iMac Redesign for 2018?

[iPadified]

For once, it is a little bit interesting what Apple will do with the iMac. Slimmer and use relatively low power components to separate it from iMac Pro or adopt iMac Pro cooling and use up to i9 chips and Vega or something in between.

I am not sure iMac Pro prices are agreeable for iMacs traditional customer base. And, as mentioned above, xeon, ECC etc is often overkill for a large majority of users including "professionals".

I am fine with letting the internal HDD go.

 

[Freida]

What is so amazing in the upcoming intel line? Is it just the core count increase or is there more?

It depends on when the tax year ends, but if based on the calendar tax year then it doesn't matter. If based on corporate or institutional tax year or budget year then it can make a difference... or not. That is in fact why I bought in 2017. I was under the impression that my 2016-2017 budget year ending July 2017 was the only time I would be able to buy, so I bought then. (However, it turns out I was wrong due to a change in my circumstances, so I could have waited until 2018, but oh well.)

As for benefit from the 2018 iMacor not, there are a number of factors to consider here:

1) Machine longevity. A hex-core low end model is going to outlast a quad-core model, all other things being equal.
2) Machine longevity part 2. A 2018 model may be supported by macOS longer than a 2017 model.
3) Machine cost. A hex core low end model will outperform a quad-core mid-end model, and will likely cost less than mid-end models do now. This is especially true in Europe, where re-jigging of the pricing due to exchange rates may further decrease pricing.
4) Machine cost part 2. If you wait the two months or whatever until the 2018 models are announced, the 2017 models will be discounted significantly in price.
5) Resale value. If it matters to you, the hex core models will retain value more than the quad-core models.
6) Machine noise for high performance. If you buy the top-spec 65 Watt model (i5-8600?), it will out-perform the current fastest 2017 i7-7700K in CPU-bound tasks. And it will do it relatively quietly. Meanwhile the i7-7700K hits vacuum cleaner mode pretty quickly. (I should know. I had an i7-7700K that I returned specifically because of the noise, and I'm not even a heavy user.)
7) Bragging rights. "My e-peen is bigger than yours because I have hex-core!!!1"
8) As yet unknown features. For example, my prediction is that macOS 10.14 will bring 4K DRM'd streaming to the Mac, but only to machines that are 7th generation or later, to include the 2017 models or later. However, I could very well be wrong, and even if Apple does introduce 4K streaming, they could be asses and only allow it on 2018 models and later.
9) Education purchases. If you are an edu customer, now is not the time to buy. The time to buy is around July, and it's likely the new models will be out by then already. Why wait until July or whatever for an edu purchase? Because in many countries Apple has back to school sales, that add yet more value to the purchase.

 

[EugW]

What is so amazing in the upcoming intel line? Is it just the core count increase or is there more?

Geez. What, a 35%+ performance increase is not good enough for you?

 

[Freida]

Geez. What, a 35%+ performance increase is not good enough for you?

Where did you get that 35%?

Is it just from the core increase? (not everything is optimised for more cores)

 

[EugW]

Where did you get that 35%?

Is it just from the core increase? (not everything is optimised for more cores)

Already posted in this thread.

Single-threaded performance is slightly faster. Multi-threaded performance is hugely faster. And yes, it's "just" from the core increase. IOW, the core number increase is a really, really big deal.

BTW, for some tiers, a 35% increase in performance is a conservative estimate. For example:

You'll see the 8600K above gets 1038. Compare that to the 2017 model, the i5-7600K, which gets about 700. This represents a 45-50% increase in performance. If I buying in 2018 though, I'd probably get something like an i5-8500, which is probably entry level or close to entry level, and which beats the 2015 i7-6700K flagship easily.

 

[Freida]

Oh I see,

thats great, thank you. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea as I'm waiting for the update to get one I just wasn't aware of all the possible updates.

For me more cores the better but I also prefer a quiet machine

Already posted in this thread.

Single-threaded performance is slightly faster. Multi-threaded performance is hugely faster. And yes, it's "just" from the core increase. IOW, the core number increase is a really, really big deal.

BTW, for some tiers, a 35% increase in performance is a conservative estimate. For example:

View attachment 758634

You'll see the 8600K above gets 1038. Compare that to the 2017 model, the i5-7600K, which gets about 700. This represents a 45-50% increase in performance. If I buying in 2018 though, I'd probably get something like an i5-8500, which is probably entry level or close to entry level, and which beats the 2015 i7-6700K flagship easily.

 

[barcode00]

I'm indifferent to a iMac redesign, but I do want to see an update by the end of the summer.

