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
Well, you'll probably get 4-5 years' of security updates, and that isn't the end of the line as long as you're careful (no browsing dodgy websites or iffy downloads) - and if all else fails there's always Linux. I guess it depends how much of your software relies on being up-to-the-minute - with the current "worse is the new better" trend in software quality, not getting updates can be an advantage...
And then there's this possibility:
Convert a 5K iMac into an External Display
How to convert your 5K 27" iMac into an external display for other Apple laptops or desktops.
mschmitt.org
"Smart displays" can usually connect to the internet and run apps independently via a remote control. The Studio Display physically can't connect to the Internet and there's no way of installing or running apps on it. It's not clear how much of iOS is actually running on it apart from the kernel. Does it have any on-screen UI that doesn't come from the connected Mac?
The A13 Bionic is overkill as a display controller - probably because Apple save money by using an in-house chip.
Which is less than 5 years away.
My current iMac is now over 15 years old.
This next set up I buy I also want to last 15 years.
So buying a system right now which will stop updated only a third of the way through my planned use doesn't seem like the best plan.
If I can hold on just a couple of more months I may be able to buy an iMac whose OS will be updated for half of my planned ownership span.
Yeah... 15 years ago is about when mid-range personal computers got to the "good enough for what most people actually need to do" stage. WP. Spreadsheets. Audio. Photo editing. 2D graphics. Light video editing. Development. Improvement since then has been somewhat incremental. Don't get me wrong - newer computers are significantly faster, screens have 4+ times as many pixels etc, we can edit 4K HDR video rather than 720p and our web browsers can cope with 10x as many animated adverts per page :-> - so whoopie! It just seems a long time since some huge new possibility appeared, versus being able to do the same old thing, slightly faster at higher resolution. I guess the big new thing is Machine Learning (and CPUs with "neural engines" or the equivalent, to support that).
I think that's part of why we're starting to see more and more "planned obsolescence" and non-upgradeable systems these days. One of the biggest steps forward in the last 15 years was, IMO, solid-state storage - and with most Macs of that vintage, adding an SSD was dead easy. I remember how sticking a SSD in my 2011 MBP when it was ~3 years old made it feel like a new machine, so I ended up using it as my main work machine until 2018. Apple won't be making that mistake again
I find it amusing to consider that the original Mac launched about 7 years after the Apple ][ and was barely recognisable as the same class of device. I saw non-linear video editing demo'd in the early 90s - with cruddy, postage-stamp sized 12fps video (which you often had to send off to get digitised and compressed) on Mac II-class machines with 5-digit prices - 7 years later, a ~$200 add-in card meant a mid-range PC could capture and edit "better-than-VHS" full screen 25/30 fps.
That rate of progress and paradigm-shifting seemed to peter out around the 2010s.
It's a point that I like to make but gets lost in the general comotion of advertising-driven frenzies over new products.
The reason we see incremental improvements in these computing devices is because the current capabilities far exceed what most people use.
And to get dramatically different devices will mean an R&D expense that can't be returned with a new product because the current devices are already so capable.
I like to use the toaster analogy (by which I do not mean the old Amiga expansion device.) The kitchen toaster has changed little in 5 decades because by the 1960's the kitchen toaster already did what it needed to do.
But ML as it is done today requires tremendous memory and throughput. It still is not clear to me that a personal computer needs to be capable to create ML. As we see with chatGPT, all the personal computer needs to be is the interface.
As happened with microwave ovens and washing machines. I'm using a microwave oven that is now 16 years old, one of the last proper "Kenmore" appliances (as Sears was going down hill.) Today people complain because the cheap microwave ovens they pick up at Walmart break. Same with washing machines, which one used to be able to buy to last for decades. Today, though, Americans will buy the cheapest of these appliances and wonder why they don't last 25 years.
Sure, there still exist luxury brands which make high quality appliances, and you pay for that quality. But most Americans (and most people in the world) don't pay for that quality.
So here I sit, waiting for either an M3 iMac or a Mac Mini set up. I don't expect something glorious or groundbreaking.
