical reasons. 1440p displays had some uptake with PC users and gamers (so you can get cheap 1440p displays) but mostly PC stuck with 1080p and then "4k" UHD.
Games are likely to be optimised for 1080p or 4kUHD (so they work on domestic TVs) - and gamers would mostly be better off "spending" any extra bandwidth/gpu power on higher frame rates rather than diminishing returns in resolution - you'll notice that there are plenty of competing HFR 4k displays out there vs.a grand total of 2 third-party 5k and 1 6k displays. If the market doesn't stick to 4k UHD for the foreseeable it will most likely jump to 8k (which will also be optimum for displaying upscaled 4k).
I don't like that the market tends towards "50 brands of cola and no ginger beer" but there you go. (I've got a pair of 3:2 4k+ displays which I think are far superior to 16:9 - but they don't seem to have caught on, either).
The closest competitor, 2023 Dell 32" 6K display is now $2,559.99 from MSRP of $3,199.99 from 4 months ago.
BH has it for $2,398.52.
Bloomberg's Mark Gurman, in a a Power On newsletter, points to a late 2024 or 2025 release. That's a 5-6 year gap between the XDR 32" 6K and that iMac.
For the convenience of those joining us here are the prices of the largest Apple displays
- $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
Vs PC OEM prices for 27" 5K panels start at $407.31?
While Gurman's prognostications often make for illuminating and entertaining reading, not everything he suggests actually pans out for one reason or another. In this instance, I remain highly skeptical of his projections.
I am farily certain that when those Apple displays were more than $1k MSRP that a naysayer would proclaim it will never come to the iMac.
Years later a larger iMac appears.
BTW your 2019 iMac 27" should receive its final macOS Security Update by mid 2027.
It is all but guaranteed for larger iMac to appear by then when 32" 6K display parts drop to less than $1k.
I had been waiting on a larger than 24" to replace my i9 iMac but I am starting to realize the one major feature that kept me on an iMac has gone away with Apple Silicon. I could boot to intel windows and run nearly any PC game I wanted. I do not want two machines and we have never had a console here and never will. Which leaves me in a quandary in that I really love the form factor but I am losing even more game use than when the OS transitioned to from 32 to 64 bit support
I think that is more of an Apple Silicon limitation than an iMac one.
As you have a Core i9 already why not make that your dedicated gaming PC until it falls apart?
my iMac already shares my L desk with my work setup and I have forever wanted to avoid having two "personal" computers on my desk. It would be one thing if target display was a thing... but we know that story. I will do as I always do when I upgrade, clean it up, install the OS anew, and hand it off to my coworker who needs an upgrade every now and then.I think that is more of an Apple Silicon limitation than an iMac one.
As you have a Core i9 already why not make that your dedicated gaming PC until it falls apart?
Been twenty years on Mac, it was a good run. Won't give up my iPhone or iPad for anything though
Your best bet is Mac Mini + mini-ITX gaming rig + some model of display and Logitech keyboard and mouse with functionality that allows for effortless switching between machines.
It's impressive how much power can ITX computers cram into a diminutive footprint. Could be a pricy setup though. I feel your frustration.
Last edited:
You are quite welcome to discount my opinions and label me as a "naysayer" if it makes you feel more comfortable -- but I'm fairly certain that I did not use any categorical negatives, such as "never". If it happens and if it's reasonably within my budget, great -- but as I have already alluded, I'm skeptical that a 6K iMac will be comfortably within the price range of the typical home user anytime soon.
Past performance is not a prediction of future results. Until and unless Apple announces an actual product, we're all just guessing here anyway... even our good friend, Gurman.
Price history of displays outside of Apple.
- 1954 Westinghouse H840CK15: $11,875
- 1997 Philips/Fujitsu Flat Plasma TV: $22,924
- 1997 Sony KV-35XBR48 CRT TV 35": $3,821
- 2007 Pioneer Elite Kuro PRO-110FD 50": $7,046
- 2012 Panasonic TC-P55VT50 55": $2,680
- 2017 LG OLED55B7A 55": $2,300
- 2023 LG UQ7570PUJ 55": $356.99
Source: https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-ente...er-than-ever-we-go-back-a-few-decades-to-see/
Many discount it as they wanted that larger iMac within the last 30 months and they just ran out of patience.
If anyone's iMac 27" is less than 10yo I'd wait it out.
Using that logic then people should sell off their $AAPL.
Last edited:
Seriously? That's what you take from my commentary?
Sorry... but that's just so blindly out of left field, that I'm stumped as to how to respond.
I prefer 16:10 displays over 16:9 but the former are almost extinct.
The ATSC hegemony is something against we all must struggle.
You left off the 75" Amazon Fire TV which is now just $899.
Are we to expect a 75" iMac in our near future?
You can have a 75" Mac right now: just hook up a Mini to that 75" Fire TV (it has both HDMI 2.0 and HDMI 2.1 ports.)
That's what the $3499 Vision Pro is for... convergent device to smoosh into.