 

[EugW]

Oh I see,

thats great, thank you. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea as I'm waiting for the update to get one I just wasn't aware of all the possible updates.

For me more cores the better but I also prefer a quiet machine

For a quiet 27”, the chips of choice will be the i5-8400, i5-8500, and i5-8600. (I’m not sure which of these Apple will use.)

Definitely stay away from the i7-8700K and maybe stay away from the i5-8600K too.

 

[Glmnet1]

For a quiet 27”, the chips of choice will be the i5-8400, i5-8500, and i5-8600. (I’m not sure which of these Apple will use.)

Definitely stay away from the i7-8700K and maybe stay away from the i5-8600K too.

Unless they adopt the iMac Pro cooling system! If so the i7-8700K and i5-8600K should be quiet too

 

[Freida]

Unless they adopt the iMac Pro cooling system! If so the i7-8700K and i5-8600K should be quiet too

I kinda feel that they should. There is nothing worse than doing something light and still have the fans kicking in hard making the machine so noisy. Apple focuses on design and elegance and often sacrifice certain things but I think they should now always focus on how loud the machine gets under certain tasks.
I don't mind that the machine is loud when I'm doing heavy rendering or some heavy stuff but from light stuff? No no no
[doublepost=1524040543][/doublepost]

For a quiet 27”, the chips of choice will be the i5-8400, i5-8500, and i5-8600. (I’m not sure which of these Apple will use.)

Definitely stay away from the i7-8700K and maybe stay away from the i5-8600K too.

Thanks, my problem will probably also be the GPU so I'll have to wait out and see what is the right balance

 

[Lammers]

The iMac is just fine, they have simply shed the creative pro market in favour of consumers and executive users. And there are way more of them than there are creative pros.

As for redesigning the iMac, its been an iterative process since the G5. Its high time they ditched the terrible drives in the entry level units and went all SSD but I don't think that helps them shave anything much off the case dimensions. A curved screen would be a huge PITA to repair and also likely bulk up the packaging and means less per boat/plane from China.

Seems like the iMac Pro (and the furore around the forthcoming new Mac Pro) is recognition of them losing sight of the creative pro market and attempt to claw some of it back. But we’ll see how far that goes.

On the screen, 27” isn’t large or wide enough to justify having a curve radius. Other element is cost - curved screens are significantly more expensive to manufacture than flat screens, and would push up the price of the iMac dramatically.
[doublepost=1524085817][/doublepost]

I absolutely like and agree in your thinking here. Let me take it a step further and match up that formula (consumer: 1 size / pro: 2 sizes) by saying i’d love to see Apple make the iMac available only in 24” and move the 27” to the iMac Pro line and add a 30” size to that line as well.

Thoughts?

As I said in another post, Apple stopped selling 24” iMacs and switched to 27” iMacs nine years ago. I think it is extremely unlikely that they would undo that now and force anyone that wanted the 27” screen to the far more expensive iMac Pro. It just doesn’t make sense to do that.

I’d say 30” is also unlikely because of the challenges of driving it at a resolution that will provide a “retina” experience.

 

[mj_]

I absolutely like and agree in your thinking here. Let me take it a step further and match up that formula (consumer: 1 size / pro: 2 sizes) by saying i’d love to see Apple make the iMac available only in 24” and move the 27” to the iMac Pro line and add a 30” size to that line as well.

Thoughts?

If the iMac was only available in 24" I know for sure I would not have gotten one. And neither would I have purchased a 27" iMac Pro because it is simply much much MUCH too expensive for my requirements. Saying the iMac should be 24" only is like saying that whoever needs a bigger screen must also require the processing and 3D prowess of the iMac Pro, which is just plain wrong. There are users outside Apple's sacred creative space (the only field that Apple seems to acknowledge as professionals) who require large high-resolution screens, maybe even more than one, but would be perfectly fine with a base-model Core i3, 8GB of RAM, and a 256GB SSD. For example: whenever I do my budgeting I have multiple large spreadsheets open at the same time. Those do not require any processing power but tons of screen real estate. In other words: there is absolutely no direct correlation between processing power requirements and screen size requirements.

I'm curious though: what makes you think consumers won't need (want?) more than 24"? And what makes you think that everyone who needs (wants?) more than 24" should be forced to spend more than twice as much for an iMac Pro and acquire hardware they might never need? I strongly disagree with that idea. In fact, if Apple had a 30" iMac for sale I would have gotten that instead of the 27" because of the added screen real estate.