I just want the quality to be high.
With Apple users creating HEIF HDR imagery and 4K HDR video on their idevices the absence of a 28"-to-32" 6K HDR iMac to enjoy that HDR at its full-and-intended resolution and brightness and wide-gamut is a sore gap in Apple's lineup.
Working in HDR for either stills or video, be it any of the current line of photo editing software that can process HEIF files or current NLEs such as Apple's own FCP or DaVinci Resolve, having an HDR display that can facilitate their work needs is a necessity.
The deeper-pocketed Studio/Pro-Display-XDR folks already have the tools to get to work, however, Apple has, for too long, overlooked the masses of its user base by failing to provide an all-in-one HDR solution.
It's been abundantly clear to me from reading here on these forums and elsewhere across the internet over the past few years that there is a marketshare of current 27" iMac users waiting patiently for an updated M(x) HDR iMac 27-inches or greater. We, as customers, know what we want, and I can assure anyone reading along, the nay-sayers and poopooers have all been wasting their breath. But, hey, have at it. LOL
One cable to rule them all, Tim...let's bring it on!
Working in HDR for either stills or video, be it any of the current line of photo editing software that can process HEIF files or current NLEs such as Apple's own FCP or DaVinci Resolve, having an HDR display that can facilitate their work needs is a necessity.
The deeper-pocketed Studio/Pro-Display-XDR folks already have the tools to get to work, however, Apple has, for too long, overlooked the masses of its user base by failing to provide an all-in-one HDR solution.
It's been abundantly clear to me from reading here on these forums and elsewhere across the internet over the past few years that there is a marketshare of current 27" iMac users waiting patiently for an updated M(x) HDR iMac 27-inches or greater. We, as customers, know what we want, and I can assure anyone reading along, the nay-sayers and poopooers have all been wasting their breath. But, hey, have at it. LOL
One cable to rule them all, Tim...let's bring it on!
Historically AIO & iMacs are approx $1k cheaper than any equivalent Mac mini, Mac Studio or Mac Pro separates.
This is a key reason why iMacs are popular.
Another would be the space savings and aesthetics.
Although unpopular to Apple, Intel, other brands and vocal users but we who buy iMacs tend to keep them beyond 6 years.
So the argument of reusing the display 2 decades later is largely unwanted.
I'm on a 2012 iMac 27" with a 2.5K display 10+ years later. I want to double my display's ppi for 5K on the same display size or even 5.5K or 6K on a 30" or 32" respectively.
Sole reason Apple does not release future tech is because it does not hit their design targets or price points.
For the iMac 32" 6K or 30" 5.5K it is likely has to do with the display parts not available at under $1k.
I do agree though that Apple hopefully release a macOS version allowing for Target Display Mode again for Apple Silicon iMacs. It would help sell future Macbook Air, Macbook Pro, iPads, iPhones, Mac mini, Mac Studio or Mac Pro.
but this misses my point. I do not want two separate computers when one can and should do all tasks I want. I like Mac OS but I have a lot of experience with PC as work provides Windows laptops.
I have no software that is Mac only, I can easily swap email programs and might actually to experience one that doesn't have me rebuild my mailbox every month; Mac Mail seems to not understand what unread only means all the time. the only easier part might be time machine but that is because I have spent no effort looking for a pc equivalent. since my IDE is eclipsed based I am agnostic by OS there. other than form factor I see no advantage of Mac anymore.
I guess since the drop of 32 bit support I have been holding out for a change that won't occur. I too was sold on how great the Apple Silicon and it wasn't long before i realized all those presentations were basically not true. Worse you don't even need cutting edge PC hardware to beat any Apple Silicon chip. Apple only wins on performance per watt and aesthetics (and that is debatable with some cases I have see). Plus at the 2k-3k price point and higher power use isn't a big issue.
Looks like it could be late 2024/early 2025 before a large-screen iMac gets released.
(if what I read on the macrumors front page the other day proves true...)
(if what I read on the macrumors front page the other day proves true...)