Think back to 1998 when the 1st iMac G3 came out with a 15" CRT.
Back then would anyone imagine an iMac with a 27" 5K display? Anyone in the 90s would call you cray cray for even suggesting it.
Give it 1-2 decades and Vision Pro of the future with next year's tech advancement will sell for $349 and people will complain about the price.
Price history of displays inside Apple's price list:
- 2016 LG UltraFine 27" 5K: $999
- 2023 Apple Studio Display 27" 5K: $1599
Apple tax. The panel's about $400+
Remember, 2020 iMac 27" base model was $1799. Apple's making bank.
Last edited:
...and that may be a very nice display but it's not a mini-LED full-array local dimming panel like the Pro XDR, so its not a valid comparison, anymore than the Pro XDR is really comparable with that $40k dual-layer reference display. There are some dirt cheap (sub-$1000) mini-led 27" and larger monitors around but they're only 4K UHD - the format bought by gamers.
In any case, for any non-Apple consumer electronics product, it is fairly common for the street price to drop to significantly below the MSRP once it starts shipping in quantity. Same has just happened with the Samsung Viewfinity S9 which launched at $1600 and has now dropped to $1300 to nobody's great surprise.
So why would Apple suddenly drop the "Apple tax" to make a new iMac? If Apple have a component that costs $400 they're gonna want to re-sell it at 2-3x that price - just look at what they charge for RAM and SSD c.f. the commodity retail prices (and Apple will doubtless pay far less than any price you can find). The only hard fact we have is that Apple are currently selling a 5k panel in a $1600 product that doesn't include a computer - they're not suddenly going to throw in a M3 Pro, 16GB RAM, 512G SSD for an extra $200 (more like an extra $200 - or more - each)
The $1800 5k iMac was always surprisingly cheap by Apple standards - more powerful than a $1100 i5 Mini plus a display for which - for most of its life - the only comparable product (LG Ultrafine) cost around $1000, plus a keyboard and mouse. Heck, a year after the 1440p 27" iMac launched, Apple started selling the 27" Cinema/Thunderbolt display for $1000.
That suggests to me that the entry 27" iMac was a - not "loss leader" but a "not our usual profit margin" leader targetted at some strategic market, and the fact that it was disappeared on the very day the Mac Studio & Studio Display came out suggests that the niche has now disappeared (IMHO its been obsoleted between the 24", more powerful MacBooks and more flexible Mini/Mini Pro/Studio).
This is possible -- but it's also possible that the Studio Display is simply packed with so much tech, that it ironically ended up with a price and profit margin that was uncomfortably close to that of the previous 27" iMac. Technologically, the Studio Display is already almost an iMac, but with no Wi-Fi and a vaguely iPad-esque configuration. Making it into a proper entry level iMac would basically require little more than adding in that missing Wi-Fi antenna, subbing an M-series processor in place of the A13, doubling the storage and RAM, installing macOS in place of iOS and (maybe) adding a few ports.
So perhaps the real issue to overcome would be the confusion associated with having a full fledged all-in-one computer in a similar price bracket and form factor to a standalone display. And maybe Apple simply decided not to bother entertaining that discussion at all.
Last edited:
Saw on the Refurbished store the other day one of those late 27" iMacs (the ones released in Aug 2020) for only $1169, cheaper than most of the M1 iMacs in the refurb store. I almost jumped on it. It only had the base amount of RAM but one can buy 32GB RAM from OWC for very little to upgrade it.
It was only an i5 processor, though, and the thought that that MacOS versions for it will stop after the next version... and the likelihood that 3rd apps will likely stop updated shortly after that... all stopped me from buying it.
I don't buy the whole "Studio Display is an almost-iMac thing" - lots of "analysts" were trying to make excuses for predicting an iMac release.
The fans are likely needed to keep the super-bright LCD panel and hefty power supply (enough to run the display and provide 96W via Thunderbolt to charge Macbooks) cool - if you look at the teardown the two fans are closer to the power supply boards than the logic board. An A13 phone chip won't need much cooling but an M-series processor, especially a Pro or Max (if they were going to offer an iMac range) still do - if Apple had any ideas about making an iMac they'd have had a fan over - or close & heatpiped to - the processor.
Likewise, people are probably reading too much into the "its got an iPhone running iOS in it" thing - a high end display like this needs a reasonably powerful controller, RAM, audio chip etc. so why would Apple use a third-party microcontroller and operating system when they've got a perfectly good in-house solution in the A13 and the iOS kernel - even if its slight overkill, they get it at 'mates rates', their developers know it inside out, the audio and webcam drivers probably reused iOS code... it probably saved money.
If you look at the teardown for the LG Ultrafine 5k its got a cooling fan. It also has a 32-bit microcontroller, RAM and an audio IC... all of which could be replaced by an A-series SOC.
I think what made the Studio Display expensive was turning it into a docking station for Macbooks while not relying on an external power brick and keeping it so thin (its a lot thinner than the 5k iMac was, although that was cleverly designed to hide its beer gut).