Either way I think Apple's formula is the exact opposite of yours: consumer: 17 sizes with 19 colors in 3 shapes / professional: 1 color in 1 size and 1 shape). They have clearly said good bye to the professional market and couldn't care less about it. Apple makes most of its money with the iPhone/iPad line and its shows - professionals are not their core user base anymore.

 

[Glockworkorange]

If the iMac was only available in 24" I know for sure I would not have gotten one. And neither would I have purchased a 27" iMac Pro because it is simply much much MUCH too expensive for my requirements. Saying the iMac should be 24" only is like saying that whoever needs a bigger screen must also require the processing and 3D prowess of the iMac Pro, which is just plain wrong. There are users outside Apple's sacred creative space (the only field that Apple seems to acknowledge as professionals) who require large high-resolution screens, maybe even more than one, but would be perfectly fine with a base-model Core i3, 8GB of RAM, and a 256GB SSD. For example: whenever I do my budgeting I have multiple large spreadsheets open at the same time. Those do not require any processing power but tons of screen real estate. In other words: there is absolutely no direct correlation between processing power requirements and screen size requirements.

I'm curious though: what makes you think consumers won't need (want?) more than 24"? And what makes you think that everyone who needs (wants?) more than 24" should be forced to spend more than twice as much for an iMac Pro and acquire hardware they might never need? I strongly disagree with that idea. In fact, if Apple had a 30" iMac for sale I would have gotten that instead of the 27" because of the added screen real estate.

Either way I think Apple's formula is the exact opposite of yours: consumer: 17 sizes with 19 colors in 3 shapes / professional: 1 color in 1 size and 1 shape). They have clearly said good bye to the professional market and couldn't care less about it. Apple makes most of its money with the iPhone/iPad line and its shows - professionals are not their core user base anymore.

Well said.

 

[xgman]

I don't think it is going out on a limb to predict no design change before at least 2020 and bezels will never go as small as those found on a standalone high end panel. In the meantime there is always annual incremental changes. The mac pro will likely be out long before Apple tends to any real imac redesigns. Just going by past history. It always takes way longer and ends up way less dramatic a change than one would otherwise hope.

 

[Icaras]

I'm curious though: what makes you think consumers won't need (want?) more than 24"? And what makes you think that everyone who needs (wants?) more than 24" should be forced to spend more than twice as much for an iMac Pro and acquire hardware they might never need? I strongly disagree with that idea. In fact, if Apple had a 30" iMac for sale I would have gotten that instead of the 27" because of the added screen real estate.

Either way I think Apple's formula is the exact opposite of yours: consumer: 17 sizes with 19 colors in 3 shapes / professional: 1 color in 1 size and 1 shape). They have clearly said good bye to the professional market and couldn't care less about it. Apple makes most of its money with the iPhone/iPad line and its shows - professionals are not their core user base anymore.

Huh? I know your over exaggerating but exaxtly which product line from Apple is selling in 17 different sizes and in 9 different colors? The iPad: one size: 9.7”. The MacBook: one size: 12”. You ask me why I wouldn’t think consumers wouldn’t want more than 24” is exactly that formula I just mentioned. Apple is shifting to a one size fits all for consumers and two size option for pros. They’re actually taking a page back from the Steve Jobs days. It was he who believed in only one screen size for the iPhone and the iPad. The original iBook and MacBook only came in one size too. And the two size option for the MacBook Air is dissapearing to be replaced once again by a one size fits all 12” MacBook.

Going back to the question of why 24” might be idea for the consumer is I think that it hits the good balance between two small (21.5”) and two large (for some anyway...27”).

I should have mentioned in my earlier post if Apple moved the 27” to the iMac Pro only that I think they should also lower the cost of the entry level Pro ($2500?). I know you appear sensitive about me suggesting ditching the 27” but all i’m doing is just copying exactly the formula Apple is applying to all of its product lines today in 2018 to the iMac because that seems like the direction that they are going. It’s not what really what I want to see in the iMac line. It’s what I think Apple could potentially do given their restructuring of their product lines currently.

Remember. This is Apple we’re were talking about. It’s not what you think you want or need. It’s what they think you’ll need. Apple’s insanely powerful marketing engine is never to be underestimated. Steve Jobs, along with his very own reality distortion field, used Apple marketing to push products on people whether they liked it or not. If they think one size will fit the MAJORITY of iMac users, then they can make it so.

 

[EugW]

Huh? I know your over exaggerating but exaxtly which product line from Apple is selling in 17 different sizes and in 9 different colors? The iPad: one size: 9.7”. The MacBook: one size: 12”. You ask me why I wouldn’t think consumers wouldn’t want more than 24” is exactly that formula I just mentioned. Apple is shifting to a one size fits all for consumers and two size option for pros. They’re actually taking a page back from the Steve Jobs days. It was he who believed in only one screen size for the iPhone and the iPad. The original iBook and MacBook only came in one size too. And the two size option for the MacBook Air is dissapearing to be replaced once again by a one size fits all 12” MacBook.

Going back to the question of why 24” might be idea for the consumer is I think that it hits the good balance between two small (21.5”) and two large (for some anyway...27”).

I should have mentioned in my earlier post if Apple moved the 27” to the iMac Pro only that I think they should also lower the cost of the entry level Pro ($2500?). I know you appear sensitive about me suggesting ditching the 27” but all i’m doing is just copying exactly the formula Apple is applying to all of its product lines today in 2018 to the iMac because that seems like the direction that they are going. It’s not what really what I want to see in the iMac line. It’s what I think Apple could potentially do given their restructuring of their product lines currently.

Apple actually is currently selling 4 different laptop lines:

MacBook Air <-- Yeah this is on death's door, but they're still selling it.
12" MacBook
13" non-TB MacBook Pro
13"/15" TB MacBook Pro

And there are rumours of that expanding with an additional 13" MacBook.

 

[Icaras]

Apple actually is currently selling 4 different laptop lines:

MacBook Air <-- Yeah this is on death's door, but they're still selling it.
12" MacBook
13" non-TB MacBook Pro
13"/15" TB MacBook Pro

And there are rumours of that expanding with an additional 13" MacBook.

True. Thank you for clarifying. My point is still that there is just one size for the consumer line. And of course, the Air is on its way out which will make the product family very clear. I don’t believe however on the rumors of a 13” MacBook. A difference of one inch doesn’t seem like something worthwhile doing on Apple’s part IMO.

 

[mj_]

Huh? I know your over exaggerating but exaxtly which product line from Apple is selling in 17 different sizes and in 9 different colors?

Of course it was a bit of an exaggeration but take a look at Apple's current iPhone line-up: five models (SE, 6s, 7, 8, X), four shapes (SE, 6s/7/8, 6s/7/8 Plus, X), four sizes (4", 4.7", 5.5", 5.8"), seven colors (silver, gold, rose gold, space gray, jet black, different space gray, red). This is where Apple is heading. This is Apple's cash cow. Not the iMac Pro, not the Mac Pro, and not any other Mac for that matter. It's all iPhone and iOS because that's where people are willing to spend their money year in and year out repeatedly every 1.5-2 years.

Going back to the question of why 24” might be idea for the consumer is I think that it hits the good balance between two small (21.5”) and two large (for some anyway...27”).

This is where I strongly disagree. Yes, a 24" is certainly a balance between too small and too large, but it's nothing but a lukewarm compromise. It's not as compact and cheap as a 21.5" display and not as spacious as a 27" display. It's neither here nor there

I should have mentioned in my earlier post if Apple moved the 27” to the iMac Pro only that I think they should also lower the cost of the entry level Pro ($2500?). I know you appear sensitive about me suggesting ditching the 27” but all i’m doing is just copying exactly the formula Apple is applying to all of its product lines today in 2018 to the iMac because that seems like the direction that they are going. It’s not what really what I want to see in the iMac line. It’s what I think Apple could potentially do given their restructuring of their product lines currently.

I don't really see the formula you're referring to (which doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means I can't see it... maybe you could clarify and elaborate a bit?). Quite the contrary: Apple has been diversifying their consumer line-up for quite a while now. Remember a few years ago when all we had was a single iPhone in two colors, a single iPad in two colors, and a single MacBook in one color? I don't really see any restructuring or consolidation to be honest. In fact, I think they're going the exact opposite way. The way they had already started walking down back in the late 80s / early 90s. Only that this time the Mac is dead. Long live the iDevice.

 

[Icaras]

Of course it was a bit of an exaggeration but take a look at Apple's current iPhone line-up: five models (SE, 6s, 7, 8, X), four shapes (SE, 6s/7/8, 6s/7/8 Plus, X), four sizes (4", 4.7", 5.5", 5.8"), seven colors (silver, gold, rose gold, space gray, jet black, different space gray, red). This is where Apple is heading. This is Apple's cash cow. Not the iMac Pro, not the Mac Pro, and not any other Mac for that matter. It's all iPhone and iOS because that's where people are willing to spend their money year in and year out repeatedly every 1.5-2 years.

Rumors have it that the X will not be sold again this year when it’s successor is released. The X will simply be replaced by the second generation with the current X being completely discontinued and not pushed down the pricing tiers. If this were to happen, which I believe it will, that will lead the iPhone down the path of Apple’s other product lines (simplification). While I agree that the iPhone is Apple’s cash cow, I do not think Apple’s end goal is to have a dozen different choices for iPhones. I think there are a few reasons why there are so many iPhone models today. One is that this is the second time that the iPhone has been diversified with subsequent, higher end, and higher priced model, the X. Secondly this is the first time in history Apple has completely removed the home button. And last but not least, some consumers still may want an iPhone with a headphone jack. So a transitional phase is in effect where consumers still have the choice to buy an iPhone with a headphone jack, a home button, and in different sizes. But those days are numbered. Just like the MacBook Pro with the optical disk drive, which was sold concurrently, Apple will continue to offer it for a couple of years for consumers transition until they finally get rid of it.

This is where I strongly disagree. Yes, a 24" is certainly a balance between too small and too large, but it's nothing but a lukewarm compromise. It's not as compact and cheap as a 21.5" display and not as spacious as a 27" display. It's neither here nor there

I can see Apple making that judgement call and forcing it upon consumers. When they eventually axe the iPad mini and MacBook Air lines, many vocal consumers will raise a stink about it but that’s about as far as they’ll get. You’ll eventually only get one choice of iPad and one choice of MacBook. The same could happen to the iMac. I don’t know exactly what screen size will be the consumer mode but I’m just humoring myself with the possibility of a one sized consumer level iMac.

I don't really see the formula you're referring to (which doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means I can't see it... maybe you could clarify and elaborate a bit?). Quite the contrary: Apple has been diversifying their consumer line-up for quite a while now. Remember a few years ago when all we had was a single iPhone in two colors, a single iPad in two colors, and a single MacBook in one color? I don't really see any restructuring or consolidation to be honest. In fact, I think they're going the exact opposite way. The way they had already started walking down back in the late 80s / early 90s. Only that this time the Mac is dead. Long live the iDevice.

I see it clear as day. Formula: consumer iPad: one size: 9.7”. Consumer MacBook: one size: 12”. The iPad mini and MacBook Air days are numbered and once that happens, those product lines that are split between 1 consumer size and two pro sizes will be very clear. The iPhone is a bit more complicated since Apple still retains older models to sell, but that’s only because we are in that techological transitional phase I mentioned earlier about (no headphone jack, no home button). I’m inclined to believe that by this September, we will see at least one currently sold iPhone completely dropped and the path to product simplification will surface once again.

 

[Lammers]

I would say that *if* Apple decided to simplify the iMac to a single screen size option (and I’m not convinced by your argument that they will), then the change they would make would be to simply retire the 21.5” option and make the 27” the only option.

 

[Chucksta]

Need to buy a new iMac. Should I wait for a refresh, or buy a 3.4ghz 27inch now? Shops are having 10% off where I am.

Any guess when the refresh will be available?

 

[EugW]

Need to buy a new iMac. Should I wait for a refresh, or buy a 3.4ghz 27inch now? Shops are having 10% off where I am.

Any guess when the refresh will be available?

10% off is not a good deal in spring 2018. Expect 15% (or more) off from the same retailers or the Apple refurb store just two months from now.

 

[DQ11]

For a quiet 27”, the chips of choice will be the i5-8400, i5-8500, and i5-8600. (I’m not sure which of these Apple will use.)

Definitely stay away from the i7-8700K and maybe stay away from the i5-8600K too.

Wondering how the i5's would be for Logic Pro X if I'm using a decent amount of VSTs. 20-30-40..maybe 50 tracks

Would it stay silent the entire time?

 

[294307]

Knowing apple there wont be a redesign, but no reason not to hope. I feel like if there was we would have had some rumors by now, new component pieces etc the fact we havent means its very unlikely.

You are making assumptions based on rumours, or lack thereof. Apple might just be getting better at controlling leaks. They promised to stop people leaking secrets and are clearly very happy to make Apple employees aware of the consequences of doing so.

 

[EightyTwenty]

...and bezels will never go as small as those found on a standalone high end panel.

Why not?
[doublepost=1524415333][/doublepost]

10% off is not a good deal in spring 2018. Expect 15% (or more) off from the same retailers or the Apple refurb store just two months from now.

So we are that confident we are getting new iMacs in June?